Noah Webster is one of the "Christian Nation" crowd's favorite founders to quote, because in the 19th Century, many of his words seem to support their ideal. Yet, as Tom Peters noted on this page, almost all of those quotations come from after 1808 when "Webster underwent a profound religious conversion that changed both his politics and his religious outlook." He "bec[a]me[] skeptical of democracy, distrustful of government, and far more sympathetic to an alliance between church and state."
Before that time, most importantly when the US Constitution was being framed and ratified, he supported separation of church and state along the lines of Madison's and Jefferson's understanding of the concept.
I've never studied Webster's religious beliefs in detail. I know that in the 1800s when he was saying the things that David Barton et al. like to quote, he was a devout orthodox Christian. Perhaps his political change of mind was precipitated by a bona fide religious change of mind and before that he was, like America's key founders, a theistic rationalist.
[For the rest, see here]
5 comments:
Most of us, we the living, were brought up in an "Empire of Reason." Some of us maintain that "reason" is sufficient for man's needs.
Others think that modernity, the empire of reason, is proving insufficient not only for the individual's needs, but for any cohesion in society too. We look over at Europe, which cannot even produce enough children to renew itself, trying to solve its problems through politics, the EU.
We begin to look back longingly at America of the 1830s, whose phenomenal strength and vitality Tocqueville found not in its politics and government, but its individuals, society, and yes, religion.
After all, as Edmund Burke argued against the French Revolution, societies evolve organically; politics are by nature artificial.
So if Noah Webster came around to Tocqueville's view, it might not have been a result of religious experience, but the eyewitness experience of America as the ideals of the Founding started shaking themselves out in the 1800s. A "nation" is defined by its borders and its government to some to degree, but that tells us nothing of its nature.
A peek over at the "United Kingdom" suggests that the Scots are still Scots.
Tom: "So if Noah Webster came around to Tocqueville's view, it might not have been a result of religious experience, but the eyewitness experience of America as the ideals of the Founding started shaking themselves out in the 1800s."
After reading Jon's post, I wondered if Webster might have found the politics which accompany democracy sufficiently unsettling that he yearned for the past where there was less public conflict ... certainly the nature of the relationships between several founders (Jefferson and
Adams are perhaps the best examples) went descended into a darkness that would give many reason to consider the compatibility of liberty and harmony.
Is this congruent to your thought?
This points to one of the basic problems of all of these "What did X believe" arguments--X might have believed many contradictory things in the course of his life. The young John Adams wrote in his diary that the Bible would be the ideal foundation for a government. An older Adams bragged that the revolutionary state constitutions were drafted "without pretense to miracle or mystery" (or something like that--too lazy to look it up now).
People tend to be more religious when young, less so in middle age, and religious again as they sense death creeping upon them. So which is the "real" belief system?
Thx for asking, Ben. You're quite right---see Webster's "History of Political Parties", p. 334-5 in this edition. He hates 'em.
But I've tagged p.336 in the link. Interesting how he quotes Cicero apparently attributing the foundation of the Roman republic to "the favor of Heaven." [The Stoics were quite religious, you know.]
Webster admits the Constitution is godless, but says a pure reliance on reason will lead to trouble.
"Human reason is imperfect; subject to error and perversion from a thousand causes...
To aid men in the proper use of this faculty, the Creator has furnished them with laws and precepts of positive authority, and binding on the conscience.
The observation of these laws is essential for the safety and happiness of human society in all relations, domestic, civil and political."
Webster goes on to say "every intelligent man" would prefer to elect those who subscribe to these precepts.
Abbott says:
"After reading Jon's post, I wondered if Webster might have found the politics which accompany democracy sufficiently unsettling that he yearned for the past where there was less public conflict ... certainly the nature of the relationships between several founders (Jefferson and
Adams are perhaps the best examples) went descended into a darkness that would give many reason to consider the compatibility of liberty and harmony."
You bring up an important and very valid point here. We should keep in mind that a number of the founders in their later years did not believe that the American republic would last long. Certainly the quarrels of a new democratic society caused at least some to question if such a government could exist at all. I think it is understandable that these early "growing pains" caused a few to long for the days prior to the revolution. Maybe this was the case with Webster?
Post a Comment