Colonial Thought and Virginia Slavery: Two American History Essays

Edwards vs. Franklin: Two Visions of Colonial Thought

The writings of Jonathan Edwards and Benjamin Franklin represent two opposite extremes of Colonial American thought. Edwards' Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is an example of the "hellfire" religious revivalism that exercised such strong appeal during the period. Thousands turned out to be converted and saved at great mass meetings. These people placed their absolute trust in God, believing that He alone could save them from the eternal torments of Hell. Only through trust in Him could any of their endeavors be truly blessed. According to such beliefs, men and women were not masters of their own fate — all lay in the hands of God.

In contrast, to the extent that Franklin's Advice to a Young Tradesman touches on religion at all, it describes a very different sort of religion from that found in Edwards. Franklin's faith is best described as Deism. Deism viewed the Divinity, most notably, as the "great Watchmaker" who set the universe in motion and, for the most part, did not directly interfere in the actions of men. Though Franklin does acknowledge the concept of divine intervention with the line, "He that gets all he can honestly, and saves all he gets (necessary expense excepted), will certainly become rich, if that Being who governs the world, to whom all should look for a blessing on their honest endeavors, doth not, in His wise providence, otherwise determine."^[1] As Franklin describes it, it is good to be on the side of God, but human beings have their own responsibilities as well.

Jonathan Edwards calls forth the image of an entirely different universe. In Edwards' view, even the greatest kings are but "feeble, despicable worms of the dust, in comparison of the great and almighty Creator and King of heaven and earth. It is but little that they can do, when most enraged, and when they have exerted the utmost of their power!"^[2] A man cannot look to himself for assurance that he will not be condemned to eternal damnation. Salvation can come only from Almighty God. Whereas Franklin's concept of human existence holds that a man or woman makes his or her own destiny and finds success as best he or she can, in Edwards' worldview virtually every human being stands perpetually at the slippery edge of the Pit. For Edwards, it is only God's grace that prevents weak human beings from sliding over that edge at any given instant. Edwards holds that almost all human beings are inherently evil and selfish — they seek their own pleasure and neglect their duty to God.

Fate and Predestination vs. Hard Work and Human Ability

While Benjamin Franklin counsels young men to put their resources to good use, to work as hard as they can, and — very importantly — to create the appearance that they are working as hard as they can, Edwards strongly disagrees. For the Puritan divine, nothing we achieve is anything other than what God has actively allowed us to have. Appearances can be, and often are, deceiving. Even the most successful and well-beloved individual can die at any moment and be cast down before he or she was prepared.

Clearly, Edwards believes in fate and predestination, whereas Franklin believes in hard work and the natural abilities of mankind. Jonathan Edwards holds that a person must live every moment as though it were his or her last, seeking out God and devoting oneself to righteousness — in the hope, and it is after all only a hope, that in the end the Almighty will show mercy. Edwards' God is a wrathful God, a divinity whose kindness is demonstrated by His supernatural forbearance. A lesser being would long ago have raised His hand against the multitude and cast all mankind into the pit of Hell.

Benjamin Franklin's ideas on humanity are entirely different. He firmly believes that what we do — or what we appear to do — is of the greatest importance. A young man can become wealthy by adopting the appearance of hard work and thrift, and he can use money and credit to make more money. Sometimes God places obstacles in the way of an individual's success, but on the whole God is not a vengeful or antagonistic force. Human beings can indeed be happy in the world in which they live, and can also be successful and secure. In short, these are two very different views of the universe and of man's place within it. Jonathan Edwards and his followers inhabit a world ruled above all by fear, a world in which one misstep can cause one to become lost forever. Benjamin Franklin, on the other hand, sees hope and the promise of a better and brighter tomorrow, if only we grasp the opportunities presented to us. Together, these two thinkers helped cement the foundations for two very different patterns of thought that have shaped the American character and nation.

The Origins of Slavery in Colonial Virginia

Slavery did not develop immediately in England's American colonies. Virginia, the oldest of these colonies, was settled by free English men and women who sought to make their fortunes by exploiting the New World. The gold and silver so readily available to the Spanish in Mexico and South America was soon discovered to exist in no appreciable quantities in Virginia. Virginia's wealth would lie in the land — in agriculture — rather than underground in mines. Tobacco was the first crop to produce a large and consistent cash surplus for the new colonists. However, as with any large-scale operation, a successful tobacco plantation required sufficient labor to support it.

At the outset, this labor was provided primarily by indentured servants. Indentured servants served a term of years on the plantations in return for payment of their passage to the New World. A shortfall in European immigrants was made up by purchasing Africans. As slavery did not actually exist under English law, these Africans were at first treated as indentured servants like any other laborer who had not arrived with funds of their own. The fact that Africans were not treated differently from whites is borne out by an early law enacted in March of 1660, which stated: "In case any English servant shall run away in company with any negroes who are incapable of makeing satisfaction by addition of time, Bee it enacted that the English so running away in company with them shall serve for the time of the said negroes absence as they are to do for their owne by a former act."^[3] In other words, the loss of an African laborer was treated the same as the loss of an English laborer. If the Englishman who helped the African to run away could not pay the cost of the African's indenture, he would have to serve out the remainder of that African's term himself. No distinction was made between the two kinds of laborers.