I had been through the Mansion House years ago. This time I took my kids to see it’s grand architecture and give them first-hand history of this area. It was quite the lesson in architecture, religion, and history.
The Oneida Community, established in 1848 by Vermont-native John Humphrey Noyes, was a religious commune. It was a highly controversial commune for its time. In a nutshell, Noyes believed in complete communalism, to such extreme that the family unit (marriages and parent-child relationships) was broken down and “shared.” The group was banned from many Upstate cities– members were even run out of the city of Utica in a near-riot– for “corrupting public morals.”
I had become greatly interested in the history of the Oneida Community after discovering and reading A Yankee Saint: John Humphrey Noyes and the Oneida Community by Robert A. Parker, years ago. Still curious, I had read Pierrepont Noyes’ My Father’s House: an Oneida Boyhood. The two books presented two vastly different views of this so-called utopian society. The book on John Noyes, founder the Community and father of Pierrepont, cast a glowing light on the Oneida Community. Pierrepont’s book was quite the opposite. It was written from the viewpoint of the child, forcibly bereft of maternal love and raised as cattle in an experiment hailed by leaders around the world (and socialists like H.G. Wells and Arthur Conan Doyle).
Pierrepont’s is quite the book about the dark side of socialism, particularly hard for the more vulnerable members of the group (i.e., young women and children). Needless to say, when John Noyes died, the Community fell apart. The children of “stirpiculture” had no desire to continue the eugenic socialist experiment of their fathers.
Pierrepont, the “black sheep” of the community, grew up to rescue the family’s business and made it into the world-renowned Oneida flatware company that we know today. I understand that Pierrepont Noyes was a generous CEO, giving his employees fair pay for fair work (compared to the other misers of that era), offering no-interest loans for employees to buy houses, and hosting company picnics and outings. The area of Sherrill and Oneida are quite prosperous to this day. Streets are clean and houses are beautiful. There remains a sense of community and cleanliness in these small towns.
Although the Community was a bit nutty when it came to Biblical doctrine, there is something to be said for their Yankee ingenuity and work ethic. They built an entire culture upon these acres of former Indian land. I was especially awed by the grand style of architecture.
The house is Empire style, which was popular in the mid-1800’s. The French mansard roof sets it off nicely. The slate shingles, if you can see them in the picture below (or click the picture for a larger photo), are different colors and set in pleasing patterns. The detail of the work is most admirable. Apparently, the Community members did all the work themselves. John Noyes routinely sent out his young men to places like Italy, to learn the art of fresco and sculpting for example, and the young men would return to apply what they had learned at the Community.
A lovely courtyard is at the back of the complex. The cafeteria-like dining hall and kitchen are back here, separate from the living quarters.
Each member of the Community had his or her own small room, similar to a dormitory room like colleges have today. A large shared living room, dining room, and a two-story theatre-room (where they often held recitals and plays for their entertainment) are in the main complex. Pierrepont Noyes recalled in his book that as a child, he never noticed the uniqueness of a kitchen built separately from the living quarters of a house. (Although, this is common in the south and southwest of the country, where the problem of cold weather doesn’t affect it as much). It was only as an adult, when he began visiting with others in the town (the “Gentiles” as the Community called the townsfolk), that he entered a house and was bombarded with the stale smells of cooking from the kitchen off the parlor room. I don’t know why I so particularly remember this part of the book. Perhaps it is because I don’t like kitchen smells in any room besides the kitchen.
At any rate, the kids and I wandered the grounds around the house, and I continued to give them some brief history of the Community.
Here’s a door into the lower part of the house. I love doors like this (under a porch). It looks so adventurous and secretive!
Here’s the front door, the front hall, and a snapshot of the interior.
The Mansion House offers tours of the complex (I had been through once before so I didn’t do it this time). Visitors can see the Jesse Kinsley Braiding Room for free, though, so we went into that.
Jesse Kinsley was raised in the Community. She was a gifted craftswoman, and created beautiful rugs, wall coverings, and linens. Some of these creations and some of her furniture is on display.
The Mansion House is now a high-end apartment building. It is nice to see that the place is being kept up and still has the lovely herb garden in the front yard.
If you’d like to learn more, check out AroundCNY. They have some good information.
Jordanville, NY, is in the middle of nowhere. Really. I think it is nothing more than a four-corner settlement with a library. But it does have two interesting landmarks that dot the rolling hillsides: a castle and a monastery. We went to see the monastery in the early spring of 2006.
This area of the Mohawk Valley is home to a large number of Russian immigrants, most of whom emigrated to America during times of religious persecution under Joseph Stalin (hiss, hiss). My stepfather was Russian Jewish, so I have a natural interest in Russian history. (My step-dad also said Russian monks made the best wines, and I think he was in part of some kind of Russian wine of the month club, lol).
The monastery was founded in 1928. You can read more of its history and view some gorgeous aerial pictures here.
We had hoped to be able to enter the church and look inside. But a sign at the gate forbad women wearing pants to enter. Nuts. We drove around the front and snapped a few pictures. I got a shot of a beautiful mosaic over the doors. The halos above the apostles’ heads are made of gold mosaic tile. Click the photo to see a larger one with more detail.
More colorful mosaics were to be found beyond this exquisite gate. I was not bold enough to enter through the gate, but I took this picture.
I also took a quick snapshot of the glorious golden onion dome, so typical of the orthodox style.
It was a nice visit, even though we did not get to go in the buildings. The kids and I are currently studying ancient world cultures and Church History. We have just finished reading about the fall of the Roman Empire and the invasion of the Northern tribes, and started learning about the formation of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. It is good to see their artwork and religious style first-hand, rather than relying only on pictures in books.
We drove further down the road and came to the monastery’s cemetery. I took a few pictures. The cemetery chapel reminded me of Taj Mahal.
On our way back to the main thoroughfare (i.e., Jordanville Rd.) we spotted a swath of signs denouncing the Iraq War. All along his property, a farmer had large signs such as the one below, protesting the war as a “blood for oil” contest.
Not all appreciated the farmer’s signs, and defaced the property with spray paint.
Who knew tiny Jordanville was a hotbed of seething political passions? Then again, this is America.
I get daily quotes delivered to my email inbox every day. Today’s quote made me smile. It was from Fisher Ames, one of my favorite Founders. Fisher Ames was responsible for drafting the final text of the First Amendment. I love him. Today’s quote says:
“The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be, liberty.”
– Fisher Ames (speech in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 15 January 1788)
I was surfing around last night, and found an excellent Ravi Zacharias video. In my opinion, he is the premier intellectual of our day. His skills in logic and, to put it plainly, getting to the point of an issue are unsurpassed by anyone I have encountered.
Here’s a magnificent video clip of an argument he presents.
Hat tip: The Well-Drained Mind. This video and the thought behind it uncannily coincides with a blog post I read and with which have been participating: Pushing the Political Easy Button. Unfortunately but not surprisingly, the biggest dissent is over the definition of words. You’ll have to visit the post for a full and better idea of what is going on– I dare not try a synopsis here for fear of making the issue long in tooth. But it’s a good post.Today, young people (and, granted, older people as well, although this is found less frequently) desire to define themselves. They often take long-established terms and redefine them according to their own experiences and insights. I believe this is unfavorable. It makes the topic of discussion too slippery and leaves one with more universal skepticism than a solid conviction of truth to be discovered. I’ll take the leisure of posting just a small bit from the blog post to which I referred:
Anarchy is not just a desire to eliminate the State: it is a moral commitment to voluntary interactions and non-violent principles. The Anarchist is a person committed to helping his fellow man, not hurting him through either political means or more mundane criminal means…
The reason we lack freedom is the government, plain and simple. But in order to move towards a free society we need to do so much more than remove government. We need to reeducate as many people as possible into understanding that government is the one thing standing in the way of freedom. As long as the general populace continues to see government as the solution instead of the problem we will continue to be slaves.
That’s what all of my posts on anarchy are about: educating as many as possible. Showing them the truth that government is standing in the way of their freedom and is incapable of doing anything but constricting it.
I found much error in this. My response:
I don’t understand how one could eliminate government. Where there are two people, there’s government. Government is the system whereby it enacts and enforces rules so a group can interact with each other, essentially… I’m sorry, I don’t think this constitutes anarchy. Anarchy is defined as a state of society without government or law. “Helping fellow man” is something completely different. If one’s political purpose is to “help fellow man” that immediately constitutes a form of government– a rule of law whereby one helps another– and cannot be defined as anarchy.
The reply, in brief:
Your assumptions are faulty, Mrs. Mecomber, although widely accepted as fact. There can (and often are) two (or more) people coexisting without government. To claim otherwise is to deny the evidence all around us. Children play with each other sans rules constantly. Couples do not always have an authority figure.
While you are correct that government enacts and enforces rules, your assumption that such a body is necessary remains unproven. There have been countless societies throughout history that existed and prospered without a central authority figure.
And my response, again, edited for brevity:
no, I don’t think my logic is faulty. Children playing with each other DO have rules. The rule is to 1) play with each other, 2) play peacefully. If one child is hitting the other, haven’t the rules been broken? Or perhaps the rules are to hit each other.. then, playing peacefully rule is broken. One does not need an authority figure to have a government– self-rule is a rule.
I think perhaps you are confusing a central authority figure as a form of government? This does not matter. The authority of the law constitutes authority (i.e., a form of governing) just as much as a figure, or figurehead.
You are denying the existence of something that you need to be existing in order to deny it. See?
In case you haven’t noticed, I am talking about government as one of the laws of nature (see Locke’s writings). I am talking about the essence of government, based upon the necessity of law itself, which is inherent of nature and of life.
Therefore, it seems the big hang-up is over what is “anarchy” and what is “government.” Anarchy is defined as rejecting a state or form of government, yet anarchy is a form of government– it is a form of government that rejects forms of government. If you took the time to watch the video clip in this post, Ravi Zacharias makes the same point about atheism:
“If you’re an atheist, what are you denying?”
You cannot deny nothing that is there. How can you make a moral judgment in an amoral universe? It’s like C.S. Lewis said: “Atheism makes no sense. If the universe has no meaning, we never should have found out that it has no meaning.”
Update: The comments on the post just kept flowing. I made my final point and could not make it any clearer:
I’m sorry, but self-rule is a form of government. Self-rule is not an amorphous karmic philosophy that will naturally occur as soon as mean old men get out of the way.
“Philathropism” is a philosophic gesture, which perhaps defines your point much more than the “rejection” of government. There have to be “checks and balances” that protect self-rule, because of the corruption of human nature. Therefore, self-rule must be enforceable, even if everyone desires self-rule, because humans will at some point deny someone else’s own self-rule to gain something for his own self. To deny this is truly delusional, as history and experience provides.
An intervening commenter named Francois (about whom the post was written, actually) interjected with this mind-whirling post:
Government is not an evolution. It is a devolution. It is a corruption of morality in the name of dominance and hierarchy. Once we take down government, humans will once again live in relative peace, instead of the state of war we live in today.
Holy cow! This betrayed all intent. A kum-bay-yah lovefest of holding hands in perfect harmony is not the whole picture here. Flabbergasted, all I could say was:
Wow, reminds me of Citizen Genet.
Francois, you said: “Once we take down government…” what if OUR self-rule says we do NOT want government taken down? See what I mean! You become our tyrants, and what’s worse, you think you impose your tyranny on us for our own good! Hypocrite!
What illogical, ridiculous, nonsensical blather!
It’s been an interesting and turgid discussion. The anarchists didn’t seem to agree, but then again– these are anarchists! They are going to reject anything that is said to them anyway! lol.
You are currently browsing the New York Traveler.net weblog archives for the philosophy category.
