In 1630, following the reign of King James I, a cadre of reformers arrived in the New World. The King wasn’t radical enough for Puritan taste, but he was still a protestant; I like to think he would be a bit honored to know that the first modern nation-state would come from a colony of Englishmen. Massachusetts Bay Colony was established in New England, and it was the first substantive English foothold in what would become the most powerful nation the world has ever seen. The official national language would be English, and renditions of English Protestantism would become the norm.
Though, what any King of England may find concerning, is the dialectical reliance this commonwealth would come to have on England: That only through negation, through violent insurrection against it could the American national identity emerge. The Declaration of Independence which formalized this separation was much later, of course, but that is not the “breaking away” I am interested in. As will be detailed, the “American” split from England happened before the 18th century and it didn’t even occur in America. But enough talk of America. Contrary to what the opening paragraph may suggest, this piece is not necessarily about the United States or England. The Subject is the Puritans, and they may only be understood through interactions with their aforementioned, empire-sized Objects.
Before going any further, I want to introduce “Part I” through providing the reasoning behind the coming series—which is to provide support for several provocations; the first of which is the most mild: I claim that there’s continuity between the Reformation, Liberalism, Protestantism, Puritanism, the United States, and modernization writ large. In exploring that chain of events, (2) I position the U.S. as a Puritan-Protestant nation; I claim that to be an American is to be a Puritan and vice versa. I am not saying that as a compliment nor as a critique to Americans. My maximalist assertion takes things a bit further: (3) To be a protestant is to be an American; this makes the Reformation the real founding of the United States. The latter claim requires further elaboration, which I intend to provide in forthcoming posts.
In my theory, yes, we could simplify matters and say that George Washington gave rise to the United States. But the “Founders” arrived in the “Matthew” of the national story, not in its Genesis. Above and beyond Washington, forewent Martin Luther.
I. Puritans in the 17th century
Uniquely, and as an inversion to the biological norm, the 17th century Puritans didn’t arise from an environment. Having left their home, they came to an empty space and created an environment. This was done through the establishment of institutions and these institutions, both mimetically and genetically propagated more Puritans. They were really quite good at establishing these–which makes total sense. They were essentially concerned with two things; (1) church and (2) the bible. The first one is intuitive enough; a church is an institution–yes. But the second needs appendage: Why were the Puritans Puritan? The short answer: they were not Catholic. Not Catholic at all! And what do not-Catholics do? Fundamentally, they read and interpret the bible for themselves. A prerequisite for Sola scriptura is literacy. And the Reformation (from which Puritanism descended) relegated the doctrine of Church authority to the individual’s interpretive capacity. The aim being: forming a personal relationship with God. And a relationship with no intermediaries—none—not the Church and certainly not Mary.
Anyway, the very-self-governing-Puritans intended to cohabit the very-non-democratic and specifically monarchical kingdom of heaven with their children—which necessitated their children’s reading of the Logos—the Word of God. So important was this, that they established the first public schools in the New World. Mandatory youth education and the tax-derived funding thereof is now commonplace, but this was exceedingly unusual for the world of the late 1640s. Specifically, it was in 1647 when the comically titled, ‘Old Deluder Satan Laws’ were decreed. As directed, schools were established from which the Bible could be read, with the stated intent as follows: “It being one chiefe project of ye ould deluder, Satan, to keepe men from the knowledge of ye Scriptures.”[1] 1Of spiritual concern, Satan was placed at the center. Of practical concern, schools were where morality could be homogenized and imposed in a top-down manner—and I actually say that as a compliment to schools and to Puritans alike.
Whether this was the intention of not, schools functioned as a form of confessionalization—which led to modernization not long after. But yes, the Puritans planted schools, churches, and a lot of them. Colin Woodard’s’ (amazing) book, American Nations, describes the Puritan vision for their new society as “a moralistic nation of churches and schoolhouses.”2
Through this vision, they institutionalized far more than any other settlers, to a degree that still affects the country deeply. Speaking of, have you ever heard of Harvard? The one established in 1636? Puritans still occupy it. Albeit in secular form, they are just as puritanical.
I’m exaggerating. But crucially, institutions in the past prefigured those to come. As far as institutions go, Harvard’s an obvious one, but here’s a less obvious one: The United States’ Constitution. O, I can hear it now; “Harvard is largely secular! And Thomas Jefferson was barely a Christian, if one at all. He was no Puritan!” Settle down! I know not whether that Virginian aristocrat was a Christian, but indeed, he was a Puritan. No matter! All will be treated later (stay tuned). For now; sure, the constitution may very well have been drafted by a Deist, nevertheless, the ideas therein were anything but innovative.
The precepts of the constitution were practiced in 17th (not 18th) century New England. All of it had been prefigured by the Puritans, all of it had been done before—even down to bicameralism! But not only bicameralism; there were three branches of government with an executive, legislative, and judicial branch in 1630!3 Well over a century before Jefferson’s quill had touched parchment, the structure behind his writing was already there.
To specifically enumerate the colony’s political structure, it consistently had a governor (i.e., an executive), magistrates and deputies (i.e., a legislature), and a General Court (i.e., a judic-…. you get the idea).4
So how was it that the constitution was practiced before it was ever written? New England (and more-so in England itself) in the thirty-year period between 1620 and 1650 was rife with debate regarding ecclesiology, i.e., church governance. Many distinctly political questions were being asked, e.g., who in the church should be capable of using “the negative voice” (i.e., veto power to be employed against any less-than-satisfactory decision). This along with many other concerns led to much contemplation surrounding church government, power in general, and a Reformed distribution thereof. Like the future nation that would arise from these Puritans, power could have come from three main sources. The brethren (simply members of the church), the elders, or the pastor. There’s no pope, but who lead’s a congregation? Is the pastor sovereign? Are the elders sovereign? Should the church operate as a democracy, where each member gets a share of power?
The Puritans opted for a degree of separation between each, each wielding some degree of influence, but none being sovereign. This is, again, analogous to the contemporary; citizen, legislature, and executive class of the intrastate power struggle. It’s a struggle which republican government attempts to mediate through “balancing” each against the other—thereby constraining each.
And as a reminder, the whole project of Protestantism was to individualize spiritual concerns—and thus reduce—if not obviate the power of a church. Ironically, the Puritans found a problem with the resultant individuation. It’s a problem that the founding fathers, and all Reformed sects seemed to have run into: The people, the citizens, the brethren, the unwashed masses, whatever you want to call them, are not very good at making decisions, and need someone to “represent” them. So the Puritans, after fierce debate decided that this tripartite, layered approach to governing the church would be a tolerable compromise. Ultimately, the format of their ecclesiological ideas reflected their political ideas. The church structure became the structure of the commonwealth, in mutually reinforcing fashion.5 Whether politics affected the religion first, or whether religion affected the polity is redundant, because they ultimately would behave as a feedback loop, but the answer here seems clear: Religion preceded politics, and as I argue, shaped it.
I’ll finish this point by citing Rev. John Norton (the leading pastor of Massachusetts Bay in 1648), who was himself reiterating John Calvin when he apophatically described the pre-constitutional balance of powers. Norton presents their polity as a mixed one—of aristocracy and democracy—which I will simplify to republicanism.6
Along with general individualism, It would seem then that the “advent” of America’s democratic republicanism wasn’t some grand or difficult decision for the framers, but the simplest; the one that was already sociologically engrained; and the one that descends from Puritanism which descends from Calvinism, which descends from Lutheranism and the Reformation. It really makes the whole “separation of church and state” thing quite funny.
I have much more to say on this matter, but I’ll end “part-one” here: I want to conclude by recognizing how Puritanism affects us today. To bridge that topic, I’ll start by defending a category of heretofore unjustified claims made throughout the text. I called Thomas Jefferson a Puritan in spite of him not being one. I did the same to whomever happened to be on Harvard property at the time of the opening paragraph’s writing—in spite of full awareness that Harvard is now almost entirely secular. Largely, I was only making a provocative generalization, of course. However, it is meant to be taken at least half seriously. Harvard was made by puritans, and you know what? So was Thomas Jefferson! Whether they be cultural, structural or biological, such things carry residual effects. That is not a controversial claim. Look how the institution of Judaism, the Bible, and everything therein affected the Puritans over two millennia after being established. Look how they affect you today! Memes, in the Dawkinsian-sense, matter. Puritanism may have been strictly a religion at some point. But anything that institutionalizes, anything that maintains genetic material, and anything that affects the human psyche so strongly and for so long as Puritanism did to the Puritans; it becomes more than religion, and it becomes engrained. Which leads me to my final “appeal to authority.” This time, from the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, titled “Implicit Puritanism in American moral cognition.” The results are semantically commensurate with the title, but this quote feels like a good way to close:
“not only devout American Protestants but even non-protestant and less religious Americans exhibited effects associated with traditional work and sex values. This is consistent with the argument that America’s Puritan-Protestant tradition has powerfully shaped the intuitive morality of American culture. According to our theorizing, it is American culture, and not necessarily personal devotion to a particular religion, that underlies these phenomena.”7
Old Deluder Satan Act of 1647, https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/ob/deludersatan.pdf
J. S. Maloy, “Bodin’s Puritan Readers and Radical Democracy in Early New England,”
Journal of the History of Ideas 78, no. 1 (2017): 13.
Maloy, “Bodin’s Puritan Readers,” 13.
Neal T. Dugre et al., “Church, State, and Commonwealth: The Transatlantic Puritan Movement in England and America,” The William and Mary Quarterly 74, no. 2 (2017): 344–51, https://doi.org/10.5309/willmaryquar.74.2.0344, 344.
John Norton, Responsio ad totam quaestionum syllogen (London: 1648), 112.
Eric Luis Uhlmann, T. Andrew Poehlman, David Tannenbaum, and John A. Bargh, “Implicit Puritanism in American Moral Cognition,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47, no. 2 (2011): 318, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.10.013.
References
Dugre, Neal T., Francis J. Bremer, Michael P. Winship, and Abram C. Van Engen. “Church, State, and Commonwealth: The Transatlantic Puritan Movement in England and America.” The William and Mary Quarterly 74, no. 2 (2017): 344–51. https://doi.org/10.5309/willmaryquar.74.2.0344.
Maloy, J. S. “Bodin’s Puritan Readers and Radical Democracy in Early New England.” Journal of the History of Ideas 78, no. 1 (2017): 1–13.
Norton, John. Responsio ad totam quaestionum syllogen. London, 1648.
Old Deluder Satan Act of 1647. Massachusetts General Court. Accessed November 2025. https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/ob/deludersatan.pdf.
Uhlmann, Eric Luis, T. Andrew Poehlman, David Tannenbaum, and John A. Bargh. “Implicit Puritanism in American Moral Cognition.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47, no. 2 (2011): 312–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.10.013.
Woodard, Colin. American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America. New York: Viking, 2011.