2
INTRODUCTION
Protestant Christianity was the source of early political thought among the
Puritans and their progeny. In particular, Puritan life and thought are the essential
expression of Reformation theology in America. Each successive age of American
culture between the time of the Puritans and that of the Civil War expressed some of this
theology and thought although the progression was that of steady decline in content and
import. The consequences of the defection from orthodox Calvinist Puritanism led to
changing political beliefs and structures.
This study traces the historical synthesis between Protestant theology and
American polity, from the Puritans to the Civil War, by examining several figures who
embody the shifting times and beliefs. These figures are illustrative of the political and
theological ideas existent in their respective periods. It will be shown that as these men,
and the cultures that they influenced, changed their worldviews, so changed their
political philosophies and practices.
Previous scholarship of significance on this period has been done by Louis Hartz
and Alan Grimes. Their analysis varies in respect to each other and to this study.
Although Hartz and Grimes examine the same period, their conclusions are divergent
regarding the significance of theology relative to politics.
Louis Hartz bases his work upon a categorization of the liberal tradition in Europe
and then America. His thesis is that the feudal structure of medieval Europe gave way to
more democratic modes. His emphasis is on American politics and political philosophy
but is couched in terms of its relation to the European polity. The reason is for this
approach is that the founders of American polity were European immigrants.
Hartz’s contention is that the success of liberalism in Europe was accomplished
only after violent revolution. The remnants of feudalism were then incorporated with
emerging democracies. This admixture was a flaw to Hartz. He sought a place where the
liberal consensus could emerge free from a past political edifice.
Hartz is especially interested with the liberal structure which emerged in America.
He points out that this liberalism formed without the need for revolution from feudalism.
As he says in his work, The Liberal Tradition in America, “One of the central
characteristics of a nonfeudal society is that it lacks a genuine revolutionary tradition...It’s
liberalism is...a ‘natural’ phenomenon.’”
1
Hartz uses his finding of this “natural
liberalism” to explain the future developments of American government from the actions
of the Founders through the conflict between American liberalism and the “Southern
Feudal Dream.”
Hartz admits that his method does not cover every aspect of American
development. He says, “...there are aspects of our original life in the Puritan colonies and
the South which hardly fit its meaning.”
2
Not only is this statement true, but Hartz utterly
disregards America’s bloody “revolution”, the Civil War. Because the labels of the forms
1
Ibid, p. 5.
2
Louis Hartz, The Liberal Tradition in America, p. 4.
Convention