History Paper Prompt

759 WordsMay 5, 20134 Pages
Paper Prompt #1 Document No. 7 Two different types of liberty are recognized in John Winthrop’s speech to the Massachusetts general court, natural liberties and civil liberties. Winthrop also uses an analogy of women to explain his understanding of liberty. Winthrop considers natural liberties dangerous for many reasons, but he mainly argues nobody enforces natural liberty which makes them dangerous, while doing so he uses an analogy to the status of women to promote his idea and understanding of civil liberties. Our nature is corrupt according to Winthrop which is why our “natural” liberty is dangerous. Winthrop say’s “the exercise and maintaining of this liberty (natural) makes men grow more evil, and in time to be…show more content…
Winthrop’s argues women were given the right to choose their husbands under marital liberty, but she must obey and view him as a godly figure. He says “such is the liberty of the church under the authority of Christ, her king and her husband (VF 31)” which illustrate the authority of Christ being implemented into civil liberties while showing the women’s role within his understanding of “liberty,” to view her husband as a king. Winthrop uses an analogy to the status of women that shows they have little freedom, lack individuality, live under men and overall have a low status in society. Winthrop also used women as an example of how people should behave, not doing evil things, picking their husbands, having an admirable family’s and over all having a good life which is the opposite of what he originally stated making his statements an oxymoron. For example Winthrop’s said “she is to be subject to him, yet in a way of liberty, not bondage (VF 31)” he then follows that statement by saying she is “subject to her husband’s authority over her. (VF 31)” Winthrop clearly contradicts himself in his analogy, or it’s not clear what exactly he means. Although Winthrop believes natural liberty is dangerous, because human nature can’t be trusted without someone enforcing rules and the ordinance of god, he doesn’t state how life for woman would differ from natural liberties to
Open Document