The Maryland Toleration Act of 1649
The Maryland Toleration Act of 1649 is an act that created a tolerance for all religions that believed in Jesus Christ, throughout the Maryland colony. This Act did not write itself though. The Act was developed and written by an Assembly in Maryland in St. Mary city. Much of the Assembly consisted of individuals that practiced the Catholic faith.
Prior to the Maryland Tolerance Act being written into law, the colony began to have a new understanding during their development. They began to demand for more political freedom compared to what England was allowing. The colonist began to develop a culture that strayed away from traditional England. For example, the Maryland colonist considered religious tolerance
…show more content…
to be a vital piece in the ideals of spiritual life. This existed in England but not to the extent the colonist wanted. England already began setting roots in the idea of creating toleration because it was in the rights of Englishman. The colonist wanted to take the idea of creating toleration and put it into action. Maryland was developed differently compared to the other colonies.
Maryland had a mix of religions. There were Protestants, but also Catholics. A majority of the Maryland settlers were Protestant. Maryland, prior to the Tolerance Act, is considered to have the physical power controlled by the Protestants. The intellectual, moral, and political were controlled by the Roman Catholics. With this mix of physical, intellectual, moral, and political powers it became difficult for the colony to live in peace. To solve this predicament, Lord Baltimore proposed the Code of Baltimore.
When the assemblymen failed to accept the Lord Baltimore’s code, they established the Ordinance of 1639. The assembly was considered to be “souls living in an era of historical transition and religious ferment.” The Ordinance did incorporate ideas of Lord Baltimore’s, but the ideas were refined. Even still, the Ordinance did have flaws within it and thus the Toleration Act of 1649 was created just ten years later.
The Act was written for the colonist of Maryland to all abide by, though there was more of a focus on particular groups. The Act was directed more towards those that did not believe in Jesus Christ, or individuals that were not the most religious. The act gave exact punishments for not following the rules. An individual could potentially be put to death for denying the incarnation or cursing
God. The wording of the Act was very powerful and threatening. Though out the Piece there are threats such as “shall be put to death.” The choice of the word death shows just how serious this act was to be taken. In a sense the Assemblers are threatening an individual’s life if they do not abide by these rule being implemented. The Maryland Tolerance did serve two purposes when it was written. First, the Toleration Act was used to properly formulate policy which was previously in effect, such as the Ordinance of 1639, which refined Lord Baltimore’s Code. The Act provided a clearer direction along with creating a better understanding of previous principles that were created in the prior laws. With this new clarification, it was indented to help have the colony become more of a unit and create a more welcoming colony. The second intent for the Act being written was to protect particular religions. Now at this time there was a serious problem for Catholics. Catholics were being persecuted throughout the new nation. Now, Lord Baltimore had a catholic background so he dreamed of the Maryland colony becoming a refuge for Catholics all over the new nation along with England. The Catholics were also becoming a minority in Maryland. solve this issue and rid the Catholics of their fear of becoming belittled, the Assembly, of mostly catholics, created this Act to solve the serious problem at hand. With the creation of the Act, it began to provide protection to the Catholic minority and allow for Lord Baltimore’s dream to perhaps prosper.
“A symbol of sin against Godly order” became a theme in Abzug discussion of the evangelical reform and the reformers who became the key participants. Often the evangelical reformers became too radical developing conflicts with the church. For example, in the temperance movement Reverend J. Edwards wanted to declare wage war “not on the drunkard but on those who countenanced the practice of moderate drinking and who engaged in the production and distribution of strong drink.” Ultimately the reform movements led to societies, than to pledges to abstain. Abzug presents a caution citing one critic against pledges, Reverend Leonard Withington: “He (Withington) feared that for every social evil there might be a pledge, and that soon the Ten Commandments itself would be “surrounded with human pledges.” Commandments would no longer be kept because of love of God but rather because of fear of
...ople. The Proclamation also demanded Justices of Peace to enforce laws on drinking, blasphemy, lewdness, and swearing. Conversely, the Vice Society’s suppression fell at the feet of the FMRS which favoured running “rescue” homes for reformed prostitutes. The role of the middle class, and more importantly women, also helped form moral regulatory practices. Nonetheless, the biggest shift in regulation of social morals involved morality breaking away from the religious realm. That event opened a lot of doors, both in terms of moral regulation and society. One thing which should be recognized is that if society was a stale concept, advancements in moral regulation would not have happened, and vice versa. The two concepts feed off of each other. In order to understand one, we must understand the other.
The political difference between the New England and Chesapeake region was that New England government associate more with religious matter than the Chesapeake government. The New England regions included the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the Plymouth colony, the New Hampshire colony, Maine colony, Connecticut colony, and Rhode Island colony. Massachusetts colony for example was governed as a theocracy government. As the first governor of Massachusetts colony once stated in A Model of Christian Charity (Written on board the Arbella on the Atlantic Ocean, 1630),"we shall be as a city upon a hill" a holy commonwealth that could be served as an example community to the rest of the world. The Massachusetts Bay colony placed great importance on religious matters. Only the church member were allowed to vote or held office position. Those who held office position would enforce the law requiring attendance at services. Jamestown, Maryland and the Carolinas were some colonies in the Chesapeake regions. The governments in these regions were less concerned about...
First of all, during their time, it was recognized that one did not have a right within the choice of religion versus government. It seemed that whatever one wanted to believe was not an option when it came to following a creed, it was more than probable that one’s government had made that choice for its people. Roger Williams, having been educated by Sir Coke on religious ideals seemed to be bothered by this fact and was fervent to change this as his former master whom had spent time in a London jail for his own ideas (Humanities, 1983). Anne Hutchinson being the daughter of a dissenting puritan minister (Reuben, 2011) had ideas differing from the major religious institutions of her land, and was especially dissatisfied with not being able accept creeds differing from the main. Williams’ works touched on this subject beautifully as he logically, even through quotes in scriptures, explained why it was that if one wished to be a true follower of Christ, that religious tolerance was a must. In The Bloudy Tenet of Persecution, Williams explains that Christ ‘abhors’ the practice of forced worship and persecution of differing beliefs of even those who are not Christian. Anne Hutchinson openly practiced the freedom of conscience as part of her life. She had at one point in England, meetings where she would speak about the doctrines and treatises written by John Cotton, and she would always add in her own interpretations (Anne Hutchinson...
317). It did not set any standards though, so how well the act was observed was
For a colony of the British government to rebel against the large, wealthy English country needed to take an extreme amount of resentment towards that group. The British themselves caused this resentment towards the English government. Act passes by the government caused this feeling; these acts began with the quartering acts of 1765. The quartering act of 1765 confirmed the colonist’s need for an independent, free nation because of subjugation of the colonists by the English government. This subjugation spurred a movement that ended in revolution.
On March 24, 1774, the Intolerable Acts were series of punitive measures passed in retaliation for the Boston Tea Party, closing the Port of Boston, and limiting the rights for many of the colonists as a punishment. These laws were passed by the British Parliament and imposed by King George III. King George III was irritated about the colonists discarding ships loads of tea into the harbor, also known as the Boston Tea Party. In anger of the millions of lost money, he created the Intolerable Acts, which punished the colonists for they way they had acted. The Intolerable Acts were composed of five different laws. These include, Boston Port Act, Massachusetts Government Act, Administrative Justice Act, Quartering Act, and Quebec Act. The first
Although Maryland was known as the haven for Catholics, Christianity was not tolerated during its establishment in 1632. It was not until 1649 when any form of Christianity was allowed in Maryland(Doc #1). Those professing any other religion besides a form of Christianity would have been persecuted, therefore Maryland’s Act of toleration did not allow complete freedom of religion.
The Intolerable Acts were Parliament's way of punishing the colonies for the act of the Boston Tea Party. The Intolerable Acts consisted of five acts: Administration of Justice Act, the Massachusetts Government Act, a New Quartering Act the Quebec Act and the Boston Port Bill. These acts were around from 1774-1775. The Administration of Justice Act was instated so that British officials couldn’t be sued. Next up, the Massachusetts Government Act put Massachusetts under control of the British crown. As may be speculated, this made the people of Massachusetts very angry. Also, there was a new Quartering Act instated.This act made it so that colonists were required to house british soldiers. Also there was the Quebec act. This act did a few things
They sought it out as being punished without given the opportunity to testify for their own defense. The second act, the Massachusetts Government Act, was to better regulate the administration. Almost every position in the government such as officials, juries, and sheriffs were strictly appointed by a governor or a monarch. It had limited the proceedings of town meetings in Massachusetts, only unless it was called upon by the governor. The colonists outside of Massachusetts had feared that their governments could be changed by the legislation of the Parliament. The purpose in contrast had essentially limited Massachusetts’ right for independence. The third act, the Administration of justice act, had given power to all trials to be sent to Great Britain. The act instructed that witnesses would be paid for travel expenses. In practice, a few colonists could afford to leave their work
Since the established religion that the colony set up with was the Church of England, this provided a strong influence of this religion in the colony. This is evident through the demand for Sabbath observance. The requirement from the colonial government of Sabbath observance was for compulsory attendance of Church of England services for everyone. The intention of this was to try to improve the moral character of the people. This also brought in legislation to abolish recreational activities on Sundays, which was unpopular among many. Evangelical protestant
In this declaration made in 1166, King Henry II stated that all justice in England would happen under his own royal justices rather than those of the vassals and that everybody, even the vassals, were subject to the law and could be arrested by the royal justices. This took power from the king’s nobles because they could no longer enforce the laws they wanted the way they wanted to enforce them. Instead, the laws were enforced by the sheriffs that the king had appointed to each county, which further increased the power of the king because he could have a more direct effect on the lives of all of the population. This was not the only way the Assize of Clarendon benefited the king, however. In section 5 of the document, the king described how any property or money seized by the court goes directly to the king. Because of this statement, the king was able to gain more power in the form of money to use to his own advantage. He also allowed sheriffs to stop people from leaving their county if they were accused of breaking the law, which even further increased the amount of control he had over the entire population of
called the Intolerable Act. This act was passed to punish the colonists for what they did. This act
Founded in 1632, Maryland would be a proprietary colony unlike Virginia and Massachusetts, which were financed from a group of investors. The crown had given the proprietor, Cecilius Calvert absolute power within the colony. Religion would be a major factor in colonizing Maryland. Calvert had wished Maryland to be a safe haven for his Catholic brothers and sisters who suffered persecution in England. Calvert appointed Catholics to a majority of key positions. Maryland offered much more generous freedom dues, to include 50 acres of land for those that completed their terms. Maryland suffered high mortality rates, just like the Virginia colony. Tobacco and those that held the land that produced it, would also come dominate the economy and society of Maryland. However Calvert had imagined a much different framework of gproovernment for Maryland. Calvert had envisioned a feudal domain where land was laid out in manors and landowners would pay land taxes to the proprietor. Calvert disliked representative institutions; although Calvert had total control of the colony, the elected assembly had rights to approve or veto the proprietor’s proposals. Calvert personally appointed officials unlike Virginia’s House of Burgesses which were made up of elected officials from land owners who could vote and the governor held rights to veto any actions adopted by the body. Virginia’s governmental power rested much more evenly across the
Although the Zero-Tolerance Law applies to individuals 21 years old and younger, it should apply to all ages, but many individuals argue a few alcoholic beverages do not affect one’s driving skills. Everyday intoxicated individuals get behind the wheel of a car, misjudging their blood alcohol levels causing fatal car crashes. This is a widespread issue so Minnesota should apply the Zero-Tolerance Law to all ages. This law incorporates a DUI immediately if any alcohol is found in one’s blood stream, and if one drives intoxicated, his or her license is automatically suspended by the Department of Motor Vehicles.