Wednesday, December 2, 2009

More on John Adams' Religion and Thanksgiving Proclamations

Over at his excellent blog Boston, 1775 (a blog that you really must check out if you haven't already), J.L. Bell has recently put together a series of posts on the religion of John Adams, with particular emphasis being given to his presidential Thanksgiving proclamations.

To start things off, Bell cites John Adams' 1812 letter to Benjamin Rush, in which he laments his decision to issue a presidential Thanksgiving proclamation:
The National Fast, recommended by me turned me out of office. It was connected with the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which I had no concern in. That assembly has allarmed and alienated Quakers, Anabaptists, Mennonists, Moravians, Swedenborgians, Methodists, Catholicks, protestant Episcopalians, Arians, Socinians, Armenians, & & &, Atheists and Deists might be added. A general Suspicon prevailed that the Presbyterian Church was ambitious and aimed at an Establishment of a National Church. I was represented as a Presbyterian and at the head of this political and ecclesiastical Project. The secret whisper ran through them “Let us have Jefferson, Madison, Burr, any body, whether they be Philosophers, Deists, or even Atheists, rather than a Presbyterian President.” This principle is at the bottom of the unpopularity of national Fasts and Thanksgivings. Nothing is more dreaded than the National Government meddling with Religion.
And while the aforementioned letter seems to affirm Adams' belief that his Thanksgiving proclamation cost him the election with Jefferson, Mr. Bell points out that Thanksgiving proclamations, though apparently regrettable for Adams, were actually quite popular in early America:
Authors have accepted a lot of Adams’s late-life recollections and analyses uncritically, but not this one. The notion that a Thanksgiving proclamation was the most unpopular of Adams’s acts in office seems incredible.

In fact, the American government had already proclaimed occasional Thanksgiving holidays, and they seemed to be popular. The Congress declared one on 18 Dec 1777 (though with Philadelphia under British control, members had less to be thankful for). When Adams’s predecessor, George Washington, issued such a proclamation in 1789, he noted that “both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested” it.
As a child of Puritan Massachusetts, the language of Adams' thanksgiving proclamations are distinct from his predecessors. As Mr. Bell points out:
I think the crucial difference is what Adams asked people to do. He proclaimed a day of “solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer,” with “fervent thanksgiving” as an afterthought. In contrast, the Congress and Washington asked Americans to pray and give thanks, but they didn’t mention humiliation or fasting.

Fasting was the basis of the New England Puritans’ Thanksgiving tradition. The big dinner came only at the end of a day spent in church while eating little and feeling sinful. Adams’s holiday proclamations weren’t meant to produce “an Establishment of a National Church,” as he claimed his enemies said, but they did try to spread one form of worship nationwide.

[...]

Finally, religious orthodoxy was also a dividing line between Adams and his rival Thomas Jefferson, at least as the Federalist press portrayed the two men. (In reality, they weren’t far apart in their beliefs.) The 1799 proclamation’s warning about “principles, subversive of the foundations of all religious, moral, and social obligations,” clearly tried to claim all religion and morality for one side—the anti-French Revolution side—of the U.S. of A.’s politics.
Perhaps this helps to explain why Adams later regretted his Thanksgiving proclamation. In terms of his personal religious beliefs, Adams was far closer to Jefferson than to his Puritan roots. And as we all know, Jefferson himself abstained from making such proclamations during his two terms in office. One could easily imagine seeing Adams in his later years kicking himself for making a religious proclamation that did not fit very well with his personal beliefs.

With this said, we must keep in mind that John Adams was very difficult to pin down on many topics -- religion being just one. His personal writings are chalked full of highs and lows; ups and downs. Surely the man would have benefited from a little Prozac in his system (though I doubt he would have taken it!). In conclusion, I will cite Mr. Bell's illustration of just how difficult John Adams can be to pin down on matters of religion:
Adams’s statements on religion also tended to be personal. Not in the sense that, as Jefferson wrote in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, “religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God.” Rather, personal in the sense that Adams often thought he was being personally and unfairly attacked—he even took that as a sign of his virtue. He therefore spent a lot of ink refuting what he thought others might say about him.

Here, for example, is more context for the quotation above about how he saw “Religion and Virtue” as fundamental:
I agree with you in Sentiment that Religion and Virtue are the only Foundations, not only of Republicanism and of all free Government, but of social felicity under all Governments and in all the Combinations of human Society. But if I should inculcate this doctrine in my Will, I should be charged with Hypocrisy and a desire to conciliate the good will of the Clergy towards my Family as I was charged by Dr. [Joseph] Priestley and his Friend [Thomas] Cooper and by Quakers, Baptists and I know not how many other sects, for instituting a National Fast, for even common Civility to the Clergy, and for being a Church going animal. . . .

If I should inculcate those “National, Social, domestic and religious virtues” you recommend, I should be suspected and charged with an hypocritical, Machiavilian, Jesuitical, Pharisaical attempt to promote a national establishment of Presbyterianism in America, whereas I would as soon establish the Episcopal Church, and almost as soon the Catholic Church. . . .

If I should recommend the Sanctification of the Sabbath like a divine, or even only a regular attendance on publick Worship as a means of moral Instruction and Social Improvement like a Phylosopher or Statesman, I should be charged with vain ostentation again, and a selfish desire to revive the Remembrance of my own Punctuality in this Respect, for it is notorious enough that I have been a Church going animal for seventy six years i.e. from the Cradle; and this has been alledged as one Proof of my Hypocrisy.
As you can see, this letter was almost all about how the many enemies of John Adams would distort whatever he said, so he was best off saying nothing. We have to dig beneath his self-pitying declarations to find out how he viewed religion, as opposed to how he suspected or hoped people viewed him.

17 comments:

Tom Van Dyke said...

This does give us a window into prevailing attitudes about religion at the Founding: If one wore his religion on his sleeve, he was not only politically suspect, but his personal character was suspect, too.

I'll also add a crumb for thought---that with all the factional religious sectarianism at play, that the first 5 presidents were quiet [if not secretive] about their beliefs was what made them attractive as candidates. Not so much that they were personally nonreligious, but that they were non-aligned with any sect and therefore made for the best consensus choice.

And also, their lack of religious ostentation helped them pass the cultural character test. Nobody wants a preacher for president except members of his own sect.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

AMEN!

Brad Hart said...

Hmmmm...I have a strange feeling that Angie agrees here with Tom for different reasons than those Tom is getting at.

But yes, Tom. I agree as well...and for the same reasons. =)

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Brad, I don't know how you interpreted my agreement, but, belief doesn't have to be important in matters of pragmatic interests.

The nation's interests and defense of the Constitution is what matters, not one's religious conviction/opinion. Some would disagree on the basis that one's religious conviction should be evident in one's governing, meaning that one should not allow freedom of conscience, but absolutize some element of interpretation.

And since the Constitution does matter, then those that were not Presbyterian did have reason to critcize...and those that didn't want to be "commanded" to act in a way that was not in accordance to their understanding should be allowed that liberty, as it is guranteed under our Constititution ..

Tom Van Dyke said...

Amen, Brad.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

What in the 'world" did you guys agree on, then?

Tom Van Dyke said...

Sorry, Angie, that was a little unfair. But you used this as a platform to launch into another unrelated screed. Yes, we know how you feel.

The nation's interests and defense of the Constitution is what matters, not one's religious conviction/opinion.

That's what they're trying to sell us, that we drop our conscience at the door and do whatever the Supreme Court tells us.

Nuh-uh. We are a free people, not obedient robots, the other side of your very own coin.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Tom,
I am not trying to win an argument, but I said;
" Some would disagree on the basis that one's religious conviction should be evident in one's governing, meaning that one should not allow freedom of conscience, but absolutize some element of interpretation."

Since I was agreeing that the dissent of the religious minority to Adams proposal, wasn't I also agreeing with you, too? Religion or the State should not ultimately determine an individual's choice, as that will be determined upon ultimate values and contingencies, which are personal issues and concerns..

Tom Van Dyke said...

Religion or the State should not ultimately determine an individual's choice, as that will be determined upon ultimate values and contingencies

Yes. But what does "choice" mean? It's a meaningless abstraction.

which are personal issues and concerns..

Not atall. We the People forbid the torturing of animals, yet the Constitution surely allows us to do whatever we want with our property. It guarantees that right!

"The pursuit of happiness" surely means that if torturing puppies makes me happy, the Constitution protects that "choice."

The rubber meets the road, eh?--- the disconnect between law, abstract Constitutional principles, and reality becomes clear.

Law is an imperfect prism through which to view reality.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

As the Founders did not encounter the same world we have today, doesn't the Supreme Court decide the important precedental cases? And if the Supreme Court decides a precedent, then whatever my preference is, doesn't matter?

Obviously, the Founders believed in government, but would have never imaagined the issues, complexity, or the vastness of our government, today, would they?

I am not against government, as without government we have no militia, no law, no right to appeal in cases that have been unjust. But, I don't believe that government cannot intrude upon a person's personal obligations witout due process. Only a particular person knows what their personal repsonsibilities and what ulitamte principles they want to "give their life to".

Some of us have the priviledge to choose our vocation. It is a priviledge that some take for granted. But, because we have that choice, we choose the vocation based on ultimate value. Sometimes we have time to give to a couple of positions, which we value. this is the marvel of living in a free society, where one's life is not in danger. Americans live in relative peace and ease. And I am thankful for it everyday.

Tom Van Dyke said...

As the Founders did not encounter the same world we have today, doesn't the Supreme Court decide the important precedental cases? And if the Supreme Court decides a precedent, then whatever my preference is, doesn't matter?


I dunno. If the Supreme Court decides everything, even tho it's a panel of 9, with their lifetime appointments, isn't that a monarchy?

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Not if there is a case that is important in defending for future generations...that is good sense, to protect others from legal indiscretions...

Angie Van De Merwe said...

don't you think that the law is a deterrant when it comes to defending freedom....at least in our ocuntry...?

King of Ireland said...

Tom stated:

"The rubber meets the road, eh?--- the disconnect between law, abstract Constitutional principles, and reality becomes clear."

Theory and practice are absolutely two different things.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

KOI
You said, "Theory and practice are absolutely two different things."

I agree and disagree.

Theory is a hypothesis, like a scientific proposition. Practice is the actual living situation, which calls for interpretation.

We have a law that states that, "men should not murder". That is an absolute. But, there are variances of interpreting whether the murder was 1st degree, or manslaughter, or some other various contingency that would prescribe "mercy", to bring about "true justice". So there is no "absolute standard" in this sense. One must consider all aspects of the situation.

Theory or what we think is important in regards to what we do. If not, then, there is "no law" in the first place to appeal to...Therefore, men are free and equal "under law".

Laws are to protect boundaries, but should not demand in regards to life choices. This is where the conservative, libertarian and liberal will diverge in regards to how they understand "justice". One sees thier "obligation" to neighbor first, whereas the other sees their responsibility toward self.

Character can be inpugned in either case, depending on which values one holds to...

bpabbott said...

King: ""Theory and practice are absolutely two different things."

Angie: "Theory is a hypothesis, like a scientific proposition. Practice is the actual living situation, which calls for interpretation."

I'll apologize up front if I'm being too pendantic for AC, but ...

A hypothesis represents a testable, but untested, understanding for how things to work.

A theory represents an understanding that has survived testing ... i.e. theory refers to the best understanding we have for a particular phenomena. Thus, it should not be used in a disparging way ("only a theory", or such). A theory is null and void if it conflicts with experiment (practice).

What is refered to as "practice" is an experiment that validates or invalides the understanding (i.e. theory / hypothesis) in quesiton.

When a theory is invalidated by experiment, it must either be amended or discarded.

An interesting example/conundrum: Religion is applicable to explaining the supernatural.

This statement is neither a hypothesis (it cannot be tested), nor a theory.

From the perspective of science it is a baseless assertion, because it cannot be tested.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I read where Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" was considered THE foundation of our Revolution, as far as giving encouragement to the soldiers of the Revolution?

bpabbott, but which theory is to be "applied" in certain situations of life application, (pragmatism) as it concerns such complexity as the "world at large", the human being, and the affairs of life?

These are questions of ultimate value and concern for the individual, as Paul Tillich would say. And these values are individually determined and committed to.