“The Rights of the One” vs. “The Good of the Many”
One of the more common topics addressed within a the subset of documents is the rights of the one versus the good of the many, or individuality versus society, community, or the state. Various primary source documents have been explored throughout this course, including Miss Ann Martin’s Woman Suffrage, John Winthrop’s A Model of Christian Charity, George Mason’s The Virginia Declaration of Rights, and Anne Hutchinson’s Trial and Interrogation of Anne Hutchinson. Each of the aforementioned primary sources works to address the question of the rights of the one versus the good of the many in different contexts using a range of approaches. The purpose of this paper is to identify how each writer explores this dichotomy and the underlying purpose behind their exploration.
Miss Ann Martin’s Woman Suffrage provides her with the opportunity and the platform to discuss women’s enfranchisement at the national level, with a specific focus on women’s suffrage in Nevada, the state in which she was residing at the time the document was written. Martin argued that it was time that Nevada focused its attention on enfranchising women given that, at the time of writing, Nevada was the only state in the West that had not yet passed such legislation. After documenting all of the reasons why Nevada should grant women’s suffrage, Martin ended her text with a call for Nevada to make the targeted change. In the context of this primary document, the good of the many refers to the states in which suffrage was already accepted, while the right of the individual refers to Nevada’s unwillingness to make the desired change. In this context, Martin suggested that Nevada was behind the times, making the argument that Nevada was not as progressive as its neighboring states and suggesting that such a change would be both in keeping with the approach to suffrage at the national level and a drive toward equality present at the national level. Martin carefully selected her words to ensure that her persuasive argument highlighted the benefits of the approach to suffrage and concluded with a call to action that suggested that failure to do so would cause Nevada to be left behind. Thus, while Nevada, the one in this context, has a governmental structure operating under the belief that the women’s right to vote was unnecessary, the many highlights the good that such efforts have done for the other states and for the populations of those states, making the argument that the rights of the one are not in alignment with the good of the many. It is for these reasons that Martin calls on Nevada to change, “Let Nevada stand shoulder to shoulder with her progressive and enlightened neighbors on the broad ground of equal suffrage, of political equality and morality, of justice to women for the good of the human race!” (Martin).
John Winthrop’s A Model of Christian Charity addresses the rights of the one versus the good of the many differently and on a different topic. Whereas Martin was focused on achieving women’s suffrage in Nevada, Winthrop’s primary document highlights the need to focus on addressing the needs of the many instead of adopting a more selfish approach. Winthrop does not make the argument that the individual should suffer in favor of achieving the needs of the many; rather, he argues that there is a need for all of the population to focus on addressing the needs of the least of the population, “all men being thus (by divine providence) ranked into two sorts, riche and poore; under the first are comprehended all such as are able to live comfortably by their own meanes duely improved; and all others are poore according to the former distribution” (Winthrop). With this in mind, Winthrop states that there are two rules that should be followed societally, “Justice and Mercy” (Winthrop). In other words, once the need of the individual has been met, any additional resources that the individual holds should then be utilized to help others, rather than drawing oneself up to greater heights. In this manner, the good of the many is addressed over the rights of the one, with the one referring to those who are unwilling to share their own resources and the many referring to those who do not have sufficient resources available at their disposal.
George Mason’s The Virginia Declaration of Rights also addresses the rights of the one versus the good of the many. As with the other two primary documents, Mason’s document, while addressing the same topic, does so in yet another manner. In this case, the primary document was created at the Virginia Convention, designed to “declare the United Colonies free and independent states” (Mason). In so doing, the document outlines the idea that all colonists will need to direct their actions in such a way that those actions are focused on the good of all, as opposed to the rights of one or two individuals. In order to do this, Mason spelled out the different rights that should be granted to the colonists, highlighting the need to ensure that the population of this new country would have its needs met, in direct opposition to their previous roles as individuals under the Crown and the lack of those needs being met. Within this primary document, Mason highlights the need to focus on what is good for the totality of the population of the Colonies, as opposed to the needs of the individual, referring, in this case, to the monarchy in England.
The final primary document to be addressed is Anne Hutchinson’s Trial and Interrogation of Anne Hutchinson. In the case of this document, Hutchinson is being interrogated for having “challenged male authority – and, indirectly, acceptable gender roles – by preaching to both women and men and by questioning Puritan teachings about salvation” (Hutchinson). This primary document stands apart from the others, for while it still addresses the rights of one versus the good of the many, in this context, Hutchinson is being persecuted for acting outside of normative roles. Winthrop argued that Hutchinson’s preaching was unnatural and against the rules of the colony. Hutchinson countered Winthrop at each turn, denying that preaching to others was against the law and denying that her actions went against the practices of organized religion. Hutchinson put forth the argument that the one, in this case, was a certain faction of the community who disapproved of her willingness to step outside normative bounds, while the many were those who benefitted from her preaching, a skill she learned at the hands of Cotton Mather. Hutchinson, as a result of her trial, was excommunicated from the church and banished from the colony due to her unwillingness to change to fit into the mold that society would place her in. In so doing, Hutchinson became the one and the colony became the many, with the “excommunication” and “banishment” occurring as a result of a power play, namely, the need to ensure that others would not follow in Hutchinson’s footprints allowing the balance of power to remain with its current wielders (Hutchinson). Hutchinson’s rights were no match for that puritanical structure, causing her to be cast aside.
