My favorite time in my public presentations for my book Quaking Dover have come in the question-and-answer period at the end.
Still, a few questions have caught me off-guard, stimulating my thinking in the days after. Here are a few to date, along with a few more points I’d like to develop in public conversation.
~*~
Why did the Puritans go so viciously after the Quakers? Or was that the other way around? Carla Gardina Pestana in her Quakers and Baptists in Colonial Massachusetts did remark that the Quakers seemed to go out of their way to make trouble, even after they had achieved some concession from the Puritans. I’m left agreeing that Friends were so critical of the Puritans because they felt the Puritans hadn’t gone far enough in their revolution. A description of Quakers as a radical fringe of the Puritan movement further suggests that connection.
How could you sleep at night after writing about some of the horrendous things that happen in the book? At the time I glibly replied a martini before going to bed helped. For a more meaningful answer, I would go back to the experience of dissecting a frog in high school biology, the way I learned to bring an imaginary Plexiglas screen down between me and the formaldehyde amphibian before I gagged and puked. It was a skill I found useful working as a newspaper editor – the emotional distancing that many other professionals find essential. You know, like a mask. I think of one surgical nurse I knew who had no problem with open-heart surgery, for instance, but when she saw the movie All That Jazz and the retractors went to work on the big screen of the theater, she vomited.
The Puritans in context. While they come off as villains in my book, they were far less hostile than the Virginians. There you could be executed if you missed three public worship services. At least one Quaker died after being severely whipped and thrown in a prison cell. There may have been further atrocities per Kenneth Carroll.
Richard Waldron in context. What were his redeeming qualities? He is a complex and largely unexplored figure in early American history.
I don’t intend this to be the “final word” on the topic but rather a starting point for some deeper discussion and inquiry. Inclusion of the ways faith i.e. religion is a core but often neglected/overlooked aspect of personal and public life can add to our comprehension. In the colonial era, especially, religious identity and political affiliation were practically one.
Working against a deadline. If it weren’t for the Dover400 anniversary opportunities, I’d still be researching. The big book remains to be written, if anyone wants to pursue it.
~*~
I am interested in other provocative questions, so fire away if you wish.
Jnana's Red Barn 