Who were the evangelicals?: conservative and liberal identity in the Unitarian Controversy in Boston, 1804-1833
Journal of Social History, Fall, 1997 by Marie Kuplec Cayton
The elite involved in Unitarianism, then, were the people responsible for the developing structures and networks of mercantile and industrial capitalism, including foreign trade, banking, insurance, and real estate. They dominated civic and governmental institutions.(38) They were well-connected, well-educated, with many apparently rather lukewarm on the whole in their religious adherence, as the Congregationalists in fact charged. "[O]ur community is encumbered with rather an unusual proportion of . . . irregular adherents," Henry Ware, Jr., admitted in 1835. There was a segment in Unitarian congregations, he wrote,
- Most Popular Articles in Reference
- The importance of understanding organizational culture
- Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students
- What factors attract foreign direct investment?
- Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...
- How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques
- More »
who have attached themselves to us simply because we are not Orthodox; men who dislike Calvinism, but like nothing else; who think religion a good thing, that ought to be supported. . . . They will not forsake [religion], because to do so would put them out of good society; indeed, they are not without a vague traditional respect for it. They maintain a pew in church for the same reason that the worldly-minded merchant asks his minister to say grace when he has company to dine. It is decent, and is expected of him.(39)
This description is as close to one of a secular outlook among the respectable as we are likely to encounter in this commercializing and urbanizing milieu. "Almost every Unitarian clergyman," Frothingham adds to this picture, "had some pursuit outside of his profession."(40) Moreover, Unitarians appear to have been exclusive and insular in character despite their religious rhetoric of inclusiveness and toleration, limiting themselves to members of the appropriate social class. When the poor became a visible presence in Boston, the Unitarians built separate"chapels" for them, and instituted a paternalistic "ministry-to-the-poor" that attempted to maintain the ties of social obligation without integrating the poor into congregational life on anything like an equal basis. Not surprisingly, Unitarianism almost completely lacked adherents who were servants, laborers, or - at a later period of time - factory operatives.(41)
With Congregationalists, identifying the social correlates of orthodoxy requires a good bit more detective work. We know these things: 1) Between 1790 and 1810 - that is, before the split became substantial and institutionalized the combined Congregationalist/Unitarian group was highest in both socioeconomic status and in taxable income of any of the religious groups in Boston.(42) 2) After the split, Unitarians outnumbered Congregationalists among those with economic power chiefly as corporate directors, those with property assessed in the highest categories, those with moderate to high social status, and those with political power as public officials, at a ratio of about two to one.(43) 3) Conversion narratives required for entry into Boston's first separate orthodox church, Park Street, for most of the 181 Os show a large proportion of aspiring members to have migrated from the New England countryside to Boston, and many of them to have been young. A number of the conversion narratives late in the 1820s from Salem Street Church, a newly formed orthodox congregation, suggest roughly the same demographic profile. Often prospective members mention relatives or others they know who are already members of orthodox churches in the city, and with whom they may be living.(44)