The Mayflower Compact, 1620

THE MAYFLOWER COMPACT, 1620
The Mayflower Compact was the first instrument of government drawn up in the
English Colonies and as such reflected the tentative origins of the campaign for
self-government that culminated in the American Revolution 156 years later.
In the name of God, Amen.

We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign
Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King,
Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and
Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a
Voyage to plant the first colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these
presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one another, covenant
and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and
Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof do enact,
constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and
Offices, from time to time, as shall be though most meet and convenient for the
general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and
Obedience."
Source: Richard Current, American History: A Survey, (New York: Knopf, 1961), p.
17.
GROWTH OF A COLONY: MASSACHUSETTS BAY COLONY
The following account describes the rapid development of the Massachusetts Bay
Colony in the 17th Century.
Founded in 1630 by Puritans from England, Massachusetts Bay grew rapidly,

aided in its first decade by 15,000 to 20,000 immigrants from England, and after that
by natural increase. By 1700, Massachusetts Bay's population had risen to almost
56,000 and by 1750, to approximately 188,000, making it one of Great Britain's most
populous North American possessions.
This rapid population growth forced the government of Massachusetts Bay
(called the General Court, which included the governor, the deputy governor, the
executive council of assistants, and the representatives, all elected annually by the
freemen to organize new towns. Within the first year of settlement, the six original
towns of Massachusetts Bay were laid out-Dorchester, Roxbury, Watertown, Newtown
(now Cambridge), Charlestown, and Boston, all on the Charles River. By the time
Middlesex County (west of Boston) was organized in 1643, there were eight towns in
that county alone, and by 1700, there were twenty-two.
The organization of towns was an important way for Puritan leaders to keep
control of the rapidly growing population. Unlike settlers in the middle and southern
colonies, colonists in Massachusetts Bay could not simply travel to an uninhabited
area, select a parcel of land, and receive individual title to the land from the colonial
governor. Instead, a group of men who wanted to establish a town had to apply to the
General Court for a land grant for the entire town. Leaders of the prospective new
town were then selected, and the single church was organized. Having received the
grant from the General Court, the new town's leaders apportioned the available land
among the male heads of households who were church members, holding in common
some land for grazing and other uses (hence the "town common"). In this way, the Pu-
ritan leadership retained control of the fast-growing population, ensured Puritan
economic and religious domination, and guaranteed that large numbers of
dissenters--men and women who might divert the colony from its "holy mission" in the
wilderness-would not be attracted to Massachusetts Bay.
Source: William Bruce Wheeler and Susan D. Becker, eds. Discovering the American
Past: A Look as the Evidence, vol. 1 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,
1999), p. 51-52.
GOVERNMENT: THE PRIVILEGES OF KINGS
In the following account originally published in 1616, King James I, of England

describes how royal power is divinely conveyed.
The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth: for kings are not only
Gods lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they
are called gods.
Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of
Divine power upon earth: for if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see
how they agree in the person of a king. God hath power to create, or destroy, make, or
unmake at His pleasure, to give life, or send death, to judge all, and to be judged nor
accountable to none: to raise low things, and to make high things low at His pleasure,
and to God are both soul and body due. And the like power have kings: they make and
unmake their subjects: they have power of raising, and casting down: of life, and of
death: judges over all their subjects, and in all causes, and yet accountable to none but
God only. They have power to exalt low things, and abase high things, and make of
their subjects like men at the chess; a pawn to take a bishop or a knight, and to cry up,
or down any of their subjects, as they do their money. And to the king is due both the
affection of the soul and the service of the body of his subjects...
I conclude then this point touching the power of kings, with this axiom of
divinity, that as to dispute what God may do, is blasphemy...so is it sedition in subjects,
to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power; but just kings will ever be
willing to declare what they will do, if they will not incur the curse of God. I will not be
content that my power be disputed upon: but I shall ever be willing to make the reason
appear of all my doings, and rule my actions according to my laws.
Source: James I, Works (London, 1616), 529531, reprinted in Richard W. Leopold,

Arthur S. Link and Stanley Corbin, eds., Problems in American History
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 1966)
JOHN LOCKE: "CIVIL SOCIETY" CHALLENGES MONARCHY
Ironically most of the ideas which Americans eventually used to challenge the power
of the British King over them, derived from English political philosopher John Locke
(1632-1704). In 1689 Locke wrote "The Second Treatise on Civil Government" which
describes the then radical concept of the right of individuals to govern themselves.
Man being born...with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrolled

enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other
man or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power not only to preserve his
propertythat is, his life, liberty, and estateagainst the injuries and attempts of other
men, but to judge and punish the breaches of that law in others... Those who are
united into one body, and have a common established law and judicature to appeal to,
with authority to decide controversies between them and punish offenders, are in civil
society one with another...
Wherever, therefore, any number of men so unite into one society, as to quit
every one his executive power of the law of nature, and to resign it to the public, there,
and there only, is a political, or civil society. And this is done wherever any number of
men, in the state of nature, enter into society to make one people, one body politic
under one supreme government, or else when any one joins himself to, and
incorporates with, any government already made. For hereby he authorizes the
society, or which is all one, the legislative thereof, to make laws for him, as the public
good of the society shall require, to the execution whereof his own assistance...is due.
Men being...by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of
this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent,
which is done by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community, for their
comfortable, safe, and peaceable living, one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of
their properties and a greater security against any that are not of it...
Whosoever therefore out of a state of nature unite into a community must be
understood to give up all the power necessary to the ends for which they unite into
society, to the majority of the community... And this is done by...agreeing to unite into
one political society...between the individuals that enter into or make up a
commonwealth. And thus that which...actually constitutes any political society is
nothing but the consent of any number of freemen capable of a majority to unite and
incorporate into such a society. And this...[gives] beginning to any lawful government
in the world.
Source: John Locke, The Second Treatise of Civil Government reprinted in David E
Shi and Holly A Mayer, eds., For the Record: A Documentary History of
America (Mew York, 1999), pp. 106-107.
ESTABLISHING FREEDOM OF RELIGION, 1649
The first act establishing freedom of religion was passed by the overwhelmingly
Catholic Maryland Colonial Legislature at the request of Lord Baltimore. By todays
standards the measure was limited. It simply said that anyone believing in
Christianity would not be molested by the colonial government or individuals in the
practice of his or her faith. It did not extend that protection to non-Christians.
However taken against the backdrop of state sanctioned or favored religion in most
nations and in the rest of the colonies, the very declaration that anyone was free to
worship in the Christian faith, regardless of denomination, was considered a major
statement of religious tolerance and the first step toward the religious freedom
guaranteed by the U.S. Constitituion. Part of the statute appears below:
And whereas the inforceing of the conscience in matters of Religion hath

frequently fallen out to be of dangerous Consequence in those commonwealths where
it hath been practiced, And for the more quiet and peaceable government of this
Province, and the better to preserve mutuall Love and amity amongst the inhabitants
thereof, Be it ThereforeOrdeyned and enactedthat noe person or persons
whatsoever in this Provinceprofessing to belieive in Jesus Christ, shall from
henceforth bee any waies troubled in the free exercise thereofor in any way
compelled to the beliefe or exercise of any other religion against his or her consent
Source: Website, From Revolution to Reconstruction, Documents: The Maryland

Toleration Act, 1649.
REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT: TWO VIEWS
British and American political thinkers harbored vastly differing views on

representative government. Those differences are outlined in the two passages
below. The first is from Thomas Whately, The Regulations Lately Made published in
1765 and the second is from the Providence Gazette, May 11, 1765)
The British View: The Fact is, that the Inhabitants of the Colonies are
represented in Parliament: they do not indeed choose the Members of that Assembly;
neither are Nine Tenths of the People of Britain Electors; for the Right of Election is
annexed to certain Species of Property, to peculiar Franchises, and to Inhabitancy in
some particular Places; but these Descriptions comprehend only a very small Part of
the Land, the Property, and the People of this Island...
The Colonies are in exactly the same Situation: All British Subjects are really in the
same; none are actually, all are virtually represented in Parliament; for every Member
of Parliament sits in the House, not as Representative of his own Constituents, but as
one of that august Assembly by which all the Commons of Great Britain are
represented. Their Rights and their Interests, however his own Borough may be
affected by general Dispositions, ought to be the great Objects of his Attention, and the
only Rules for his Conduct; and to sacrifice these to a partial Advantage in favour of
the Place where he was chosen, would be a Departure from his Duty; if it were
otherwise, Old Sarum would enjoy Privileges essential to Liberty, which are denied to
Birmingham and to Manchester; but as it is, they and the Colonies and all British
Subjects whatever, have an equal Share in the general Representation of the Commons
of Great Britain, and are bound by the Consent of the Majority of that House, whether
their own particular Representatives consented to or opposed the Measures there
taken, or whether they had or had not particular Representatives there.
The American View: To infer, my lord, that the British members [of
Parliament] actually represent the colonies, who are not permitted to do the least act
towards their appointment, because Britain is unequally represented, although every
man in the kingdom, who hath certain legal qualifications can vote for some one to
represent him, is such a piece of sophistry that I had half a mind to pass by the cobweb
without blowing it to pieces. Is there no difference between a country's having a
privilege to choose 558 members to represent them in parliament, though in unequal
proportions to the several districts, which cannot be avoided, and not having liberty to
choose any? To turn the tables,--if the Americans only had leave to send members to
parliament, could such sophistry ever persuade the people of Britain that they were
represented and had a share in the national councils?... Suppose none of the 558
members were chosen by the people, but enjoyed the right of sitting in parliament by
hereditary descent; could the common people be said to share in the national councils?
If we are not their constituents, they are not our representatives... It is really a piece of
mockery to tell us that a country, detached from Britain, by an ocean of immense
breadth, and which is so extensive and populous, should be represented by the British
members, or that we can have any interest in the house of commons.
Source: John M. Blum, The National Experience: A History of the United States (New
York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1989), pp. 90-91.

The Mayflower Compact, 1620

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Mayflower Compact, 1620

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Mayflower Compact, 1620

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE MAYFLOWER COMPACT, 1620

In the name of God, Amen.

GROWTH OF A COLONY: MASSACHUSETTS BAY COLONY

Founded in 1630 by Puritans from England, Massachusetts Bay grew rapidly,

GOVERNMENT: THE PRIVILEGES OF KINGS

In the following account originally published in 1616, King James I, of England

Source: James I, Works (London, 1616), 529531, reprinted in Richard W. Leopold,

JOHN LOCKE: "CIVIL SOCIETY" CHALLENGES MONARCHY

Man being born...with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrolled

ESTABLISHING FREEDOM OF RELIGION, 1649

And whereas the inforceing of the conscience in matters of Religion hath

Source: Website, From Revolution to Reconstruction, Documents: The Maryland

REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT: TWO VIEWS

British and American political thinkers harbored vastly differing views on

You might also like