The Portland daily press., 1862-09-22
For the Daily Press.
Popham and Plymouth.


Maine in the Daily Press, of the 18th inst,
criticises Ex-Gov Washburn's remark at the
Popham celebration, with considerable spirit.
/ had hoped to see some correction of his arti-
Gle as to matters ofhistory. Perhaps the Ex-
Governors remark about the motives Of the
Kennebec settlers was out of place. il true. l
am not certain that it is quite true of the pro-
jectors, such as Sir John Popham, whatever
might have been the fact with the exact set
tiers. fyour correspondent had chosen to
take issue with him on this he might have made
some show of reason; but il seems more to his
taste to prove that nobody acted from "princi-
ple."
1t is usually easy enough to prove interested
motives without distorting the facts of history.
But it seems to me that your correspondent
has not read history with sufficient discrimina-
tion to teach his neighbors.
There is strange mixing up of things, and
inferences are drawn at random, finding his
premises in one class Of men and applying his
conclusions to another. He brings into view
three other classes of men really distinct, and
directly, or by implication, charges the report
ed errors Of all on the Plymouth Pilgrims.
What he calls "puerie disputation," was a
dispute between two congregations or socie-
ties who were there before them and who new
er come to this country, and there is neither
truth nor candor in charging the reputed faults
of every man who was dissatisfied with the
rulers of the national church, on the Pilgrims
who had no part in them.
Another case. Your correspondent speaks
of the "sharp bargain" which the Virginia
company of merchant adventures, made with
the pilgrims, and virtually charged the wrong
on the pilgrims as proof of their "greed Of
gain," just as though they were responsible
for the wrong, when they submitted to the ex-
tortion. 1t is new system of ethics in which
the sufferers by "sharp bargain" are charged
with the wrong it.
1t was hard bargain for the pilgrims, no
doubt; they felt it to be so. They had not the
means to transport themselves to this country.
By leaving England for Holland, they had sac
rifced most of their property. "Maine" prob
ably thinks they left, not for the sake of relig-
ious principle,but for "greed of gann but made
an unfortunate speculation! At any rate they
were poor; and the merchant adventurers'
had money, and it is not the first or last time
that men with money have driven sharp bar
gains with the poor; though it is the first time
ever knew in which such fact was used to
prove that the poor sufferers were destitute of
religious principle and impeled by greed of
gain alone.
But hard as it was it did not involve the
principle of "chattel servitude of the white
man." as "Maine" strongly aflirms. 1t differ
ed not in principle from any other case in
which one man furnishes certain amount of
money in partnership in which another man
gives his time and labor-the profits being
shared equally. The injustice of it consisted
in securing too small a sum as equivalent to
the service Of a man.
Again, he chagres the reputed faults of the
Puritans on the Plymouth Pilgrims. 1t is, or
should be, well known that in their origin and
early history they were distinct. The Pill
grims separated from the national church, and
formed local church on the democratic or
congregational polity, in 1602-the last year
of Elizabeth's reign-covenanting to "walk in
all the ways made known, or to be made known
to them" In 1907 they fed from England to
Holland, and in 1920 they came to Plymouth
with their church polity well settled. The
Puritans who settled Salem and Boston eight
or ten years afterward, came direct from Eng
land, were members of the national church.
but refused to conform TO some of the Popish
forms which its rules-emanded They had at
this time no sympathy with the Plymouth Pill
grims, but strong prejudices against them as
"separatists.' They eventually adopted the
congregational polity, though modified by their
previous views. But this was no part of their
object when they came. Before they LETT Eng
land they had got no farther than that the
reformation of the church was to be endeav-
ored, according to the written word of God"
But they were at least thirty years behind the
Pilgrims in their views of religious liberty.
But your correspondent evidently intends to
charge upon them the reputed crimes of the
Puritans, speaking of "their prosecutions of
Baptists, Quakers, aud other" However it
might be with the Puritans, it would be diff
cult to prove that the Pilgrims were given to
moesting peaceabe citizens, for opinions sake
But 1t would be well for those who feel an in
terest in convicting our fathers of inconsisten-
cy, to remember that neither Puritans nor
Pilgrims professed to come here to establish