The Fundamental Orders of 1638-1639, established by the Connecticut Colony, represented one of the first written constitutions that created a government framework in the English colonies. Here are some key differences between the government outlined in the Fundamental Orders of the Connecticut FOC and the government in Massachusetts:
-
Constitutional Basis:
- Connecticut: The Fundamental Orders were explicitly a written constitution, which outlined the structure and powers of the government. It established a representative government and codified the rights of the citizens.
- Massachusetts: The government was based on the Massachusetts Bay Colony Charter of 1629, which was more loosely defined and granted broad powers to the General Court, which was made up of the freemen of the colony.
-
Voting Rights:
- Connecticut: The Fundamental Orders allowed for a broader base of voting rights, enabling all men who were part of the Puritan church and met property requirements to vote, which was more inclusive compared to Massachusetts' stringent qualifications.
- Massachusetts: Voting was limited primarily to church members, which created a more exclusive political environment. Only male church members who were considered "freemen" could participate in the election of leaders.
-
Structure of Government:
- Connecticut: The Fundamental Orders established a more democratic structure that included a governor and a General Assembly elected by the people. This Assembly had the power to make laws and manage the colony's affairs.
- Massachusetts: The government consisted of a Governor, a Council, and the General Court; however, the Council often held significant power, and the structure leaned more toward oligarchic governance within a theocratic framework.
-
Religious Influence:
- Connecticut: While the colony was founded by Puritans, the Fundamental Orders did not tie government power to religious authority to the same extent as Massachusetts.
- Massachusetts: The Massachusetts government was heavily influenced by Puritan religious principles, and the church held considerable power in the shaping of civil laws and governance.
-
Civil vs. Ecclesiastical Authority:
- Connecticut: The Fundamental Orders drew a clearer line between civil government and ecclesiastical authority, reflecting an early attempt at separating church and state.
- Massachusetts: The government often conflated civil and religious authority, with church leaders playing significant roles in political matters.
Overall, the Connecticut Fundamental Orders represented a more structured and inclusive model of governance compared to the more theocratic and oligarchic nature of the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s government.