A YALE TURN

With this posting, this blog moves on with its account of the historical development Americans experienced in their views of governance and politics.  The overall question being asked is:  can one ascribe the perceptual orientation Daniel Elazar identifies as federalism to Americans in the years from colonial times to World War II?  Until this point, this blog has described the thinking of the first generation of colonists. 

A lot of the early political/religious (often intertwined) thinking was done under the federalist system of a compact-al defined polity and had to do with how Puritanical they were going to be.  Were they going to follow a more scholastic/intellectual path that relied on logic or were they going to be readily swayed by a more emotionally based will?  As this ongoing tension evolved, a first, naturally born generation was being raised and developing its own views.  And to add to this mix, these newcomers were to experience the import of an intellectual movement.

This turn was emanating from Europe and before addressing its elements, one should keep in mind that in reporting such movements, various facts by historians and other experts are apt to vary.  Again, the aim here is to give the reader an overall sense of how Americans viewed their relationship between themselves, on an individual basis, and government and how that was being affected by the various forces these people were experiencing. 

One turn was a change of locality as to where the effects of this change were being most felt.  The early debate described above seemed to center on the concerns expressed on the campus of Harvard in Massachusetts.  That will shift to Yale and that story is intermingled with the development of Connecticut.  A passing knowledge of how it became a colony helps this story of Yale’s role and how political thinking was to change.

And, in that, a good place to start is with if not the first colonial constitution, then one of the first such documents.  The reader should keep in mind, by writing and abiding with such a foundational document, these colonists were exhibiting their reliance on federalism to define their governance and politics.  To history, this Connecticut document is known as the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. 

The document fulfills a necessary function so that it be considered a legitimate constitution, i.e., it sets out how a formed government will be constituted – it establishes its structure of government.  Also, this document has the elements Donald Lutz outlines as being requisites for such a foundational instrument.  He identifies twelve elements of concern and here are the first three and the first sentence of the fourth.  He writes,

 

1.     Political covenants were derived in form and content from religious covenants used to found religious communities.

2.     A complete political covenant had the following elements:  (a) an oath calling on God as a witness or partner; (b) the creation of a people whose members are identified by those who signed the covenant; (c) the creation of a civil body politic, or government; (d) the specification of the shared goals and values, a shared meaning, that defined (self-defined) the basis for the people living together; and (e) the creation and description of institutions for collective decision making.

3.     The people covenant form evolved rather quickly into the political compact form.  A political compact is identical to a political covenant except for the absence of an oath [calling on God’s role] in a compact.  The elimination of the oath resulted in the force of the document, and therefore the basis of political obligation, resting entirely on the consent of those signing it.  The move from political covenant to political compact is thus a shift to de facto popular sovereignty.

4.     The political compact eventually evolved into what we now recognize as the American form of constitutionalism. …[1]

 

 The Fundamental Orders fulfill these elements and serve as a starting point, and that document’s beginning paragraph should be studied to garner these people’s basic view.  By doing so, the reader can bring life to what Lutz point out.

          Here is this writer’s “translation” of that document’s first paragraph (recall, that the original is written in the idiom of its time).

 

For as much as it has pleased the Almighty God, the wise disposition of his divine prudence to Order and dispose of things that we the inhabitants and residents of Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the River of Connecticut and the lands thereunto adjoining; and well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent government established  according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and cojoin ourselves to be as one public state or commonwealth; and do, for ourselves and our successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into combination and confederation together, to maintain and pursue the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said gospel is now practiced amongst us; as also in our civil affairs to be guided and governed  according to such laws, rules, orders and degrees as shall be made, ordered and decreed, as follows …[2]

 To state the obvious, the religious influence is center and prominent.  It reflects a Puritanical view and as one reads on, the principle of self-commitment to belong and meet responsibilities is more than hinted at as the “governor” describes his responsibilities. 

To state the obvious, the religious influence is center and prominent.  It reflects a Puritanical view and as one reads on, the principle of self-commitment to belong and meet responsibilities is more than hinted at as the “governor” describes his responsibilities. 

The question this blog asks:  will the Enlightenment, as it is interpreted on this side of the Atlantic, going to challenge this perception, enhance it, or merely accommodate to this already cultural element one finds as the Enlightenment makes its initial inroads?  Again, this newer constitution, which is issued in 1639, serves as a piece of evidence of what was held as espoused values and goals when it comes to governance. 

And how did Connecticut come to be?  That story is a bit confusing and not essential to know in its details to achieve the intentions of this blog.  The steps somewhat begin with the Massachusetts General Court issuing permission for the cities identified in the document to set up this entity that will be known as Connecticut.  The document was the product of a commission set up to deal with a dispute in which the cities being united helped in their cause.  The story includes Massachusetts’ governor, John Winthrop.

All of these matters led to the creation – and the writing of a constitution – of a new colony.  Close (less than forty miles) to one of those original cities, a university would be established.  That would be Hartford and the university was Yale in New Haven.  The date of its establishment was 1701.  Its role in introducing the Enlightenment is also a bit messy, but certain key facts are clear.

            Apparently, in 1714, Jeremiah Dummer generously donated a library to the newer university.  At the school was an industrious post-graduate student, Samuel Johnson.  He took it upon himself to study the books of the library and, by doing so, was exposed to ideas that went contrary to his Puritanical understanding of things. 

He is quoted as seeing this discovery as overwhelming to a “low state of mind.”[3]  As a result, Johnson introduces a curriculum shift at Yale that he called “The New Learning.”  With that, the reader is invited to the next posting that will pick up this Connecticut tale that will eventually lead them back to Harvard.

---

[1] Donald S. Lutz, “Introductory Essay,” Colonial Origins of the American Constitution:  A Documentary History, edited by Donald S. Lutz (Indianapolis, IN:  Liberty Fund, 1998), xxxv-xxxvi. 

[2] Ibid, 211.  As the text indicates, the depiction here is a version of what is found in this source.  Lutz provides the document in its original spellings.  Of note, this writer visited the Wikipedia entry for the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut.  That entry describes summarily the document, as a constitution, setting up “[g]overnment [as being] based on the rights of an individual, and the orders spell out some of those rights, as well as how they are ensured by the government.”  The reader is asked:  does the language this document use indicate that individualism is its main thrust?  This writer believes it does not and feels that this categorization serves to support the view that the current prominent view of governance and politics being that of the natural rights view.  See “Fundamental Orders of Connecticut,” Wikipedia (n.d.), accessed April 26, 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Orders_of_Connecticut#:~:text=The%20Fundamental%20Orders%20were%20adopted,the%20open%20ocean%20for%20trading.

[3] Donald S. Lutz, Stephen L. Schechter, and Richard Bernstein, Roots of the Republic:  American Founding Documents Interpreted (Madison, WS:  Madison House), 24.