A Critique Of Winthrop's Poem Bradford

In 1634, just a few years after Winthrop’s arrival, Bradford recalls the economic surge as the price of corn and cattle rose exponentially. Although some stood to profit, this was undoubtedly to the detriment of many. The economic instability brought suffering and hunger to many. At a time of such great need, the puritans didn’t band together as Winthrop had intended, but instead each man began to act for his own benefit, and livelihood by increasing profits no matter the cost to the less fortunate. Bradford confirms that “Those who once lived together in Christian and comfortable fellowship must now part and suffer the divisions” (148).

In the same year, Bradford recalls a letter received a letter from Winthrop recounting that the Pequot

Indians came to them seeking friendship, and bearing gifts. After many attempts ignore their request altogether, the company deliberated in conference for days. After a great deal of consideration, they accepted the Pequot request contingent on their agreement and cooperation with the terms and conditions as follows: they must deliver the men responsible for the death of one an Englishman for rightful avengement, and to give up their land rights in Connecticut to the Massachusetts Colony. Just a few years removed from his infamous sermon, Winthrop himself admittedly took part in this disguised exploitation of his fellow man.
Bradford exposes infidelities regarding people of the colony in 1642. He took note of an increasing number of sinful and unholy patterns occurring throughout the colony. Believing that sin is contagious like an infectious disease, they worried they would lose God’s favor. Bradford attributed the contamination of the Puritan community largely to unregulated overseas travel to the new colony. As travel became accessible to more people, the population ultimately became vulnerable to increased amount of wickedness and profanity. These people were quickly cast as outsiders and vehemently denied the brotherly love Winthrop initially insisted was due to all men, whether friend, foe, stranger, or brethren.
Bradford substantiates that the disagreements were only exacerbated as the afflictions continued to abound. Dissolution and division amongst the holy settlers became so great that removal to Nausette fifty miles away became a viable solution, and one of serious contention by 1644. The transition was adamantly supported by many. The small and remote location would make expansion impossible, ensuring the sanctity and virtue of all members of the community. The intolerance had grown so great within society that it caused many to turn to abandonment and yet further separation. In time, the removal was dismissed as it proved illogical in matters of convenience, and economic setback. New England was no longer recognizable as the blessed community built in God’s image. It was no model of Christian charity, or of any real charity at all.
In closing his sermon, Winthrop concludes three primary points. First, he justifies the way to live properly “…we ought to account ourselves knit together by this bond of love, and live in the exercise of it...” (175). Secondly, he demonstrates that the way to live justly in that “…the care of the public must oversway all private respects…” (175). Thirdly, the end is to improve our lives to do more service unto the Lord…to serve the Lord and work out our salvation under the power and purity of His holy ordinances” (175). Bradford addresses many ways in which these cardinal rules were not well maintained.
Bradford enlightens readers to many things, and much more can be interpreted from his recollection.

The virtues Winthrop speaks of are not present in Bradford’s writing, and in turn, also absent from the community. Building friendships based on manipulative business contracts; Demonizing, alienating, and even torturing members of society for their differences; and finally considering abandonment of their brethren in a time of war and strife does not depict the Godly providence envisioned by Winthrop. As deduced from the aforementioned accounts, the Puritans not only failed to uphold the heavenly image they were to model for the world, but they were not true to their proclaimed kingdom of heaven. In fact, they merely transformed from the oppressed to the oppressors. Hardly a model to be respected or revered.

There is ample evidence to suggest that the puritans believed their actions justified on the basis of fear of the unknown, and fearing loss of purity both in the community and in the church. Regardless of the reason for their actions, this analysis confirms that the Puritans allowed their morality to be compromised in the face of adversity, and their grace to be corrupted out of fear. Ultimately, they inflicted the same persecution and intolerance unto outsiders of their community that was shown to them in

England.
Migration to America did result in religious freedom and civil liberties for some of God’s chosen ones. They found the religious solace and fulfillment they set out to achieve. For many others, this reality ends in tragedy. Illness, and poor conditions took many lives, wars and torturous acts inflicted upon those accused of being different took even more. This analysis leads to the conclusion that society as an institution is flawed and corruption will always prevail among the wealthy in estate and power. The puritans point blame at total depravity, and most others simply to human nature, but the point remains. Even selection by God cannot ensure virtue in a time of need, mercy and forgiveness in place of revenge and anger, and unquestioned and unwavering love to all of mankind.