Some historians maintained that not only about one fourth or one fifth of the adult males could vote. One historian described early Massachusetts was governed by an “oligarchy” based on religious qualifications and that the franchise was narrow but, unlike Adams, Morison insited that a high percentage of the adult men were qualified voters during the early years- 58 of 69 householders in Roxbury (1638-1640), for example, and 54 of 57 male church memebrers in the same town in1652. Charles M. Andrews found the Bay Colony undemocrativc, especially in the early days, but believed that after 1647 all men had xome share in local or general government. Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker was a Puritan oligarchy where most men had the vote in the early years but onlya minority were enfranchised by the end of the century (Brown 214).
The Puritan Dilemna described Massachusets in 1630 as a “despotism” in which the freemen were allowed “ to elect thei desposts every year”, although he noted that at this date the freemen included “most, if not all, of the adukt males, excludig servants”. George Lee Haskins maintaned in 1960 that the 1631 law, which required every voter or freeman to be a member of a Puritan church, imposed a drastic limitation on the franchise, putting the government on a narrow religious basis. But Massachusetts was not a theocracy, Haskins claimed, for church and stete were separte and the clergy did not have a fromal or final voice in civilk affairs. The town were “oligarchies” similar to those in England, he believed, and eventualy an “ecclesiastical oligarchy” developed comparable to the English “oligarghy of magistrtates.”(Brown 215)
In 1963 Summer hilton Powell published his study of Sudbury which revealed wide participation in that town’s government. He discovered that only 40 percent of the founders of the town were freemen , but that once a man was accepted as a “townsmen” he could dissent and be heard (Brown 216). Brown founded that 75 percent of the adult men in the period 1652- 1670 were church members who could have voted had they so desired, but that only 50 to 65 percetrn of thembothered to become freemen a requiremnt for voting on the province level.there was remarkable uniformity in religion in he town and overwhelming support on the part of both freemen and nonfreemen for the overwhelminmg support on the part of both freemen and nonfreemn for the colony’s governmentin 1664 when the governmnet was challenged by Britain. Cambridge was extremely selevtive in admitting new settlers, but once inside, the inhabitants enjoyed much democracy.(Brown 217)
rutman published his study of Boston in the time of John Winthrop in which he pointed out that, regerdless of the law and despite the fact that by 1649 fewer than half of the adult males were full church members, the town meeting gave “every indication of beingan open body.” allthough he attmpted to distinguish the gentry from the generality, class divisions, he believed, were not strong and economic mobility was marked. (Brown 217)
Morgan in an introduction to a book of readings on Puritan political ideas, hesitantly accepted that the view of limited suffrage in the Bay Colony. Late in 1965 robert Wall challenged Brown’s idea that political power was widely distributed and conluded that the colony was governed by a political elite that drew its members from one class. (Brown 217)
simmons concludd that the freemen may have numberefd about 67b percent off the adult males in 1640 but declinecx to 40 percent by 1686. Since political rights were based on religioius affilation , Simmons held that Massachustts was not a democartic socitey, and he suggested that the important consideration was not the quantity but the quality and power of the freemen. He expresed the hope that his study had “exhaustively and hopefully fully asssed the issue of the extent of the provincila franchise and that “ it should not be necessary to debate it further. Simmons very briefly noted that the religious restrictions had never been widely observed and that by the last decade of the century all adult males wirth crtaimn property holdings could vote in local affairs.(Brown 218)
in 1966 stephen Foster hld that ht e political structure of the Puritan period was dominated by John Winthrop’s philosophy that the people should elect thei officilas, but that once elected those officials should take thei orders from God. Analysis of church and town records, tax lists, and other documents showed that in the early years most men in Dedham were church members and freemen but that the law restricting the vote to church members does not seem to have been rigidly enforced. As late as 1666, at least 75 percent of the adult males were freeman and thus could vote in provincial elections, and almost every adult male could vote for local officilas. Ther seems to have been no great gap between rich and poor; there was easy economic mobility; and the choice of officials showed a pattern common today; a few men were elected year after year, but the majority served only a few terms. Although Dedham selectmenwere generally in the upper half of the economic scale, there was no important correlation betwwen being chosen selectman ad great wealth. Like Cambridge, Dedham had a high degree of political and economic democracy and much religious unity.(Brown 220)
in 1967 Simmons published two articles amplifying the idea that it was not the quantity and power of freemanship that mattered. He stressed again that the purpose of the franchise legislation was to keep political control in the hands of the godly, not to enlarge the franchise. It appears doubtful that bi counting only those who paid ten shilings on any country rate historians can determine how many could vote, for the assessmnet ratios varied considerably. The most convincing evidence that he number of voters did not decertase as a result of the 1670 law is to be found in the town records which show how the law was put into practice. In 1680 the general town meeting in Watertown ordered that “all hose houlders” were to have the vote in town affairs. In Ipswich a 1679 list oif those allowed to vote in town affairs, when compared with a commoners list of 1678, revelas that at least 77.6 percnet of the adult males of Ipswich had the franchise. The evidence presented does not permit us to describe Massachustes as an oligarchy or an aristrocracy. Not only was the franchise extensive, but all political officials were subject to annual elections and no man had a hereditary right to oofice. (Brown 241)
