At the Law and Liberty site,
Mark David Hall takes on Andrew Seidel and
his new work that attempts to debunk the Christian Nation thesis. A taste:
Misstatements of Fact
Founding Myth is littered with historical inaccuracies. Every writer slips occasionally, but the large number of errors in this work call into question the author’s commitment to providing an accurate account of the founding era. This is particularly significant for a constitutional attorney who believes history is, at least upon occasion, relevant for interpreting the First Amendment.
Seidel’s historical errors sometimes cut against his own argument. For instance, he asserts that “every colony had an established church.” By most counts, only nine of the original thirteen colonies had establishments; Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware did not. Some separationists point to these colonies, especially Rhode Island, as being ahead of their time with respect to church-state relations. Seidel offers no explanation as to why he considers them to have establishments.
Separationists are often interested in debates over religious establishments in only one state: Virginia. Seidel focuses on these as well, especially on the general assessment bill supported by Patrick Henry that would have provided state support to ministers from different denominations. The bill did not say how much support would be given, but Seidel refers to it as “Henry’s proposed three-penny tax.” He is presumably conflating the proposal with Parliament’s Tea Act of 1773, which included a three penny tax on tea (to which Madison refers in his Memorial and Remonstrance).
Madison’s Memorial had some influence in Virginia, but not as much as an evangelical petition that received three times as many signatures. But whatever impact it had, it did not convince “the people of Virginia to vote against the bill giving financial support to Christian ministers,” as Seidel asserts. In December of 1784, the Virginia legislature postponed action on the general assessment bill until the fall of 1785, but a final vote was never taken on it. Instead, the legislature passed Jefferson’s famous Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, but it did so in 1786, not 1785 as Seidel claims.
11 comments:
Does anybody have a page number for this, "every colony had an established church?”
Anonymous jimmiraybob said...
Does anybody have a page number for this, "every colony had an established church?”
It's a nitpick. The larger point is that some [nine!] colonies had official established state churches, which cuts against Seidel's larger thesis.
Seidel's own evidence argues against him, a trap not even David Barton is sloppy enough to get caught in.
Seidel seems to think that this quote supports his claims that Washington “was a man of little or no religion” who, “had he been religious, would have prevented showy religious display.” More broadly, he avers that the founders thought religious beliefs were “personal, not for public display or political benefit.”
Just a few lines after the passage quoted by Seidel, Washington wrote that progress in America was due, “above all” to “the pure and benign light of Revelation.”
and
Turning to the new republic, Seidel dismisses the Northwest Ordinance, which states the common view that “religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged,” because “it was passed by the Confederation Congress while the leading founding fathers were at the Constitutional Convention.” The law was indeed passed by the Confederation Congress in 1787, but Seidel is apparently unaware that one of Congress’s first acts in 1789 was to reauthorize the law—one of the most important pieces of legislation ever passed.
etc.
And of course the tedium of a non-Bible scholar explaining the Bible, LOL.
One does not need to be an expert on the Bible to recognize that Seidel offers interpretations of biblical passages that virtually no one has adhered to for centuries; and it is questionable if anyone ever adhered to some of them.
And you especially, jimmiraybob, should enjoy Seidel's amplification of Matthew Stewart's wildly speculative theory of Spinoza's influence on the Founders.
I was looking forward to seeing how he would support his claim that “[w]e know that both Baruch Spinoza and John Locke profoundly influenced the founders’ thinking.” I’ve argued elsewhere that Locke’s influence in the era is overrated, but I’ll concede that many founders were familiar with his works. But Spinoza? Seidel provides literally no evidence to support this claim.
...But even Stewart concedes that “[t]here was—and is—no meaningful evidence at all in revolutionary America” of Spinoza’s influence.
All in all, Barton's not looking so bad, or at least no worse.
Simply looking for a page number.
Never mind, I found it - pages 91 & 92 (see also end note #3 - Jefferson's Notes on the state of Virginia: Query XVII).
Did Andrew Seidel actually write, “Every colony had an established church, …” (pgs 91-92)? Why yes he did. So far so good.
Did Andrew Seidel actually make a misstatement of fact? Not so much if you plug that snippet into the context of what Seidel was saying. For some context, he is writing about the establishment of the British colonies and colonial British history that preceded the revolution, the transition of the colonies to free and independent states, and the establishment of a new national government under the US Constitution. As a point of fact the colonies, chartered under King James I, were subject to a Christian king who was the head of the state-established Church of England (or Anglican Church). So, when Seidel writes:
“Colonial governments were often overtly and officially religious. This is hardly surprising. Every colony was a part of the British Empire, subject to the Christian king who headed the Anglican Church,”
is that a misstatement of historical fact?
The next sentence in that passage starts with the statement that is being critiqued:
"Every colony had an established church, and English common law made heresy – a crime interpreted and defined by ecclesiastical judges – a capital crime, punished by burning in some colonies.(3)"
Is this a misstatement of historical fact? Seidel gives an end note that cites Jefferson’s 1781 Notes on the State of Virginia: Query XVII: Religion as the source for this summary statement, which is available here:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=291
Among other things, Jefferson states,
“The Anglicans retained full possession of the country about a century. Other opinions began then to creep in, and in the great care of the government to support their own church, having begotten an equal degree of indolence in its clergy, two-thirds of the people had become dissenters at the commencement of the present revolution.”
In the sense of the colonies being beholden from the outset to a state-established church Seidel is right, no matter how far they strayed prior to the revolution and the establishment of state constitutions and of a new national government under a new Constitution.
"...chartered under King James I..."
Should read "first chartered under King James I."
Did ""every colony [have] an established church?”
If not, Seidel is in error. And of course he is, see Rhode Island.
Oh my, not Rhode Island.
Early settlements (plantations) established in the “wilderness” outside of the established chartered colonies included Providence, Portsmouth, Newport, and Warwick.
These plantations, or perhaps proto-colonies, united for protection against the encroachment by already the existing chartered colonies under the banner Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; first gaining authority from England via the Patent for Providence Plantations - March 14, 1643 and then 2) via the Rhode Island Royal Charter of 1663.
Under the Patent for Providence Plantations, the people were “His Majesty the King of England's subjects” and were not explicitly guaranteed freedom of conscience, religious or otherwise with the provisions that: 1) “the said Laws, Constitutions, and Punishments, for the Civil Government of the said Plantations, be conformable to the Laws of England” and 2) that they conduct themselves according to “the Honour of his Majesty, and the Service of the State.”
Until the Rhode Island Royal Charter of 1663 the English subjects of Providence Plantations were officially subject to the King and the Church of England (although the times they were a turbulent and changing). By the time that Rhode Island became a colony, officially the Colony of Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations, it was dominated by dissent from but not necessarily separation from the Church of England (Anglicanism) the dominant religion, which meant that the Christian religion was the established prevailing religion in the Charter. Until May 4, 1776, at which time it declared independence from the Crown, it remained subject to the Crown and to potential revocation of the Charter – presumably if the experiment with religious tolerance created a disturbance to the civil peace.
The Colony of Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations certainly established the principle of religious disestablishment, separation of religion from civil government, and the freedom of consciousness pertaining to belief but it did not remain untouched by an explicit if kinder establishment of the Christian religion and non-Christians still had to worry about charges of disturbing the civil peace.
So, nitpick as you will, up to 1643 rogue English colonists (still considered subjects of the empire, rogue that they may be, were still applying to Britain for legal authority and were subject to the laws and traditions of England and, as a consequence, “had an established Church.” After 1643 and until 1663, the English proto- or quasi- or rogue-colonists occupying the Providence Plantations, still subjects of the empire and Crown, “had an established Church.” After 1663 the new colonists of the new Colony of Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations had a new degree of religious freedom but that was tenuous as it could have been revoked. So, technically, the colony from 1663 to 1776 lived under the shadow of an established church and its leader, the Crown, during a time when other charters were revoked for various reasons.
This was all during a time that, as Jefferson said in his Notes on the State of Virginia: Query XVII (1781), “The Anglicans retained full possession of the country.”
And, given the context of Seidel’s argument, “Rhode Island” does no harm to his general thesis.
While "freedom of consciousness" is, in its own right, important, I certainly meant freedom of conscience in this context. Apologies all around. I will talk sternly to my spellchecked about this issue.
This was all during a time that, as Jefferson said in his Notes on the State of Virginia: Query XVII (1781), “The Anglicans retained full possession of the country.”
By "country" Jefferson, writing Notes on Virginia, would have meant Virginia, no? Not all of America. Because the Anglicans did not control new England [Calvinist] and certainly not Pennsylvania.
And, given the context of Seidel’s argument, “Rhode Island” does no harm to his general thesis.
Actually, it was I who said it was a nitpick from the first.
It's a nitpick. The larger point is that some [nine!] colonies had official established state churches, which cuts against Seidel's larger thesis.
If you want to argue a point, please argue Seidel's larger thesis. I don't know what it is or what your point is. Mark David Hall pointed out that Seidel got so many key components wrong that his premises cannot be relied upon.
George Washington was far from indifferent about religion in public life, in fact urging it. Seidel makes his living creating lawsuits to drive religion out of America's public square, fighting tooth and nail about every square inch of American public lands that have a cross on them.
Can you like, focus? Seidel is wrong on the historical facts even worse than David Barton, and his larger anti-Christian America thesis is refuted by his own examples!!
Seidel's effort here is shoddy on every level.
"If you want to argue a point, please argue Seidel's larger thesis. "
Ha! Ha, I say. Sorry that I can't devote my time more fully to your service. As an astute observer might note, I was responding to one of the central points of the blog post.
"Mark David Hall pointed out that Seidel got so many key components wrong that his premises cannot be relied upon.
"
Let me be blunt. All of Hall's points, or enough of them to disqualify the "review" as anything other that a counter attack, are shallow quote mines that set up straw man arguments. It's a great review if you're looking for bias confirmation.
Seidel's larger thesis? What do you take away from your reading of the book? Can you state his larger thesis? My take away is that it holds up well, overall. If you want to set up a series here ate AC that looks more closely at specific points then do it. It would require having to actually read and consider the book.
Post a Comment