Home / Massachusetts / In 1685 Massachusetts Legalized Christmas to Samuel Sewall’s Dismay

In 1685 Massachusetts Legalized Christmas to Samuel Sewall’s Dismay

In 1685, a tolerant wind blew briefly through England with the ascension of James II to the throne. He ordered greater freedom for followers of Roman Catholicism and other faiths. In his colonies, his new toleration played out in mandatory reforms of discriminatory laws – much to Samuel Sewall’s chagrin.

Sewall was a judge, businessman and printer who left voluminous diaries that document his undying dislike of the Christmas celebration. In Puritan times, the celebration was viewed as obnoxious and sacrilegious.

Samuel Sewall

Samuel Sewall

Massachusetts came into compliance with the king’s wishes for liberal reform by annulling two laws on the books. The first had called for the death penalty for any Quakers who returned to the colony after being banished. The second had outlawed the ‘keeping of Christmas.’

Further rubbing salt in the wound, Samuel Sewall was ordered to oversee printing of the new laws. In his diary, Sewall happily noted that Christmas in 1685 was less popular than ever despite the new laws.

Dec. 25. Friday. Carts come to Town and Shops open as is usual. Some somehow observe the day; but are vexed I believe that the Body of the People profane it, and blessed be God no Authority yet to compel them to keep it. A great Snow fell last night so this day and night very cold.

Several days later he notes a cousin confirmed his own assessment: [there] was less Christmas-keeping than last year, fewer Shops Shut up.

In 1697, Sewall was continuing his anti-Christmas crusade, noting on Dec. 25 of that year: Snowy day: Shops are open, and Carts and sleds come to Town with Wood and Fagots as formerly, save what abatement may be allowed on account of the weather. This morning we read in course the 14, 15, and 16 Psalms . . . I took occasion to dehort mine from Christmas-keeping, and charged them to forbear.

Sewall’s stance did cost him politically. In 1698, Sewall noted that the lieutenant governor invited most of the legislature to his home for dinner on Christmas, but he “knew nothing of it,” uninvited most likely because of his distaste for the celebration.

In 1722, Sewall hinted that he might soften his position. Sewall was not above changing his positions. He had years earlier apologized for his role in the Salem witch trials, accepting both “blame and shame” for serving as one of the judges at the trials. But on Christmas, he held fast. His diary tells of his tug-of-war with the governor and other members of the General Court over whether the body should adjourn for a Christmas holiday:

Dec. 19. His Excellency took me aside to the Southeast Window of the Council Chamber, to speak to me about adjourning the General Court to Monday next because of Christmas. I told his Excellency I would consider of it.

Dec. 20. I invited Dr. Mather to Dine with me, not knowing that he preached. After Diner I consulted with him about the Adjournment of the Court. We agreed, that it would be expedient to take a vote of the Council and Representatives for it.

Friday, Dec 21. The Governor took me to the window again looking eastward, next Mrs. Phillips's, and spoke to me again about adjourning the Court to next Wednesday. I spoke against it; and propounded that the Governor would take a Vote for it; that he would hold the Balance even between the Church and us. His Excellency went to the Board again, and said much for this adjourning; All kept Christmas but we; I suggested King James I to Mr. Dudley, how he boasted what a pure church he had; and they did not keep Yule nor Pasch.

Mr. Dudley asked if the Scots kept Christmas. His Excellency protested, he believed they did not. Governor said they adjourned for the Commencement and Artillery. But then it is by agreement. Col. Taylor spoke so loud and boisterously for adjourning that it was hard for any to put in a word; Col. Townsend seconded me, and Col. Partridge; because this would prolong the Sessions.

Mr. Davenport stood up and gave it as his opinion that it would not be convenient for the Governor to be present in Court that day; and therefore was for adjourning. But the Governor is often absent; and yet the Council and Representatives go on. Now the Governor has told us, that he would go away for a week; and then returned and if he liked what we had done, He would Consent to it. The Governor mentioned how it would appear to have votes passed on December 25. But his Excellency need not have been present nor signed any bill that day. I said the dissenters came a great way for their Liberties and now the church had theirs, yet they could not be contented, except they might tread all others down.

Governor said he was of the Church of England. I told Mr. Belcher of his Letter to me. He answered, He thought he had been a Dissenter then. Governor hinted that he must be free on Monday because of the Communion the next day.

Saturday Dec. 22. About a quarter of an hour before 12 the Governor adjourned the Court to Wednesday morning at 10 o’clock and sent Mr. Secretary into the House of Deputies to do it there.

Sewall had lost the battle over the General Court, but he happily noted in his diary on the 25th that Christmas was not kept by all:

Tuesday, Dec. 25 …. The Shops were open, and carts came to town with wood, hoop-poles, hay, etc. as at other Times. Being a pleasant day, the street was filled with carts and horses.

5 comments

  1. Mike MacDonnell

    Always like to see my ancestors mentioned in some your articles. Dudley and Mather, this time!

  2. Eugene Rossi

    The earliest people who thought Christmas should be banned were conservative Christians? #Mindblown

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*