Colonial American Settlement

The point of view that encompasses all of the American Colonists, in particular the Puritans, as possessing one “mind” as expressed by even our own modern day politicians is a convoluted theory which needs to be thoroughly dissected. In other words, to say that American Colonists presented a monolithic point of view which is accurately portrayed by modern day politicians would ignore all of the events in American history which have clashed with this philosophy. There are namely three such historical events which challenged the very coherence of the nation. They are, the United States own fight for independence from the British, the Civil War and stages of immigration into this country from all regions of the world consequently enhancing but certainly not creating a coherent, one minded, society.

The first layer that needs to be pealed off of this theory begins with the Puritans own persecution and subsequent move to the “new world” from England. One could believe that it is accurate to say that at this early stage there was, in fact, a cohesive like minded belief among these original settlers. They were fleeing religious tyranny and belonged to the same religious background which brought them together to seek a new and free life somewhere else. However, even as early as the early 1700’s this began to change as the east coast of the United States began to expand. Not every settler was sold on the idea of fighting for independence from England. If we were to look at just the population growth in the country from just the 17th and 18th centuries, we can see that it would’ve been hard for there to be any kind of uniformity since the first American colonists arrived. For instance, in 1650 the population of the early colonies had been 52,000. By roughly 1700 it had grown to roughly 250,000 and by 1760 the population had ballooned to almost 1,700,000. Pennsylvania, itself, began with just 500 settlers in 1681 rising to over 250,000 by 1760 . These numbers, if nothing else, indicate that with growing numbers there are growing mixtures of races, religious beliefs (are at bare minimum same religious beliefs with emphasis placed on different values), races and political perspectives. This was probably even more so the case in urban environments such as New York, Boston and the biggest city at that time, Philadelphia. In context, it is important to note those early вЂ?immigrants’ who came to this country with their own free will and not those people who were Native Americans and slaves.

Nevertheless there was a fight for independence that took place. As Phyllis Wheatley’s poem To His Excellency George Washington passionately illustrates,

“Muse! bow propitious while my pen relates How pour her armies through a thousand gates, As when Eolus heaven's fair face deforms, Enwrapp’d in tempest and a night of storms; Astonish'd ocean feels the wild uproar, The refluent surges beat the sounding shore; Or thick as leaves in Autumn's golden reignвЂ¦Ð²Ð‚Ñœ One could believe that the “wild uproar” that Wheatley is speaking of is that of the fight for Independence. Even though there were many differing opinions and really the beginning of a multi-cultural society (even though the power scheme wouldn’t suggest this) which would grow in diversity over time with more and more waves of immigration, there is a dominantly singular human passion for the need for freedom. This can be ironic at times, with the tension seen between the settlers and Native Americans, as well as, the slave trade but there is still a powerful need for all humans to be free of tyranny; no matter how subtle. However, this human universal need should not be confused with a cohesive ideological, Puritan society. This just illustrates the single fact that differing opinions will all converge on the idea of independence.

Adding another layer to this is the differing opinions that people may have on just what independence means. Is it specific like religious freedom? Is it broader such as freedom from intrusion from other forces, such as the government? These questions are pointed out in the paper because it is discussing the “one” mind approach to the general American experience. If there was in fact a “one” mind approach to the American experience then the natural question would be why America even experienced a Civil War.

In Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address he explicitly states that, “ With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God hives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations” Clearly Lincoln used his second presidential inauguration as a chance to mend the wounds that America had faced during his first term and on into his second. Without delving too deeply into the actual reasons for why the Civil War took place, it is enough to mention that clearly there were differing opinions that led to this event. The question of whether to keep America as a loosely held grouping of states as autonomous bodies or to unite enraged many portions of the population. This heated debate which ultimately led to bloodshed was backed, in many ways, by what the original colonists had intended. Clearly there was no straightforward

...