I have always felt that the “congregational” form of religion brought with it many principles that were foundational to our American notion of individual freedom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregational_polity
There is the basic concept of “covenant” - voluntary association and consent of the governed; a written constitution; individual responsibility; representative democracy; independence of local government within a union of like governments (confederation.)
This has always been in conflict with the model of the corporate structure that financed the new colonies. The joint-stock company or commercial corporation was licensed by the Crown, where investors pooled their money to share both risks and profits in a common enterprise. Several large trading companies secured charters from the Crown granting commercial favors in foreign trade, prescribing their form of organization and enabling them to raise money by selling stock. Among these were the Muscovy Company (Russia and central Asia,) the Eastland Company (Baltic,) the Levant Company (Mediterranean,) and the East India Company.
The form of organization prescribed for these companies usually vested control in a 6-20 member council, of which the original or “charter” officers were named. Sometimes the charter also provided for a governor as the head of the company, chosen by the council. Membership in the company, itself, was secured through stock ownership. The smaller stockholders had little to say about general policy, but they met periodically in a general court to elect members to vacancies in the council or occasionally to express their opinion on some major issue of policy.
The American colonies had their government imposed upon them by England following the joint stock company model. It has always been in tension with the congregational form, which is the organic form emanating from the people themselves. The form as continued in the US remains in tension with the spirit.
Good analysis