A Correction

One of our commenters [a PhD himself] challenged the credentials of Lorianne Updike Toler, who recently did some original document research on the Founder James Wilson:

I noticed two other things that make me doubt her credentials. One--and I know some will find this objectionable--she was home-schooled. I have dealt with home-schooled students, and while they don't differ from other students in intelligence, in my experience they tend to emphasize a dubious "creativity" over analytical ability. That's a rather natural consequence of being taught by people who aren't themselves experts in all the fields you're studying. Second, the article suggests she has only a B.A., although it's not clear. I would think that if she had a graduate degree they would say so (but I'm open to correction, as that is a factual matter). So I'm left wondering whether she has the proper training to make real sense of this find.

Our commenter stands open to correction, so here it is:


Lorianne Updike Toler replied to American Creation:

Wanted to share a few of the missing facts in the Deseret News article:

* I was homeschooled for two years during junior high. I attended Timpview High School for all four years of high school (9th-12th grade).
* I graduated with my BA in 2000, my JD in 2005, and will graduate with my MSt from Oxford this year, and my doctorate from Oxford in 2012.
* I was misquoted on Jefferson. The Deseret News has apologized individually to me, and I have asked them to officially print an errata. The quote should have been "I believe this draft may indicate that James Wilson is to the Constitution what Thomas Jefferson is to the Declaration of Independence." Understandable error: it's hard to type as fast as I talk.

Feel free to email with any other factual questions, lorianne.updike.toler@consource.org, or review the Q&A at www.consource.org.

Ms. Toler's conclusions might be in question, but her credentials and research should not be put under a cloud. She is a postgradute at Oxford [that's in England], and examined the original James Wilson documents.

American Creation is happy to help put her record straight, surely to our PhD commenter's relief, and ours.

Two Cheers For a Wallbuilders' Brief...Well, Maybe One, One and a Half

Hey it's better than no cheers.

Some group called the National Legal Foundation filed an Amicus Curiae brief on behalf of David Barton's Wallbuilders in the case of PATRICK M. McCOLLUM v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION.

Note, David Barton did not write the brief. Rather an attorney named Steven W. Fitschen did.

Read the brief and/or google the case for the more specific facts of the case in controversy. I deal with the larger issue that is in dispute.

And that is what the term "religion," as understood by the Founders, in the Constitution's "religion" clauses, means. In particular whether "religion" was meant to extend beyond monotheism.

First, why the brief gets less than my full support: It argues that non-monotheistic religions were originally intended less than full "religious" rights under the Constitution. I disagree and the text of the Constitution supports my reading (but may support theirs too).

Interestingly, I've heard some atheist advocates agree with a core tenet of Wallbuilders' argument. That is, the brief argues atheism is not a "religion" as America's Founders understood it, and consequently, not entitled to the constitutional protection that monotheism receives. Some atheists argue (albeit in a different context) indeed, atheism is NOT a religion, just as not collecting stamps is NOT a hobby.

But the bottom line of the dispute: How the term "religion" -- as it appears in the First Amendment and Art. VI. Cl. 3 of the US Constitution [where the term "religious" is used] -- defines.

The bottom line as I have concluded: "Religion" didn't have a univocal meaning. This illustrates problems with certain forms of "originalism." Parts of the text of the US Constitution use notoriously vague language. And certain forms of originalism argue "the text either means X -- intent or expected application, etc. -- or it means anything." What they don't note is that X can mean X1, X2, X3, and so on, all with results that vary or contradict one another.

But, that doesn't mean X can mean anything. Take for instance, the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms, in a literal, originalist, textual sense, could mean an individual right to any arms the US government possess, i.e., even private nuclear missiles, if a very rich citizen manages to get them. Indeed, a chief concern of the framers and ratifiers of the Second Amendment was citizens have access to the same weapons the government does so they could potentially "check" an emerging tyranny.

Or, the text of the Second Amendment, in a literal, originalist sense, supports narrower readings that contradict the extreme results outlined above. That is, such holdings may still be within X territory. Yet, the notion that the Second Amendment means a right to, for instance, ride a bicycle is in Y territory, not supported by the original meaning of the text of the Second Amendment. (For that, perhaps the 9th Amendment or Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th vindicates said right.)

With religion, the text of the religion clauses supports a universalist reading that all religions or lack thereof are covered. "Religion" means "religion." Atheism, witchcraft, polytheism are "religions" and consequently covered.

Did the Founders believe that? Well some did and some didn't. And some offer evidence at different times and places that could support different results.

In support of the notion that "religion" meant at least "monotheism," the brief cites James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance because such has been "so often cited in the cases and literature." There Madison writes, “religion [is] the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it . . . .”

Hmmm. "Religion" sounds monotheistic there. It also does in Thomas Jefferson's 1786 Virginia Statute on Religious Liberty, that Madison helped pass, which begins with the assertion that "Almighty God hath created the mind free." Yet, Jefferson claimed:

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.

In short, religious rights apply universally.

Madison too likewise supported Jefferson's understanding when he wrote in his Detached Memoranda:

The opponents of the amendment having turned the feeling as well as judgment of the House agst it, by successfully contending that the better proof of reverence for that holy name wd be not to profane it by making it a topic of legisl. discussion, & particularly by making his religion the means of abridging the natural and equal rights of all men, in defiance of his own declaration that his Kingdom was not of this world.

So why give this Wallbuilders' brief ANY credibility? In arguing that "religion" means at least monotheism it recognizes a degree of religious diversity that one doesn't expect from Christian Nationalist sources. For instance, on page 9, "research shows that 'religion' was sometimes used as a synonym for Christianity, but that it was also used for monotheism."

The brief, on page 10, also favorable cites Justice Scalia's dissent in McCreary County:

The Court thinks it 'surpris[ing]' and 'truly remarkable' to believe that 'the deity the Framers had in mind' . . . 'was the God of monotheism.' This reaction would be more comprehensible if the Court could suggest what other God (in the singular, and with a capital G) there is, other than 'the God of monotheism.' This is not necessarily the Christian God . . . but it is inescapably the God of monotheism.”

The brief also has an interesting discussion on universalism that one doesn't expect Christian Nationalists to address, even favorably citing a Unitarian Universalist website:

This leads to the question of whether a belief in eternal rewards and punishments was an essential part of the Framers‟ definition of religion....The fact that a belief in eternal rewards and punishments was necessary for full participation in the body politic might lead one to conclude that such religions were a subset of a larger group of monotheistic religions.

... Various state constitutions guaranteed freedom for religion exercise but prohibited office holding for all but Protestant Christians. Id. Yet clearly, Catholics and Jews, who were targeted by such restrictions, fit within the rest of the definition of “religion.” Similarly, those who do not fear a possible future state of punishment might still fit the rest of the definition of religion. Such a group existed in early national America, namely the Universalists. In fact, this was one of the main points of opposition to the Universalists: “the Universalists by removing the fear of hell were supposed to reduce seriously the supports of morality.” XII New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge at 96. Yet it is hard to imagine that the Framers would not have considered Universalism (as the term was used at that time) to be a religion, given the involvement of Universalists and men with universalist sympathies who helped organize the new nation. See, e.g., “John Adams,” http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/johnadams.html (last visited January 27, 2010) (article on the Unitarian Universalist Association‟s website discussing Adams‟ religious views, as well as those of various contemporaries. Articles for other Founders can be located on this site as well).

[pp. 12-14.]

Finally the brief recognizes Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance protects more than mere Christianity:

... In the Memorial and Remonstrance, more definitional evidence to be gleaned. Madison asked the rhetorical question: “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?” From this use of the word “religions” we can clearly see that sometimes the word encompassed more than Christianity. Similarly in article twelve of the Memorial, Madison speaks of those who are “under the dominion of false Religions.”

Thus, it seems best to limit the definition of religion to monotheism.

More difficult issues that the brief doesn't address are found in the record. Many Founders -- even of the orthodox Christians -- believed in the idea of "natural religion" which holds all good men of all religions worshipped a Providence discovered by reason. As it were, when confronted with polytheistic religions some, like John Adams, squinted to "find" monotheism there. For instance, when Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson, 4 October, 1813:

θεμις was the goddess of honesty, justice, decency, and right; the wife of Jove, another name for Juno. She presided over all oracles, deliberations, and councils. She commanded all mortals to pray to Jupiter for all lawful benefits and blessings. Now, is not this (so far forth) the essence of Christian devotion? Is not this Christian piety? Is it not an acknowledgment of the existence of a Supreme Being, of his universal Providence, of a righteous administration of the government of the universe? And what can Jews, Christians, or Mahometans do more?

Even in his public writings, for instance his 1787 Defense of Constitutions of the United States Adams invokes pagan Greco-Romans like Zaleucus, who supposedly got his laws from Athena, as "plac[ing] religion, morals, and government, upon a basis of philosophy, which is rational, intelligible, and eternal, for the real happiness of man in society, and throughout his duration."

New James Wilson Find

At American Creation, my co-blogger Brad Hart writes about the James Wilson "find" that made front page news.

I was struck, when I first read the story, whether anything "new" was really discovered. As I understand the story: The document -- a supposed first draft of the Constitution -- was already known by scholars, but buried in Wilson's archives because folks didn't quite understand its significance.

Renowned James Wilson scholar Mark David Hall chimed in at American Creation's comments section on the document's significance or lack thereof and he pointed to the Historical Society of Pennsylvania's website posting on the matter. Other distinguished experts chimed in and gave their opinions in the comments section there.

Did James Wilson Pen the Constitution?

And if so, What are
the Implications?

A historic moment in the study of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers may be taking place right under our noses. Lorianne Updike Toler, a recent graduate of Brigham Young University, has thrown the historical community a curveball that apparently nobody is sure how to read. While conducting research at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Mrs. Toler made a discovery that if proved accurate, could throw a wrench into the workings of early American historiography. Buried deep in the archives, Toler found what she believes is an original draft of the Constitution that was written by none other than James Wilson. From the Mormon Times:

"This makes James Wilson very much equal to Thomas Jefferson as a drafter of the Constitution," she said. "It means to truly understand the Constitution, we need to study James Wilson a whole lot more."

[...]

Toler said she was puzzled when she noticed, while examining what scholars consider to be the first draft of the Constitution, that there were three upside down paragraphs on the back of the document. The hurriedly composed paragraphs, beginning with the familiar words "We The People," were written in Wilson's hand.

Later, as Toler was digging through a box of legal papers at the historical society, she stumbled upon a document that appeared to pick up where Wilson's scribbled notes left off.

Toler was overwhelmed.

"To find something that is so important to the development of our country -- it was almost a sacred moment for me," Toler said, of finding the draft in November. "The founding documents, to me, are American scripture, and I had found one of the first chapters."

Toler first fell in love with the Founding Fathers as a home-schooled teenager. Her mother was an active lobbyist at the Utah Legislature, so Toler learned about democracy while doing her homework in the Senate gallery. As a law student at BYU, she founded the Constitutional Sources Project, a nonprofit devoted to making primary historical papers available online.

Only about 25 percent of the 21 million artifacts at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania are cataloged. According to Historical Society records,the society's records, the page Toler believes is a third draft of the Constitution has been filed away in a box marked simply "James Wilson: Volume Two" since at least 1970. Toler suspects the document has been in that box since it was first transcribed by Yale scholar Max Farrand in 1911.

"It was just sitting there, forgotten," Toler said.

According to Farrand's writings, in 1911, he connected the three-paragraph introduction on the back of Wilson's first draft to a document titled "The Continuation of the Scheme," Toler said. The paper Toler found is also called "The Continuation of the Scheme."

She doesn't believe it's a coincidence.

Not everyone, however, is as excited.

"I'm pretty skeptical," said Andrew Shankman, an associate professor of history at Rutgers University in New Jersey, shortly after examining the paper. "It doesn't appear to fit with the known drafts of the Constitution."

Specifically, he said, the numbering system between the three-paragraph fragment and "The Continuation of the Scheme" don't seem to match up, he said. The style is less formal than Wilson's other drafts.

Toler acknowledged the inconsistent style between drafts but attributed the differences to a "more relaxed, scatterbrained" Wilson, she said.

"This is significant because James Wilson was always polished in front of others," Toler said. "To me, the way these documents were written demonstrates that he worked alone on this project for some time. These are his raw thoughts."

What are the implications of such a discovery (assuming the discovery is legit)? Difficult to say. But I can't wait to look over what Wilson may have written in these documents!

James Wilson's Progressive Enlightenment Vision For America

Taken from his Oration on the Fourth of July 1788. A taste:

A PROGRESSIVE STATE is necessary to the happiness and perfection of Man. Whatever attainments are already reached, attainments still higher should be pursued. Let us, therefore, strive with noble emulation. Let us suppose we have done nothing, while any thing yet remains to be done. Let us, with fervent zeal, press forward, and make unceasing advances in every thing that can SUPPORT, IMPROVE, REFINE or EMBELISH Society.

To enter into particulars under each of these heads, and to dilate them according to their importance, would be improper at this time. A few remarks on the last of them will be congenial with the entertainments of this auspicious day.

If we give the slightest attention to NATURE, we shall discover that with utility she is curious to blend ornament. Can we imitate a better pattern? Public exhibitions have been the favorite amusements of some of the wisest and most accomplished nations. GREECE, in her most shining era, considered her games as far from being the least respectable among her public establishments. The shows of the Circus evince, that, on this subject, the sentiments of GREECE were fortified by those of ROME.

Public processions may be so planned and executed, as to join both the properties of Nature’s rule. They may instruct and improve, while they entertain and please. They may point out the elegance or usefulness of the sciences and the arts. They may preserve the memory, and engrave the importance of great political events. They may represent, with peculiar felicity and force, the operation and effects of great political truths. The picturesque and splendid decorations around me furnish the most beautiful and most brilliant proofs, that these remarks are FAR FROM BEING IMAGINARY.

The commencement of our Government has been eminently glorious: Let our progress in every excellence be proportionably great. It will, it must be so. What an enraptured prospect opens on the UNITED STATES! Placid HUSBANDRY walks in front, attended by the venerable plough. Lowing herds adorn our vallies: Bleating flocks spread o’er our hills, Verdant meadows, enameled pastures, yellow harvests, bending orchards, rise in rapid succession from east to west. PLENTY, with her copious horn, sits easy-smiling, and in conscience complacency, enjoys and presides over the scenes. COMMERCE next advances, in all her splendid and embellished forms. The rivers and lakes and seas are crouded with ships. Their shores are covered with cities. The cities are filled with inhabitants. The ARTS, decked with elegance, yet with simplicity, appear in beautiful variety, and well-adjusted arrangement. Around them are diffused, in rich abundance, the necessaries, the decencies and the ornaments of life. With heartfelt contentment, INDUSTRY beholds his honest labors flourishing and secure. PEACE walks serene and unalarmed over all the unmolested regions; while LIBERTY, VIRTUE and RELIGION go hand in hand harmoniously, protecting, enlivening and exalting all! HAPPY COUNTRY! MAY THY HAPPINESS BE PERPETUAL.

Ben Franklin to John Lathrop on the Humane Society

You can read the whole letter here. An excerpt follows:

I have been long impressed with the same sentiments you so well express, of the growing felicity of mankind, from the improvements in philosophy, morals, politics, and even the conveniences of common living, and the invention and acquisition of new and useful utensils and instruments; so that I have sometimes almost wished it had been my destiny to be born two or three centuries hence. For invention and improvement are prolific, and beget more of their kind. The present progress is rapid. Many of great importance, now unthought of, will, before that period, be produced; and then I might not only enjoy their advantages, but have my curiosity gratified in knowing what they are to be. I see a little absurdity in what I have just written, but it is to a friend, who will wink and let it pass, while I mention one reason more for such a wish, which is, that, if the art of physic shall be improved in proportion to other arts, we may then be able to avoid diseases, and live as long as the patriarchs in Genesis; to which, I suppose, we should have little objection.

How apt Franklin's sentiments were regarding modern advances in medicine.

Where Did Groundhog Day Come From?

Groundhog Day is upon us and the only question left is will Punxsutawney Phil see his shadow or will he free us from winter's grasp? Yes, the meteorological fate of the planet rests in the hands (or paws) of this furry little Pennsylvania woodchuck!

But where does Phil get his amazing powers? How did the idea of a groundhog predicting the weather come to be? Truth be told, good ol' Punxsutawney Phil has quite a heritage that is older than Pennsylvania itself.

As is the case with many of the holidays and festivals we enjoy today, Groundhog Day is littered with pagan culture. And as is the case with most pagan festivals, the emphasis on the seasons and weather take a front seat. In the Celtic world, right around the time that Christianity was in its infancy, the celebration of Imbolc was becoming a popular pastime. Imbolc was hailed as a popular day of weather prognostication where spectators anxiously watched to see if badgers or serpents would emerge from their winter shelters, thus predicting spring's impending arrival. This popular Gaelic proverb helps to capture the importance that early Celtic societies placed on Imbolc:

The serpent will come from the hole
On the brown Day of Bride,
Though there should be three feet of snow
On the flat surface of the ground.

In addition to its emphasis on weather, fire and light played an important role in various purification rituals during Imbolc. In many northern Celtic lands, the holiday also celebrated Brigid, the goddess of healing and wisdom. Celts believed that Brigid, if pleased, would bring the first stirrings of spring and liberate society from the clutches of harsh winter. It was through animals (usually a badger or a bear) that the will of Brigid was made manifest, which is why people would gather in almost every village to see if these "holy animals" would emerge or not. In addition, villagers also closely watched the skies. If the day of Imbolc (February 2) was clear, that meant that Brigid had created a pleasant day for herself in order to gather additional firewood for a long winter. If the day was cloudy, snowy, etc. it meant that springtime was around the corner.

With the emergence of Christianity, most pagan holidays, including Imbolc, were either forced out or adapted to fix the new dominant faith of the region. For the festival of Imbolc, the Catholic Church brought about the celebration of Candlemas, which was created to be a commemoration of the presentation of Jesus at the temple and the purification of Mary (to read the biblical account of Jesus' presentation at the temple see Luke 2: 22-39). This day (Feb. 2) became the conclusion of Christmastide, since Feb. 2 is 40 days after December 25th.

To add a further measure of credibility to the holiday, early Christians canonized St. Brigid, who is one of the three patron saints of Ireland and whose feast day fell on Candlemas. It is important to point out that St. Brigid is NOT the Brigid of Celtic folklore. St. Brigid was a real woman who became an influential nun of the 5th century BCE. Obviously, the coincidence of St. Brigid and the Celtic Brigid sharing the same holiday was not lost on early Christians who used the canonization of St. Brigid to eradicate the Celtic version.

In addition to the introduction of St. Brigid, Candlemas adopted the Imbolc usage of candles. On this day it became tradition for priests to light and dedicate candles in the dark of winter to symbolize the hope of spring's rapid return. Candlemas itself was seen as a day to predict weather. If the weather was fair and clear on Candlemas it meant that winter was sure to linger on. If the weather was cloudy and snowy then spring was just around the corner. Obviously this was an adopted Imbolc custom that made its way into early Christian culture. An old Scottish couplet helps to capture the feeling of this day:

"If Candlemas Day is bright and clear, there'll be two winters in the year."

So what does this all have to do with Groundhog Day?

It's relatively simple. The colonization of many parts of Pennsylvania by German settlers, who eventually became known as the "Pennsylvania Dutch" (it's worth noting that the term "Pennsylvania Dutch" does not mean the settlers were of Dutch ancestry, rather it's a corruption of the German word "Deutsch") brought with them to the New World many of their customs and beliefs, Candlemas being one of them. And since the traditions of Imbolc were embedded in with Candlemas, it was natural for these settlers to look for the same traditional weather signs (i.e. animals and weather patters) that they had embraced for centuries. The importance of the Candlemas/Imbolc tradition on the modern American Groundhog Day should not be overlooked. As one popular New England song of the 18th century put it:

As the light glows longer,
the cold grows stronger.
If Candlemas be fair and bright,
winter will have another flight.
If Candlemas be cloud and snow,
Winter will be gone and not come again.
A farmer should on Candlemas day,
have half his corn and half his hay.
On Candlemas day if thorns hang a drop,
you can be sure of a good pea crop.

So why did the groundhog become the accepted animal of choice to become the "prognosticator of prognosticators?" The reason may be as simple as the fact that groundhogs were in abundance in colonial Pennsylvania at the time and are easier to deal with than badgers. With that said, there is another possible explanation as to why these early settlers chose the groundhog. The Delaware Indians, who settled many of the western lands of Pennsylvania in the early years of the 18th century, revered the groundhog as a sacred animal. In fact, they considered the groundhog to be the reincarnation of their honorable ancestors who had returned to earth. These Native people established several camps in the area including one they called "Punxsutawney." The very word, "Punxsutawney" comes from the Indian "ponksad-uteney" which means "the town of the sandflies." In addition, the word "woodchuck" (a woodchuck is the same animal as a groundhog) comes from the Indian word "Wojak." The religious beliefs of the Delaware Indians suggested that a "Wojak" was in fact the ancestral grandfather of their tribe. As a result, groundhogs were revered with great respect.

So colonial America clearly embraced the Imbolc/Candlemas festival. But when did it become "Groundhog Day?" The first official record of Groundhog Day being celebrated in America comes from the diary of one James Morris who was a shopkeeper in western Pennsylvania. On Feb. 4, 1841 he wrote:

Last Tuesday, the 2nd, was Candlemas day, the day on which, according to the Germans, the Groundhog peeps out of his winter quarters and if he sees his shadow he pops back for another six weeks nap, but if the day be cloudy he remains out, as the weather is to be moderate.

The first official celebration of Groundhog Day as a holiday took place on Feb. 2, 1886. In the local newspaper, The Punxsutawney Spirit, editor Clymer Freas wrote:

Today is groundhog day and up to the time of going to press the beast has not seen its shadow.

On that same day, the official groundhog was given the name "Punxsutawney Phil: Seer of Seers, Sage of Sages, Prognosticator of Prognosticators, and Weather Prophet Extraordinary" and his hometown dubbed "The Weather Capital of the World."

So what is Punxsutawney Phil's track record? Well, if you're a warm weather fan you won't be pleased. In the 122 year history of Phil predicting the weather he has seen his shadow 98 times compared to the 15 times he did not (9 years have no record as to what Phil predicted). As a result, roughly 85% of the time Phil declares an additional 6 weeks of winter. But do not fear my fair weather friends. The National Climatic Data Center states that Phil has been correct in his predictions only 39% of the time.

I guess those Celts are just full of it! =)

Timothy Dwight on the Partially Inspired Bible of Priestley and Price

Founding era figures Timothy Dwight (President of Yale), Joseph Priestley and Richard Price all thought of themselves as "Christian." Dwight was "orthodox"; Priestley was Socinian; Price was Arian. As it were, all believed Jesus was Messiah and a risen savior. Dwight believed Jesus the Second Person in the Trinity; Priestley, Jesus only man, not divine at all, but on a divine mission; and Price, Jesus, a created but subordinate divine Son, the first created being.

The "orthodox" like Dwight accused unitarians like Priestley and Price of believing, by necessity, in a partially inspired, that is fallible Bible. That's how, the orthodox argue, unitarians derive a non-Triune God from revelation.

With that, here Dr. Dwight discusses Priestley and Price denying the infallibility of the Bible [paragraphs breaks added for clarity]:

... Dr. Priestley says expressly, that he does not consider the books of Scripture as inspired, but as authentic records of the dispensations of God to mankind; with every particular of which we cannot be too well acquainted. The writers of the books of Scripture, he says, were men, and therefore fallible. But all, that we have to do with them, is in the character of historians, and witnesses, of what they heard and saw: like all other historians, they were liable to mistakes.

"Neither I," says he to Dr. Price, "nor, I presume, yourself, believe implicitly every thing, which is advanced by any writer in the Old or New Testament. I believe them," that is, the writers, "to have been men, and therefore fallible." And again; "That the books of Scripture were written by particular divine inspiration is a thing, to which the writers themselves make no pretensions. It is a notion destitute of all proof, and that has done great injury to the evidence of Christianity." The reasonings of the divine writers, he declares, we are fully at liberty to judge of, as we are those of other men. Accordingly, he asserts St. Paul in a particular instance to have reasoned fallaciously; and maintains that Christ was both fallible and peccable.

Other English Socinians unite with Dr. Priestley in these sentiments: while Socinians of other nations proceed so far, as to treat the writers themselves, and their books, with marked contempt. In these several things there is plainly an utter denial, that the Scriptures are a Revelation from God. To all these opinions Dr. Priestley was once directly opposed: for he was once a Trinitarian, and a Calvinist. The inference seems, therefore, to be necessary, that he was led to them all by his denial of the Deity of Christ. A similar transformation appears to have been undergone by many other Socinians; and something very like it by no small number of Arians.

I've long argued that the "Christianity" of Priestley and Price -- what they termed "rational Christianity" -- is closer to what the "key Founders" (Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and others) believed than is the "Christianity" of the "orthodox" like Dwight.

The Humane Society of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

In my last post, I noted George Washington's letter to REVEREND JOHN LATHROP praising the original Humane Society of Massachusetts which Rev. Lathrop helped found.

That group is still around. You may view their official site here.

As this relates to Washington and religion, in "George Washington's Sacred Fire," Peter Lillback cites Washington's thoughts on Lathrop's sermon as evidence of his orthodox Christianity. Indeed, Lillback repeatedly notes Washington's special praise for the address, that he received it with "singular satisfaction." Lillback also claims said Humane Society was "deeply committed to historic Christianity." (p. 671.) Lillback's book defines "historic Christianity" as "orthodox."

The problem is, it's likely that Rev. Lathrop was not an orthodox Christian AND a number of the founders of the Humane Society were committed Unitarians.

From the official site:

Formally established in 1786, The Humane Society of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts elected James Bowdoin, the governor of Massachusetts and the founder of Bowdoin College, to be its first president. The other original trustees were Rev. John Clarke, Dr. Aaron Dexter, Rev. Dr. Simeon Howard, Rev. Dr. John Lathrop, Rev. Samuel Parker, Dr. Isaac Rand, Dr. John Warren, Dr. Thomas Welsh, Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse and Judge Oliver Wendell. In 1791, The Humane Society was formally incorporated in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

One of those unitarians, Dr. Waterhouse, corresponded with Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson felt comfortable writing what follows to Dr. Waterhouse:

... The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect.
2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.
3. That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.

These are the great points on which he endeavored to reform the religion of the Jews. But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin.

1. That there are three Gods.
2. That good works, or the love of our neighbor, are nothing.
3 That faith is every thing, and the more incomprehensible the proposition, the more merit in its faith.
4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use.
5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to be saved, and certain others to be damned; and that no crimes of the former can damn them; no virtues of the latter save.

Now, which of these is the true and charitable Christian? He who believes and acts on the simple doctrines of Jesus? Or the impious dogmatists, as Athanasius and Calvin? ...

Regardless of whether the members of the Humane Society or, for that matter, Washington himself, were as extreme unitarians as was Jefferson, they all shared a very man centered theistic creed.

George Washington's Enlightenment Rationalism

George Washington's letter To REVEREND JOHN LATHROP, June 22, 1788, illustrates his self proclaimed Enlightenment rationalism. Rev. Lathrop, a purported unitarian, gave a discourse to the Humane Society of Massachusetts. Washington thanked Lathrop for sending him some kind of publication that related thereto. In what follows, I emphasized terms relevant to the thesis of this post:

Reverend and respected Sir: Your very acceptable favour of the 16th. of May, covering a recent publication of the proceedings of the Humane Society, 6 have, within a few days past, been put into my hands. I observe, with singular satisfaction, the cases in which your benevolent Institution has been instrumental in recalling some of our Fellow creatures (as it were) from beyond the gates of Eternity, and has given occasion for the hearts of parents and friends to leap for joy. The provision made for the preservation of ship-wrecked Mariners is also highly estimable in the view of every philanthropic mind and greatly consolatory to that suffering part of the Community. These things will draw upon you the blessings of those, who were nigh to perish. These works of charity and good-will towards men reflect, in my estimation, great lustre upon the authors and presage an �ra of still father improvements. How pitiful, in the eye of reason and religion, is that false ambition which desolates the world with fire and sword for the purposes of conquest and fame; when compared to the milder virtues of making our neighbours and our fellow men as happy as their frail conditions and perishable natures will permit them to be !

I am happy to find that the proposed general government meets with your approbation as indeed it does with that of the most disinterested and discerning men. The Convention of this State is now in session, and I cannot but hope from all the accounts I receive that the Constitution will be adopted by it; though not without considerable opposition. I trust, however, that the commendable example exhibited by the minority in your State will not be without its salutary influence in this. In truth it appears to me that (should the proposed government be generally and harmoniously adopted) it will be a new phenomenon in the political and moral world; and an astonishing victory gained by enlightened reason over brutal force. I have the honor &c. 7

The enlightened rationalistic creed of George Washington was theistic-Providential; it could present itself as "Christianity" or merely "religion"; but it was seemingly more "man centered" or humanistic than orthodox Christianity, especially Calvinism.

NEH Article on George Washington's Religion

The following is a good article by Orv Breitkreutz & Dr. Peter Gibbon on George Washington's religion (though it does, alas, slightly misquote GW's address to the Delaware Indians).

Here is a taste:

Several of the articles and books that were included in our assigned readings in the last three weeks have included allusions to George Washington’s religious beliefs, or lack thereof. We have learned that a variety of religious groups have claimed Washington’s allegiance, especially among the evangelical groups that became prominent in the nineteenth century. I recall, when visiting Freedom’s Foundation at Valley Forge a number of years ago, being impressed by the large statue of George Washington kneeling in prayer, apparently based upon Parson Weems’s dubious story so popular in both the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Even in the twenty-first century, television evangelists like Dr. James Kennedy and Timothy LaHaye (author of the Left Behind books) have claimed the General as a devout evangelical Christian. However, historians such as Peter Henriques call Washington a “theistic rationalist” who followed a “hybrid belief system mixing elements of natural religion, Christianity, and rationalism, with elements of rationalism being the predominant element.” Our astute historian Frank Grizzard, who has worked with the organizing and digitizing of Washington’s works for years, characterizes his religious beliefs as a mix of principles common to Stoicism, Freemasonry, and Christianity, in which Providence was conceived of as an “ ‘omnipotent,’ ‘benign,’ and ‘ beneficent’ Being that by ‘invisible workings’ in ‘infinite wisdom’ dispensed justice in the affairs of mankind. Astonishment and gratitude were owed this Being.” Many have expressed a bit of frustration because Washington seemed so reticent and reluctant to write down exactly what he believed concerning religion. In a famous letter to Dr. James Anderson (24December1795), we have evidence that he viewed his religious beliefs as “few and simple”:...

The article endorses Mary V. Thompson's (of Mount Vernon) "Latitudinarian" thesis. Thompson's "In the Hands of Good Providence: Religion in the Life of George Washington," is on my list. I've heard very good things about it.

I think the "latitudianarian" thesis is more or less correct, insofar as it does not contradict the "Christian-Deist," "theistic rationalist," "unitarian" thesis. These are, arguably, all different ways of saying the same thing. For instance, one could be a "Thomist," a "Roman Catholic," and an "orthodox Christian" without contradiction. Ditto with a "Presbyterian," a "Calvinist," and an "orthodox Christian" and so on.

There is a potential misuse of the latitudinarian thesis: In his 1200 page tome, Peter Lillback recognizes GW's latitudinarianism, but argues said movement was constrained by orthodox Trinitarian grounds.

Long story short: There was a "Latitudinarian" movement within the English Anglican Church. From the NEH article, quoting scholar D.F. Wright:

[Latitudinarians] became prominent churchmen. They included John Tillotson, Archbishop of Canterbury; Edward Stillingfleet, Bishop of Worcester; Simon Patrick, Bishop of Chichester and Ely; Gilbert Burnet, Reformation historian and Bishop of Salisbury; and Thomas Tenison, Archbishop of Canterbury. They reacted against the Calvinism of the Puritans and were broadly Arminian in outlook. They aligned themselves with progressive and liberal movements in the contemporary intellectual world....

Their comprehensiveness allowed only a narrow core of fundamentals in religion. They resisted the Laudian or High Church insistence on conformity in nonessentials such as church order and liturgy.

The capital L Latitudinarian movement occurred in late 17th Century England. They were friends with John Locke. It was still illegal to deny the Trinity in England during this time (it remained so until 1813). So, though the Latitudinarians were suspected of Arianism, Socinianism, few left smoking gun evidence of such and a case could be made that that movement occurred within orthodox Trinitarian grounds.

The problem is Washington was not part of that movement. He didn't call himself a "Latitudinarian" (just like he didn't call himself a "Deist," a "Unitarian" and rarely called himself a "Christian" either) or appeal to the authority of the figures named on that list. (And, though he commonly made biblical allusions as did practically everyone back then, he never proof quoted the Bible.)

Rather, Washington expressed a latitudinarian attitude on religious doctrine. Washington's latitudinarianism, based on the words he left, was constrained on Providential, not orthodox Trintiarian, grounds. That makes GW's latitudinarianism not meaningfully different from the Christian deism and unitarianism of the other "key Founders" (Jefferson, J. Adams, Franklin, etc.).

Indeed, the NEH article aptly defines what this theological system (whatever we term it) boils down to:

One early proponent is said to have reduced the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church to five: “That God exists, that he should be worshiped, that man should order his faculties as the principal part of divine worship, that everyone is duty bound to repent his sins, and that rewards and punishments will follow our brief passage here” (Thompson 5).

Washington Monthly On the Texas Education Controversy

See their article by Mariah Blake entitled "Revisionaries" here.

A taste:

Nevertheless, the allegations drummed up public outrage, and in April the board voted to stop the writing teams’ work and bring in a panel of experts to guide the process going forward—“expert,” in this case, meaning any person on whom two board members could agree. In keeping with the makeup of the board, three of the six people appointed were right-wing ideologues, among them Peter Marshall, a Massachusetts-based preacher who has argued that California wildfires and Hurricane Katrina were God’s punishment for tolerating gays, and David Barton, former vice chairman of the Texas Republican Party. Both men are self-styled historians with no relevant academic training—Barton’s only credential is a bachelor’s degree in religious education from Oral Roberts University—who argue that the wall of separation between church and state is a myth.

When the duo testified before the board in September, Barton, a lanky man with a silver pompadour, brought along several glass display cases stuffed with rare documents that illustrate America’s Christian heritage, among them a battered leather Bible that was printed by the Congress of the Confederation in 1782, a scrap of yellowing paper with a biblical poem scrawled by John Quincy Adams, and a stack of rusty printing plates for McGuffey Readers, popular late-1800s school books with a strong Christian bent. When he took to the podium that afternoon, Barton flashed a PowerPoint slide showing thick metal chains. “I really like the analogy of a chain—that we have all these chains that run through American history,” he explained in his rapid-fire twang. But, he added, in the draft social studies standards, the governmental history chain was riddled with gaps. “We don’t mention 1638, the first written constitution in America … the predecessor to the U.S. Constitution,” he noted as a hot pink “1638” popped up on the screen. By this he meant the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, which called for a government based on the “Rule of the Word of God.” Barton proceeded to rattle off roughly a dozen other documents that pointed up the theocratic leaning of early American society, as the years appeared in orange or pink along the length of the chain.

Barton’s goal is to pack textbooks with early American documents that blend government and religion, and paint them as building blocks of our Constitution. In so doing, he aims to blur the fact that the Constitution itself cements a wall of separation between church and state. But his agenda does not stop there. He and the other conservative experts also want to scrub U.S. history of its inconvenient blemishes—if they get their way, textbooks will paint slavery as a relic of British colonialism that America struggled to cast off from day one and refer to our economic system as “ethical capitalism.” They also aim to redeem Communist hunter Joseph McCarthy, a project McLeroy endorses. As he put it in a memo to one of the writing teams, “Read the latest on McCarthy—He was basically vindicated.”

On the global front, Barton and company want textbooks to play up clashes with Islamic cultures, particularly where Muslims were the aggressors, and to paint them as part of an ongoing battle between the West and Muslim extremists. Barton argues, for instance, that the Barbary wars, a string of skirmishes over piracy that pitted America against Ottoman vassal states in the 1800s, were the “original war against Islamic Terrorism.” What’s more, the group aims to give history a pro-Republican slant—the most obvious example being their push to swap the term “democratic” for “republican” when describing our system of government. Barton, who was hired by the GOP to do outreach to black churches in the run-up to the 2004 election, has argued elsewhere that African Americans owe their civil rights almost entirely to Republicans and that, given the “atrocious” treatment blacks have gotten at the hands of Democrats, “it might be much more appropriate that … demands for reparations were made to the Democrat Party rather than to the federal government.” He is trying to shoehorn this view into textbooks, partly by shifting the focus of black history away from the civil rights era to the post-Reconstruction period, when blacks were friendlier with Republicans.

Barton and Peter Marshall initially tried to purge the standards of key figures of the civil rights era, such as César Chávez and Thurgood Marshall, though they were forced to back down amid a deafening public uproar. They have since resorted to a more subtle tack; while they concede that people like Martin Luther King Jr. deserve a place in history, they argue that they shouldn’t be given credit for advancing the rights of minorities. As Barton put it, “Only majorities can expand political rights in America’s constitutional society.” Ergo, any rights people of color have were handed to them by whites—in his view, mostly white Republican men.

The Parson Weems Moment - 1854

"I am always at a loss to know how much to believe of my own stories." (from Tales of a Traveler, by Washington Irving, 1824)

In a recent e-mail exchange I was asked if I knew of "the Parson Weems moment," where the first mention of the story for George Washington adding "so help me God" had occurred.

I responded with the following material that is selected from So help me God in presidential oaths. The article is written by Mathew Goldstein and it contains a summary of the research carried out by Matt, myself, and others. A pertinent selection from the article follows:

The earliest known published claim that George Washington added that phrase to his oath appears in a book that was initially published in 1854 - The Republican Court; or, American Society in the Days of Washington, by Rufus Wilmot Griswold, 1854-1857, New York, page 141. Griswold says that he pieced together his account after having a conversation with Dr. [John Wakefield] Francis and Washington Irving during which time Irving had related "his recollections of the scene." Griswold then recalled Irving’s presence during the ceremony by saying, "He [Washington Irving] had watched the procession till the President entered Federal Hall, and from the corner of New street and Wall street had observed the subsequent proceedings in the balcony." [RS - The truth is that Irving was not located where he could see the procession as it moved up Broad Street.] Washington Irving was six years old at the time of George Washington's inauguration. The corner of New Street and Wall Street, ... is about 200 feet west from Federal Hall. From that distance and sideways viewing angle it is unlikely anyone would have a clear view of the activities or be able to hear what was said. Liza [Susan Morton (Quincy)] was watching from a balcony just across the street and she said she was "so near," that she "could almost hear him [George Washington] speak" when he took his oath. Yet somehow, Griswold claims to know that George Washington recited the "so help me God" phrase "with eyes closed". ... The [Dr.] Reverend R. W. Griswold was born in 1815 so he could not have been an eyewitness. Dr. Francis was born in 1789 and so he couldn't have been Griswold's source either.

Published three years afterwards was Life of George Washington, by Washington Irving, 1857, New York, volume 4, page 514. According to Pierre M. Irving and Washington Irving: A Collaboration in Life and Letters, by Wayne R. Kime, 1977, University Press, page 133, Irving had the idea for a Washington biography in 1825, started research by the early 1840s, and was writing by the early 1850s. Furthermore, it's clear that Washington's first inauguration was important to Irving's conception of that biography. Up until May 1855, he planned to end with that scene. Even after Irving decided to cover Washington's presidential terms, he wanted the first inauguration to be the climax of volume 4 (see pages 260, 297, and 326 of Pierre M. Irving and Washington Irving). That means Irving was mulling over the inauguration scene, possibly even drafting it, well before he published.

dot - dot - dot

The editor of the Memoir of the life of Eliza S. M. Quincy, ed. E S Quincy, Boston [Printed by J. Wilson] 1861, complains in a footnote at the bottom of page 52 that

The previous pages, which describe the entrance and inauguration of Washington, were sent to Mr. Irving, in 1856, at his request, by the Editor, and are inserted in his "Life of Washington," vol iv. pp. 510, 513, 514, but without reference to their source.

Eliza Morton Quincy was the younger sister to Jacob Morton, the person who it is said hastily retrieved the Masonic Bible for use during the inauguration. An excerpt of an earlier version of the same manuscript, published in 1856, which does not claim that George Washington appended "so help me God," can be found in the Century Magazine, volume 37, issue 6, April 1889, page 827, The Inauguration of Washington, by Clarence Winthrop Bowen. Two other accounts of the inauguration claiming George Washington appended "so help me God" were also published that year. Life and Times of Washington, John Frederick Schroeder, (Completed by Ben Lossing & R.W. Griswold), 1857 [published posthumously], Johnson, Fry, and Company, New York, pg 308 and Memoirs of Washington, by Caroline Matilda Kirkland, 1857, New York: D. Appleton, p. 438.

Schroeder and Kirkland mingled with Griswold and Irving in the same New York city literary circles. Nowhere, among these four authors, does anyone specify just how they came by their claim that George Washington included the words "So help me God." Schroeder, an Episcopalian minister, died on Feb. 26, 1857 before he completed his book. Griswold [who died on August 27th of that same year] had a hand in completing Schroeder's book. Kirkland mimicked Griswold and wrote, "..., he [Washington] was observed to say audibly, 'I swear!' adding, with closed eyes, as if to collect all his being into the momentous act - 'So help me God!'" It thus appears possible that the Reverend Griswold originated the assertion that George Washington appended "so help me God" and also had a hand in getting the other three authors to assert the same. [RS - It should be noted that the preface in Kirkland's book is dated 1856, which indicates that she was the next person to reproduce Griswold's version of Washington's oath. This could have left Irving in the awkward position of obligingly adding "so help me God" to Washington's oath of office, even if he hadn't been Griswold's original source.]

According to The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, by Franklin Steiner, 1936, most of Washington Irving's biography of George Washington is copied from the biography written by historian Sparks, Irving did little if any original research for his popular biography of George Washington. Similarly, in his article on Washington in the Dictionary of American Biography (1936), J C Fitzpatrick wrote, "Washington Irving, Life of GW (5 vols., 1855-1859) is satisfactory from most viewpoints, though its reliance on [Jared] Sparks lessens the confidence it would otherwise command." Sparks biography, although well researched, was written in a biased manner that exaggerates and promotes Washington's status as Hero. The following description of the bias of Jared Spark's biography of George Washington is from The Americans: The National Experience by Daniel J Boorstin "Part Seven - SEARCH FOR SYMBOLS Ch. 39 - The Mythologizing of George Washington":

Sparks followed the style of his day. His biography, which prefaced the writings, was pious, pallid, and reverential. The Hero was of commanding figure, symmetrical features, indomitable courage, pure character, and perfect judgment; "his moral qualities were in perfect harmony with those of his intellect." Sparks' appendix, "Religious Opinions and Habits", was an ingenious whitewash in which Washington's failure to attend communion became an argument for his religiosity. "He may have believed it improper publicly to partake of an ordinance, which, according to the ideas he entertained of it, imposed severe restrictions on outward conduct, and a sacred pledge to perform duties impracticable in his situation. Such an impression would be natural to a serious mind . . . a man of a delicate conscience and habitual reverence for religion." There was no passage in Washington's writings, Sparks noted, which expressed doubt of the Christian revelation. In a man of such Christian demeanor, what more conclusive proof that he was a true and tolerant Christian?

The writings were edited in a similar spirit. In selecting a mere eleven [volumes] from what might have filled four times that many volumes, Sparks had ample freedom to ennoble his subject. While Sparks did not actually add passages of his own, he omitted passages at will without warning the reader and he improved the language when it seemed unworthy of the Hero. He explained all this in his introduction: "It would be an act of unpardonable injustice to any author, after his death, to bring forth compositions, and particularly letters, written with no design for their publication, and commit them to press without previously subjecting them to careful revision." Challenged later on his editorial methods, Sparks argued with charming naivete that he was really being true to his subject because Washington himself in his old age revised his early letters. Wherever Sparks had a choice he preferred Washington's own latter revision (again without warning the reader) in place of what had actually been written in the heat of the events. And Sparks made changes of his own. Where, for example, Washington had written of the "rascally crews" of New England privateersmen, Sparks emended the text to read simply the "crews." Washington's reference to the "dirty mercenary spirit" of the Connecticut troops became the "mercenary spirit," and their "scandalous conduct" was softened to their "conduct." "Old Put." became the more dignified "General Putnam." When Washington referred contemptuously to a small sum of money as "but a fleabite at present," Sparks improved it to read "Totally inadequate to our demands at this time." Sparks again and again and again changed the words to make them worthy of his Hero.
[end article]

For those SHMG proponents who suggest Irving could have had a source of his own, yes, that's always a conjectural possibility. However, please consider that Washington Irving, by his own admission, relied heavily upon the works of Jared Sparks. Sparks did not claim Washington had modified the presidential oath. In addition, Irving was acquainted with his contemporaries, such as James Kirke Paulding, William Alexander Duer, and Eliza Susan Morton, all of whom, earlier than Irving, had each published their version of Washington's first inauguration. None of these writers reported anything about Washington including "so help me God" as being part of the inaugural ceremony. Consequently, we can surmize that when Washington Irving wrote his description of Washington's inauguration it is evident that he took most of his narrative from Eliza Susan Morton Quincy and recirculated the Griswold's undocumented religious tagline.

If Irving had been responsible for priming Griswold with the story that Washington had added "so help me God" to his oath, it wasn't the first time he had planted those words on the lips of one of his literary heroes at a dramatic moment (see Tales of the Alhambra: to which are added Legends of the conquest of Spain, pg 262). One way or another, Irving probably wanted to plant his story with Griswold, because he felt that would boost his credibility in spite of his employing an unidentifiable source when he published Volume 4 of his biography of George Washington. It did stick, and has stuck around just as well as his Santa Claus myth, and his flat earth myth.

That's right, there's no smoking gun. Just a few dead people. It turns out, Griswold died of Tuberculosis in New York City on August 27, 1857. A friend, Charles Godfrey Leland, found in Griswold's desk several documents attacking a number of authors which Griswold was preparing for publication. Leland decided to burn them (see Arthur Hobson Quinn's book, Edgar Allen Poe: a critical biography, pg162).

R.I.P. Howard Zinn

Howard Zinn, the passionate political historian who has been a regular topic of controversy here at American Creation, died yesterday from a heart attack at the age of 87. For many, Zinn was the voice of the "little man" who often went ignored by traditional historians. For others, Zinn represented a radical interpretation of history that ignored both the "great man" and shunned the divine. But no matter your persuasion, there can be little doubt that Zinn did add something (good or bad) to American historiography. From the New York Times:

“A People’s History” told an openly left-wing story. Professor Zinn accused Christopher Columbus and other explorers of committing genocide, picked apart presidents from Andrew Jackson to Franklin D. Roosevelt and celebrated workers, feminists and war resisters.

Even liberal historians were uneasy with Professor Zinn, who taught for many years at Boston University. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. once said: “I know he regards me as a dangerous reactionary. And I don’t take him very seriously. He’s a polemicist, not a historian.”

In a 1998 interview with The Associated Press, Professor Zinn acknowledged that he was not trying to write an objective history, or a complete one. He called his book a response to traditional works, the first chapter, not the last, of a new kind of history.

“There’s no such thing as a whole story; every story is incomplete,” Professor Zinn said. “My idea was the orthodox viewpoint has already been done a thousand times.”

“A People’s History” had some famous admirers, including the actors Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. The two grew up near Professor Zinn, were family friends and gave the book a plug in their Academy Award-winning screenplay for “Good Will Hunting.”

Oliver Stone was a fan, as was Bruce Springsteen, whose bleak “Nebraska” album was inspired in part by “A People’s History.” The book was the basis of a 2007 documentary, “Profit Motive and the Whispering Wind,” and even showed up on “The Sopranos,” in the hand of Tony’s son, A.J.

Professor Zinn himself was an impressive-looking man, tall and rugged with wavy hair. An experienced public speaker, he was modest and engaging in person, more interested in persuasion than in confrontation.

Samuel W. Calhoun v. Geoff Stone on the Christian Nation Debate

Samuel W. Calhoun writes a spirited response to Geoff Stone's "The World of the Framers: A Christian Nation?" A taste:

Professor Stone’s evidence for deism’s surpassing significance is flawed. By his own description of their beliefs, some of which were indisputably deis?tic, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson do not belong in the “flat-out” deist category to which Professor Stone assigns them.[17] Deists thought that God does not “intervene[ ] in human history,”[18] yet Franklin believed that God “‘governs the World by his Providence.’”[19] Jefferson was “the primary drafter of the Declaration of Independence.”[20] Professor Stone characterizes this document as “a statement . . . of American deism,”[21] but its language shows the opposite to be true. If God does not interact with mankind, why did the signatories appeal to the “Supreme Judge of the World” to vindicate their honorable intentions, and also express confidence in “the Protection of divine Providence”?[22]

Another way to overemphasize the impact of deism is to overstate the decline of orthodox Christianity. Professor Stone does this in part by oversim?plifying the record concerning the complex issue of George Washington’s religious faith. A letter to Lafayette is quoted in which Washington said that he was “‘no bigot . . . to any mode of worship.’”[23] It is also claimed that “Washington’s personal papers . . . offer no evidence that he believed in . . . Jesus’[ ] divinity”[24]; that “[i]n several thousand letters, he never once mentioned Jesus”[25]; and that, “[a]s president, Washington was always careful not to invoke Christianity[, but h]is official speeches, orders, and other public communica?tions scrupulously reflected the perspective of a deist.”[26][JSK1]

Contrast this rendering with the fuller picture. Washington’s statement to Lafayette is accurately related as far as it goes, but Professor Stone omits the critical words that follow the quoted phrase: “Being no bigot myself to any mode of worship, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church, that road to Heaven, which to them shall seem the most direct plainest easiest and least liable to exception.”[27] Professor Stone is correct to suggest that had Washington been a committed Christian, one would expect to find more references to Jesus and Christianity in his works. But Professor Stone once again gives an incomplete account. First, at least one of his three specific claims about Washington’s use of language is incorrect.[28] Washington as president did not “scrupulously reflect[ ]” a deistic perspective. In an October 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation, Washington referred to “Almighty God,”[29][JSK2] hardly a “deistic phrase[ ],”[30] and also urged that various “prayers and supplications” be offered,[31] a nonsensical entreaty had he shared the deistic belief that God does not “listen[ ] to personal prayers.”[32] Second, Professor Stone ignores two public occasions when Washington did refer to Jesus. In 1779, General Washington urged the Delaware Chiefs “to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.”[33] More importantly, Washington ended his 1783 Circular Letter to the Governors of All the States on Disbanding the Army by stating in his prayer for the Governors and their respec?tive States that

God would . . . dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation.[34]

Prof. Stone responds. A taste:

In reading Professor Calhoun’s response, I was struck not only by his determination to refute almost every statement, but also by his sharply accu?satory tone. (I should note that, in a rare moment of magnanimity, Professor Calhoun generously acquits me of being “shrill,”[3] though I’m not at all sure I can return the compliment.) I have often challenged the work of scholars with whom I disagree, and they have often challenged me. But rarely have I seen so uncivil a tone as that evidenced by Professor Calhoun. Don’t get me wrong. I am a big fan of free speech and I would defend to the death Professor Calhoun’s right to be as uncivil as he likes. Indeed, if he truly believes that I “distorted” the evidence in order to “mislead” my audience, then he is certainly right to take me to the woodshed. But why would he accuse me of intentionally distorting the evidence and attempting to mislead my audience? Whatever happened to honest error (if error there be) and collegial disagreement? Professor Calhoun seems like a perfectly decent fel?low, so what is going on here? Why in God’s name is he so overwrought?

My puzzlement goes well beyond Professor Calhoun’s litany of quibbles and un-Christian tone. More substantively, he attacks me repeatedly for claims I never made. This is vexing. I was quite careful in my lecture to state pre?cisely what I was claiming. I made three claims that seem most relevant to this discussion: First, and most importantly, I claimed that the Framers did not intend to establish a Christian nation. Second, I claimed that the Framers believed that religion “should play a role in helping ‘to preserve the civil morality necessary to democracy,’” but that they also thought that “in the ‘public business of the nation’” it was “essential for the government to speak of religion ‘in a way that was unifying, not divisive.’”[4] And third, I claimed that when we consider what the Constitution “allows” in the realm of relig?ion, “it helps to know the truth” about what the Framers believed and “what they aspired to when they created this nation.”[5]

With respect to my first claim, Professor Calhoun concedes the point.[6] Thus, we can put aside the Christian nation issue. Ironically, in light of the fury of his attack, this was the primary point of my lecture, as was evident from its title—The World of the Framers: A Christian Nation?

One quibble with Prof. Calhoun's analysis of GW & the letter to the Delaware Indians (which like the 1783 Circular was not written by Washington but signed by him). The entire context of GW's correspondence reveals he wasn't URGING them to “to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ" but rather APPROVING of their already made decision to do so.

This is exactly what Washington said with MY EMPHASIS on how the phrase SHOULD read when one understands the context:

Brothers: I am glad you have brought three of the Children of your principal Chiefs to be educated with us. I am sure Congress will open the Arms of love to them, and will look upon them as their own Children, and will have them educated accordingly. This is a great mark of your confidence and of your desire to preserve the friendship between the Two Nations to the end of time, and to become One people with your Brethen of the United States. My ears hear with pleasure the other matters you mention. Congress will be glad to hear them too. You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it.

For more on the context see here. I noted that GW was replying to a REQUEST from the Indians a part of which read as follows:

5th. That the said Delaware Nation have established a Town where numbers of them have embraced Christianity under the Instruction of the Reverend and worthy Mr David Ziesberger whose honest zealous Labours & good Examples have Induced many of them to listen to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which has been a means of introducing considerable order, Regularity and love of Peace into the Minds of the whole Nation — the[y] therefore hope Congress will countenance & promote the Mission of this Gentleman, so far away as they may deem expedient; and they may rely that the Delaware Nation will afford every encouragement thereto in their power.

It's a non-sequitur to conclude -- as some have -- that Washington was an orthodox Christian based on his expressed sentiments (written by aide, Robert Hanson Harrison) to the Delaware Indians. Rather Washington intuitively thought it a good idea for Indians to convert to the dominant religion of America and learn our other ways of life. George Washington thought the purpose of "religion," -- i.e., why Indians should convert to Christianity -- was civic utility. No evidence shows GW thought only Christianity true, other religions false (i.e., the orthodox position). Did he, GW wouldn't have twice (here and here), when speaking to unconverted Natives, termed God the "Great Spirit" suggesting unconverted Natives worshipped the same God Christians do.

Peabody on the Stone, Tillman et al., Christian Nation Debate

Bruce G. Peabody has posted his response to the debate among Geoff Stone, Seth Tillman and others on the "Christian Nation" controversy. His paper is titled "Analogize This: Partial Constitutional Text, Religion, and Maintaining Our Political Order," 2010 Cardozo L. Rev. de novo (forthcoming), available here.

Dare to Be Daniel, Dare to Obey the Speed Limit

Many of Gregg Frazer's lectures have been uploaded to The Master's College's Pulpit Files here. You can listen to a number of them where he discusses the Founding Fathers and religion.

This is the newest lecture. He discusses the Romans 13 obedience/submission dynamic that I've featured on my blogs.

It's a refreshing orthodox biblical perspective that you don't oft-hear. For instance, you'll hear Dr. Frazer justify, on biblical grounds, 1) the idea that Christians are to pay all of their taxes. All of them, even if you think they are unjust. And 2) Christians are to obey government simply because government said so; that is, unless government commands a believer to actively or by omission sin (for instance tell a believer to stop preaching the gospel). That's the one exception to the always obey rule. That means you drive the speed limit because government said so.

Gordon Wood Talks Empire of Liberty

The following is a wonderful presentation by mega historian and early American juggernaut Gordon Wood. Wood (who is my favorite historian) discusses his newest book, Empire of Liberty which is a surefire classic and a likely candidate for the Pulitzer Prize. The video is a little over an hour but well worth your time! Enjoy:

That Other George Bush:

Not W or HW. He was an early notable Swedenborgian convert. Learn about him here. And here. Here are some of his papers.

America's First Memorial

***My sincere apologies for going MIA the past few weeks. I realize that this isn't the most thought-provoking post in the world but I didn't want to let too much more time go without posting at least a little something. I promise to post better material in the near future.***

-------------------------------------------------------

The United States has no shortage of monuments and memorials. Whether in the form of elegant architecture, massive stone carvings or beautiful tapestries, Americans have never shied away from paying homage to their past (and thank goodness).

Of all the famous monuments that span across this massive nation, one goes relatively unrecognized, and it just so happens that this monument happens to be America's FIRST official monument. On January 25, 1776 (the anniversary is just a few days from today) the Continental Congress authorized the first American war memorial in its then short history. It was dedicated to Brigadier General Richard Montgomery who was killed during the failed attack on Quebec the previous year. It was also at this battle that Benedict Arnold was wounded.

Due to his exemplary leadership and bravery in battle, Montgomery was honored with the highest recognition the nation could afford him. The monument, which symbolizes Montgomery's bravery and intellect, was adorned with a plaque which reads:

This Monument is erected by the order of Congress 25th Janry 1776 to transmit to Posterity a grateful remembrance of the patriotism conduct enterprise & perserverance of Major General RICHARD MONTGOMERY Who after a series of successes amidst the most discouraging Difficulties FELL in the attack on QUEBEC 31st Decbr 1775. Aged 37 years.

Though obscured by years of progress, this monument, which still stands today at New York City's St. Paul's Chapel (directly across from where the World Trade Towers once stood), serves as a poignant memorial to all Americans (not only Montgomery) who fought and died in the American Revolution. Though virtually forgotten by the majority of the American populace, Montgomery retains a special spot in the pantheon of great American generals.