In the recent episode of PBS’s Frontline, titled “Apocalypse!”, the show made the claim that the sentiment within the British colonies leading up to the American Revolution was one of strong Apocalypticism. The Stamp Act was viewed as the Mark of the Beast, the war was Armageddon, et cetera. PBS’s website has a longer commentary on this issue at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/amrevolution.html .
What I wanna know is, just how many mid-to-late-18th-century Americans were caught up in this Millennial Madness? Is there something to this notion of the early U.S. as a “Christian Nation” [TM]?
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.
I saw that show; it was pretty interesting, but they went a little overboard, I thought, with some of their claims of the influence of Apocalyptic thinking on history. Certainly the philosophers of the Enlightenment were a far more important influence on the American Revolution than the book of Revelations, although there were about three million people in the colonies at the time so I’m sure many different lines of thinking had at least a little effect.
I thought that most of the British colonies on the east coast of North America were established for economic reasons, not religious reasons. Sure, we had the Puritans of Massachusetts, but I was under the impression that they were the exception rather than the rule.
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.
Well, Massachusetts was founded as a haven for Puritans, Pennsylvania was founded as a haven for Quakers, Maryland was founded as a haven for Catholics, Rhode Island was founded by Roger Williams as a haven for any and ALL worshippers… so, the religious dimension was obviously an important one. On the other hand, the other colonies were established by people who just wanted to make a buck (or, in the case of Georgia, who just wanted out of debtor’s prison).
In spite of that, I’d be amazed if apocalyptic fervor had much to do with the American revolution (sounds to me like the theory of an Englishman who still can’t imagine why the colonists would rebel against good old George 3rd, and chooses to believe the YAnks were a bunch of religious maniacs).
Actually, the Pilgrims who settled Massachusetts weren’t Puritans; they didn’t get along with the Puritans and would be very distressed to be confused with them. They had another name, also beginning with the letter “P” that escapes me right now.
The Pilgrims’ were called Separatists. They settled the Plymouth Colony, which was pretty much modern day Cape Cod and surrounding areas in the southeastern part of modern Massachusetts. The Puritans settled the Massachusetts Bay Colony, which was around Boston, Cape Ann, etc.
The differences between Separatism and Puritanism had more to do with Church politics and strategy rather than theology. Both were Calvinistic. The Separatists wanted to leave the Church of England because they thought it was too corrupt; the Puritans agreed it was corrupt, but wanted to stay and purify it from within. After the Stuart Restoration the differences became mostly moot, because the Puritans realized they would not be able to purify the Church of England. Both Separatists and Puritans in New England evolved into the Congregational Church, and in 1692 the Plymouth Colony was absorbed into the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
But your basic point was right APB- contrary to the common misperception, the Pilgrims were not Puritans, and at least initially would not appreciate being confused with them.