Did Washington Ask God for Help at His First Inauguration?

Whether George Washington invoked God's name at the end of his official presidential oath has become a debate that obscures a more obvious truth, one that sheds light more on the man himself than on any ideological agenda in today's so-called Culture War. The man who took the oath of office in April 1789 was scared to death of what might become of his beloved country and his almost equally beloved reputation. He wanted all the providential help he could get.

Did Washington Say "So Help Me God"?

Did George Washington add "so help me God" to the presidential oath? That question has become one of the flashpoints in today's so-called Culture War. And American Creation's Ray Soller continues the debate in a well-researched, articulate response (see "Jerry-Rigging the Presidential Oath With The Wall Builders") to David Barton's claim that Washington indeed said the words (see "Did George Washington Actually Say 'So Help Me God' During His Inauguration?"). (Note: I would link to Mr. Soller's article, but the title link goes to a different post by Mr. Soller than the one I'm trying to reference).

I've blogged about Washington's first inauguration before (see "Facts About George Washington's Inauguration") and have addressed the issue of Washington and SHMG in numerous posts and discussions here at American Creation. There's little value in repeating all that again. I will simply say that I believe Washington said the words, but I acknowledge I can't prove it. No one can prove the issue one way or the other. But, if I may ask your indulgence, let's take a moment and reflect on this question from a different angle.

The Wrong Question?

In my opinion, the issue of whether Washington said "so help me God" is a pointless dispute in the so-called Culture War. Those who want a completely secular presidential oath already have their wish, in that the legal oath, as prescribed in the Constitution, makes no mention of God. What's more, the Constitution expressly forbids any religious test for federal office. It is unconstitutional and improper for the one administering the oath to require or demand (by coercision, intimidation, or manipulation) that the President-elect append "so help me God" to the oath. Those who desire a secular presidential oath already have their wish.

Likewise, for faith-oriented conservatives caught up in the so-called Culture War, this is the wrong battle. So what if George Washington added "so help me God" to the presidential oath? For the first time around, he probably did. The second time around, he probably didn't. Then again, he may not have said "so help me God" at either time. Do social conservatives really want to pin so much on this one dispute?

I mean no disrespect to anyone with strong feelings on this issue. I applaud the desire of anyone to get at the truth, to uncover the facts, and/or to better understand our nation's history. Ray Soller here at American Creation has done a commendable job in pointing out the lack of evidence surrounding the assumption made by many over the years that Washington added "so help me God" to the presidential oath. And Mr. Soller does well in responding to David Barton's latest attempt to argue that the Washington SHMG tradition is accurate. Nevertheless, after reading the arguments of both men, I once again come to the inescapable truth that neither side can provide verifiable proof. We just don't know whether Washington said the words or not.

I personally like how Ron Chernow handles the issue in his biography Washington: A Life. Chernow writes: "Legend has it that [Washington] added 'So help me God,' though this line was first reported sixty-five years later. Whether or not Washington actually said it, very few people would have heard him anyway, since his voice was soft and breathy." Nicely done. I personally would've said "tradition" instead of "legend," but I like how Chernow handles the matter, especially how he only devotes a couple sentences to it, and then moves on.

The debate over Washington and SHMG will likely continue, but I don't think this calls for the kind of emotion that's been devoted to it. If Washington said "so help me God," that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution itself (which supersedes Washington in authority and importance) doesn't call for the words to be added. Even if Washington added "so help me God," everyone present would've understood it to be a personal addition to the legally prescribed oath. Washington's addition (if indeed he said the words) did not alter the official oath, nor did it change the Constitution's prohibition of a religious test. When a President-elect says "so help me God" after the oath, he is simply adding his personal sentiment. He's not writing law. He is asking God to help him fulfill his legal obligations.

On the other hand, if Washington did not say "so help me God," that hardly makes him a secular Deist who wanted to distance God from government. Washington's First Inaugural Address, which contains overt religious themes, puts to rest any possible misunderstanding along those lines. No matter whether Washington said the words "so help me God" or not, the historical fact is that the first President of the United States wove religious imagery and sentiment into his inauguration. No one can dispute this, as the record is abundantly clear.

A Glimpse into Washington's Mind

Fisher Ames recorded that Washington looked "grave, almost to sadness" at the time of his inauguration. One senator said the President-elect was "agitated and embarrassed." These men noticed how Washington felt, which was, as he confessed to his friend Henry Knox, as a "culprit who is going to the place of his execution." Washington felt the enormous strain of responsibility being thrust upon his shoulders, along with the unrealistic expectations of so many of his countrymen. Who wouldn't be a little stressed? And who wouldn't want a little help?

I believe this is what we are missing when we debate the issue of "so help me God." If Washington indeed said the words, it wasn't to make some kind of political point, and I think he'd be very disappointed if activists today tried to do so. Rather, Washington was genuinely vexed, and he sincerely needed help from Divine Providence. This much is certain when one looks at the Inaugural Address itself.

In his Inaugural Address, the newly sworn-in President confessed that "no event could have filled me with greater anxieties" than being called upon to serve as President. He referred to the "the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my country called me" and cited his own "inferior endowments." He admitted he was "peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies," and in that context, he moved to the religious portion of his speech, in which he declared:

"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge."

This isn't Washington trying to be a culture warrior. It's Washington confessing his fear and anxiety (albeit in a strained, formal, 18th century manner) and confidently asserting that God can compensate for "every human defect." To the extent that this is a statement in the so-called Culture War today, it's only because the United States has become more culturally and religiously diverse - and more distant from our heritage (the latter not necessarily being a good thing). In the 18th century, no one would've heard these words with offense. They would've welcomed them as an affirmation of Washington's humility and faith, qualities they desired in a leader. If one were to ask the attendees that day if they heard or thought Washington had asked God for help after his inauguration, all of them would have pointed to his Inaugural Address as opposed to what he may or may not have whispered following the legal oath.

Whether Washington said "so help me God" or not after his oath is simply not a relevant issue to the Culture War. For that matter, neither is the debate over the painting of Washington praying at Valley Forge. The painting may very well be apocryphal in how it depicts Washington, but does anyone seriously doubt Washington prayed during the long winter at Valley Forge - at least once or twice!? Washington was a man of prayer, and there were times in his life (such as at Valley Forge and when taking the oath of office as President) that he needed God and turned to prayer. No credible historian disputes this. The evidence is clear.

Once again, I mean no disrespect to anyone engaged in this debate. I commend both Mr. Barton and Mr. Soller for well-written essays. Mr. Soller, in particular, has written extensively on the subject, and I applaud his research. But I do (respectfully) feel we're losing sight of the forest for the trees. When it comes to Washington's inauguration, let's not allow a peripheral debate to obscure what is of much greater interest and importance, that of gaining insight into the mind of George Washington and the extraordinary challenges he faced when becoming our first President.

Merry Christmas from George Washington

You've heard the phrase "the gift that keeps on giving." Those of us living in the United States continue to enjoy two wonderful Christmas gifts bestowed upon our nation over 200 years ago, and both gifts come to us from George Washington.

The Indispensable Legacy of George Washington

Those of us who live in the United States of America take many things for granted. Among them is the fact that we live in a sovereign nation, which enjoys a routine and peaceful transfer of power. Another is that we have a military that is subordinate to civilian authority. No nation is perfect, and the United States has obviously endured a bloody civil war as well as its share of corruption, bigotry, discrimination, etc. Yet, the United States has achieved a stunning degree of stability and prosperity that many other nations of the world could only dream of, and it has done so in a relatively short amount of time. While no individual is single-handedly responsible for all these things, I would like to suggest that one man does stand head and shoulders above the rest in having made not only a noticeable contribution, but an indispensable one. He didn't do it alone, but it's hard to imagine others making the contributions as well as he did in his stead. In every sense of the term, George Washington is indispensable to American history.

The Battle of Trenton: Washington's First Christmas Gift

Two hundred thirty-five years ago this night (December 25) at 11pm, General George Washington led 2,400 men in a desperate, all-night crossing of the icy Delaware River. Washington's audacious attack routed the Hessians the next morning at Trenton, literally saving the American Revolution. If Washington had not rolled the dice to attack the Hessians, it's likely the American Revolution would've fizzled in 1777. His army was about to disintegrate due to desertions and the expiration of enlistments. In fact, Washington had already lost close to 90 percent of his army as it was battered, humiliated, and chased out of Long Island. The American Revolution was all but over. Washington himself had written his brother that the "game" was just about "up." There's a reason why he chose "Victory or Death" as the password that night. He knew that if he did nothing, the Revolution would fail. And he knew that if he did something bold and failed, the Revolution would fail. He absolutely had to win at Trenton. And he did.

As historian David Hackett Fischer rightly says of the Battle of Trenton: "No single day in history was more decisive for the creation of the United States than Christmas 1776." It was one of two Christmas gifts George Washington gave to the United States of America. We are still enjoying the gift today.

Washington's Christmas Farewell in 1783

In December 1783, with the completion of the Treaty of Paris which formally concluded the American Revolution and after talking down a would-be coup d'etat at Newburgh, Washington found himself in a position of being able to retire and go home with honor. Washington had already resisted the suggestion that he become dictator or king. With the Treaty of Paris confirmed, the war had been won. The United States had been granted its independence. And it set the stage for what historian Stanley Weintrab calls Washington's "Christmas Farewell."

When General George Washington resigned his commission before Congress on December 23, 1783, he did what few revolutionary leaders had ever done or have done since. He became, as one historian put it, one of the only leaders of an armed revolution to leave power "vertically instead of horizontally." When King George III heard of Washington's resignation, he called him "the greatest man alive" or "the greatest character of his age."

Americans today take for granted a military that is subordinate to Constitutional and civilian authority. This is not so in other nations of the world. In fact, it wasn't even the case with civilizations that our Founders partly modeled. Romans, anyone? Yet we take for granted that our military leaders will follow orders and respect civilian leaders, no matter how much they may disagree with those civilian authorities. This is in large part due to Washington's example...his legacy.

What's more, the entire concept of a peaceful transfer of power is something ingrained in our nation's DNA. It was put there by George Washington! He did it the first time in December 1783 and, again, in the mid-1790s after serving two terms as President of the United States.

The Greatest Character of His Time (and Arguably Ours)

King George III was right. There was no man of that era quite like George Washington. In fact, the United States of America still hasn't had a leader quite like George Washington. Yes, we've been blessed by great leaders, such as Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr., but these men (and other great leaders like them) were able to accomplish much of what they did on a stage that was made possible by George Washington!

Even the two "Christmas gifts" I've mentioned only speak to part of Washington's legacy. I alluded to Newburgh, without going into any detail. What Washington did at Newburgh alone was of supreme importance to the future of the United States. For that alone, he deserves every monument erected in his honor and every road or school that's been given his name. When you add the other things as well, his legacy is overwhelming and virtually unimpeachable. No other figure in U.S. history comes close. George Washington is the greatest and most indispensable leader in American history, and he's one of the greatest human beings to have ever lived.

Obama Claims He's a Better President Than George Washington!

In a recent interview with CBS 60 Minutes, President Barack Obama said: "I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history."

If one takes this boast seriously, President Obama is saying that his accomplishments, particularly in the areas of foreign policy and what he's gotten through Congress, are thus far greater than those of every single one of his predecessors, except PERHAPS (note he says "possible exception") Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson. This means Barack Obama essentially considers himself a better President than George Washington! The first President of the United States doesn't even rank as a "possible exception" to Obama's sweeping boast.

For more on this incredible display of hubris, read "Is Barack Obama the Fourth Best President? Obama Says His Accomplishments Rank Higher Than Those of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson" over at my blog, the American Revolution & Founding Era.

Did the Founders Wish to Separate Religion and Government?

In light of the U.S. Constitution's prohibition of a religious test for federal office and the First Amendment's establishment clause, many Americans allege that the Founders saw no place for religion in government. This view is unfortunately fairly widespread in law schools, in many courts, and here on American Creation. In a recent blog post criticizing David Barton (a recurring theme here at AC), Brad Hart writes that "our Founding Fathers were smart enough to recognize the FACT that religion should have no place in government" (emphasis his). Brad is not alone. Several of my fellow bloggers here at AC, whom I respect, have embraced the idea of a fully secular public square, complete with a government that's not only neutral in terms of religious denominations or faith groups, but neutral on the issue of faith itself.

What is Religion?

In order to assess whether the Founders believed "religion should have no place in government," we should first understand what is meant by "religion." If by using the term "religion," one is simply making the case that the U.S. government should not endorse Catholics over Protestants (or vice versa) or establish a state church, then such a case is definitely consistent with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and the eventual consensus of the American Founders. If, however, "religion" is broad enough to include belief in God in general as well as an official acknowledgment that our rights come from God and that we are accountable, in some way, to God, then we're talking about something else entirely.

Religious Belief is Inevitable

Part of the definition of religion, according to Dictionary.com, is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." By this broad definition, humanism would certainly qualify as a religion. In fact, by this definition, every single human being possesses some type of "religious" view, because we're talking more about worldview than about the embracing of a specific supernatural entity. 

A quote attributed to Noah Webster affirms this point. Webster is alleged to have said: "Every civil government is based upon some religion or philosophy of life." In researching this article, I was unable to find a primary source for this quote, so I can't confirm that Mr. Webster actually said it. Whether he did or not, though, I think it's an accurate statement. Every civil society that has ever existed is shaped by philosophical and religious assumptions.

The Founders Embraced Judeo-Christian Monotheism

It is a matter of historical fact that the Founding Fathers of the United States of America fully embraced monotheism, and their monotheistic framework was shaped primarily by a culture steeped in Judeo-Christian belief and tradition. And this Judeo-Christian monotheism was not incidental or peripheral to their efforts in erecting the United States. It was a worldview that was front and center, and was incorporated fully into the foundation of our Republic. One need only look to the colonial charters, the Declaration of Independence, and the state constitutions to confirm this.

It is factually incorrect to associate the view that "religion should have no place in government" with the Founding Fathers of the United States. It certainly wasn't George Washington's view, who declared in his Inaugural Address that the people of the United States were "bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States." Washington issued the first national Thanksgiving Proclamation after the U.S. Constitution, and said it was the "duty of all nations" to acknowledge God with worship and gratitude. And it was Washington, in his Farewell Address, who said that "religion and morality" were "indispensable" to "political prosperity." Doesn't sound like a guy who wanted religion completely separate from government. And, if I may, who are we to disagree with George Washington when it comes to discussing the original meaning of the Constitution or the intentions of our Founders?

Then, of course, there's Jefferson, who secularists love to quote as someone who promoted the separation of church and state. While Jefferson most certainly opposed anything that smacked of a Church of America, he nevertheless had no problem with Judeo-Christian monotheism being at the center of our Republic. Consider his famous question: "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis-a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?" That sounds like a question of a religious nature to me. 

The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that the Founders believed in the existence of God and that our fundamental rights come from God. These are religious sentiments and they are enshrined into our founding document and, by consequence, our heritage and identity. 

It's the right of the American people today to decide to jettison the beliefs of the Founding Fathers. They would be wrong to do so, but it's their legal right. People are entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. It's legitimate to disagree with the Founders, but it's not right to redefine the values and beliefs of the Founders. On the issue of religion and government, the Founders have a right to speak for themselves, and they have done so. 

George Washington Thanked Who?

I hope everyone enjoyed the Thanksgiving holiday. With all the turkey, stuffing, football, Black Friday sales, and political correctness, it's sometimes easy to forget the original purpose behind the holiday, and the man who made it a national event. Fortunately, a column in USA Today helps remind us that...


"George Washington Thanked God for America"
by Brian W. Walsh


It used to be common knowledge that America's first national Thanksgiving Day was established by President George Washington in 1789. While a few modern critics might be rankled by, as Washington's proclamation puts it, an official "day of public thanksgiving and prayer," for most Americans the holiday stands as an enduring reminder of Washington's wise vision for American religious freedom.


To read the rest of the article, visit "George Washington Thanked God for America"

Should We Devote Ourselves to God on Independence Day?

According to John Adams, the answer to that question would be "yes." John Adams believed that the day Americans celebrate their independence should, among other things, be marked by "solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty." Here is how Adams said Independence Day should be celebrated...

"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more."

John Adams of course turned out to be wrong about the date of America's birthday. Given all the hard work Adams put into lining up the 12-0 vote (New York abstaining) on July 2, one can't fault him for his preference for that day. Sadly for Mr. Adams, Americans chose to celebrate July 4, the day Congress approved Thomas Jefferson's eloquent handiwork, the Declaration of Independence.

In the minds of some, though, John Adams was also wrong about predicting and urging Americans to worship God on July 4. After all, isn't Independence Day a purely secular holiday? Not according to Mr. Adams. And, I dare say, not according to most of our Founding Fathers.

Certainly with the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the Constitution of the United States (which forbids religious tests), and the First Amendment (with its establishment and free exercise clauses), the dominant consensus of the Founders was shaped in favor of religious freedom. Based on that legacy, it's certainly appropriate for us today to speak out for the rights of people to practice their own faith (or no faith at all). Nevertheless, the Founders would likely contest any assertion that the United States achieved independence purely on its own efforts. And, with respect, so should we. America had help in its struggle for independence. And, no, I'm not referring to the French!

Most Americans would have agreed wholeheartedly with George Washington, who wrote in 1778: "The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations." Washington shared similar sentiments in his 1789 First Inaugural, when he declared: "No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency."

Washington's sentiments regarding Divine Providence and the debt America owed such Providence were very similar to those held by Mr. Adams, which is why he confidently predicted to Abigail that America's Independence would be celebrated not simply by fireworks, but also with "Acts of Devotion to God Almighty."

While I certainly respect the rights of each person reading this to go his or her own way, I intend to take Mr. Adams up on his advice.

John Adams Bases Constitution's Success on Public Morality

Can the United States of America flourish or survive in the absence of religion and morality? John Adams, the second President of the United States, did not believe so. In a letter to the First Brigade of the Massachusetts militia, John Adams famously declared:

"[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

While many have taken Adams's words to mean he was endorsing an evangelical government and/or a "Christian nation," it's important that we not overreach or put words into his mouth. John Adams, in this letter, is not endorsing a particular Christian denomination nor is he advocating that the United States adopt the Bible as its legal structure in place of the Constitution. He's instead echoing the sentiments of his predecessor, George Washington, who stated that "religion and morality" are "indispensable supports to political prosperity."

Like Washington, Adams believed that morality and religion were inextricably intertwined. You can't have the former without the latter, and if you can find a latter system without the former, it is inherently flawed and should be set aside. A moral world view, underlined and shaped by religion, is essential to a healthy society, argued Adams. And the American Constitution was written with such a society in mind. Do we have such a society today?

A Salute to George Washington

"I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man." -George Washington

Today (February 21) is the day Americans set aside to honor the birth and legacy of George Washington. Though we've gotten in the unfortunate habit of calling the holiday "Presidents Day," its original and still legal purpose is to honor one President: George Washington. That Washington deserves his own holiday should be beyond dispute, as he was much more than simply a President. He was the father of the United States of America...and, in the words of King George III, the "greatest man" of his time.

Here at American Creation, we've argued over whether George Washington was a Christian, Deist, or somewhere in between. In American society overall, his name is used to advance political causes and to sell cars. But one thing all Americans and certainly everyone here should agree upon is that George Washington was a man of great character and integrity, and the United States of America was blessed to have him at the center of its birth.

Washington was not a perfect man. He was a slave owner after all. But he was a highly conscientious man, someone who aspired to live a moral and honorable life, even so much that he genuinely wrestled with the contradictions and tragedy of slavery, an institution he had no cultural reason to question, given his upbringing and the economic nature of plantation Virginia. His attitude was summed up in a letter to his friend Robert Morris, in which he wrote: "I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of [slavery]."

Though slavery is an understandable stain on Washington's legacy (which is why I address it above), it should not define the man or overshadow his many other noteworthy qualities and achievements. We are, after all, talking about a man who put his fortune, reputation, and life at risk to lead his nation through the American Revolution. We are talking about a man who resisted the temptation to power, sternly refusing to even consider dictatorial office at the conclusion of the Revolutionary War and who voluntarily resigned his commission once the issue of independence was decided. This act alone makes him worthy of every square inch of every monument and building erected to his name, for he is one of the very, very few revolutionaries in history to walk away from power vertically. And his actions established the principle in America of respect for democratic rule and civilian authority over the military. And we are talking about a man who conducted himself with wisdom, humility, and moral discipline while serving as our nation's first President.

I will not take the time to list out all of Washington's achievements, but suffice it to say that, when faced with challenges or opportunities, Washington's consistent moral compass was that he maintain a worthy reputation under the shadow of Divine Providence and in the eyes of his fellow countrymen. George Washington's sincerity, integrity, character, bravery, and charisma made him the truly indispensable man in American history. Without Washington, there likely would not be a United States of America today. I will let the nation's sixteenth President get the final say in summing up George Washington's legacy...

"Washington is the mightiest name of earth — long since mightiest in the cause of civil liberty; still mightiest in moral reformation. On that name, an eulogy is expected. It cannot be. To add brightness to the sun, or glory to the name of Washington, is alike impossible. Let none attempt it. In solemn awe pronounce the name, and in its naked deathless splendor, leave it shining on." -Abraham Lincoln

*****

For more on George Washington's legacy, check out...

"What if George Washington Had Never Been Born?"

Were Most Early American City Dwellers Corrupt and Depraved?

"Many, and probably most, inhabitants of early American cities were corrupt and depraved, and the Founding Fathers knew it." So writes Thaddeus Russell, in his controversial new book A Renegade History of the United States. I recently was sent a copy of Russell's book for review, and am in the process of working my way through it. One of the things that struck me about Russell's research is that it puts many of the Founders' quotes concerning the need for religion and morality in context.

Russell received his PhD in history from Columbia University and now teaches history and American studies at Occidental College. In the spirit of Howard Zinn and Ray Raphael, Russell contends that it was the people on the fringes of society, not the landmark figures remembered in statues, who made America "the land of the free." Russell, however, puts an interesting twist on the "power to the people" ideology found in the Howard Zinn school of thought. Russell focuses not simply on the poor and downtrodden, but on those whose lifestyles were considered sinful or "wretched" by the elites and even by mainstream Americans of their day. Describing colonial America, Russell writes:

"During the War of Independence a culture of pleasure and freedom blossomed in American cities. Non-marital sex, including adultery and relations between whites and blacks, was ubiquitous and rarely punished. Because divorce was unregulated, it was easily and frequently obtained, often by women. Brothels were legal and abundant and prostitutes were rarely prosecuted. Black slaves, Irish indentured servants, Native Americans, and free whites of all classes commingled extensively in saloons and in the streets. Pirates who settled in the port cities brought with them a way of life that embraced both general revelry and homosexuality. On nearly every block in every 18th-century American city, there was a public place where one could drink, sing, dance, have sex, argue politics, gamble, play games, or generally carouse with men, women, children, whites, blacks, Indians, the rich, the poor, and the middling. Rarely have Americans had more fun. And never have America's leaders been less pleased by it."

Russell amusingly quotes John Adams, who (not in an amusing mindset) wrote to a friend: "Indeed, there is one enemy, who is more formidable than famine, pestilence and the sword. I mean the corruption which is prevalent in so many American hearts, a depravity that is more inconsistent with our republican governments than light is with darkness."

The state of affairs described by Russell sheds light on Adams's quote, often paraded by those on the conservative side in today's culture wars, in which the second President said:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

It also sets in context George Washington's seemingly haughty criticisms of "dirty" New Englanders. To twenty-first century readers, Washington comes off as rather elitist at times (and, at times, he was), but Russell's description of city-dwelling New Englanders certainly explains why the cultured, conscientiously moral Washington would be uncomfortable in the presence of at least some of the men who flocked to the Continental Army in 1775 and 1776.

I'm not prepared to give a full, comprehensive review of Russell's book yet, as I'm still wading my through its 400 pages. But it's definitely interesting - dare I say provocative. I think Russell certainly goes too far with some of his points (something that's to be expected by anyone writing from the Howard Zinn perspective). Indeed, some of Russell's claims could be characterized as preposterous. But the book is interesting nevertheless, and some of his research can't be contested.

John Jay: America's First Chief Justice

Today, September 24 marks the 221st anniversary of President George Washington's nomination of John Jay to be the first Chief Justice of the United States. A respected attorney and noted negotiator (he helped with the treaty negotiations that ended the War for Independence), John Jay possessed a brilliant mind and a solid reputation. As co-author of The Federalist, he was a logical choice for the newly established Supreme Court.

Jay's appointment was made possible, when on the same day (September 24, 1789), Congress passed the first Judiciary Act under the new Constitution of the United States, which established six seats on the Supreme Court of the United States and a network of inferior courts to round out the judicial branch of government. President George Washington responded to this by immediately nominating John Jay as Chief Justice and naming John Rutledge, William Cushing, John Blair, Robert Harrison, and James Wilson to be associate justices.

Though Jay was a conscientious and dedicated Chief Justice, his most notable achievement during his years on the Supreme Court had nothing to do with the Court, but rather his role as principal negotiator with the at-the-time hated "Jay Treaty." Jay's efforts, though highly controversial, helped secure a much-needed peace with Great Britain, postponing a war that the nascent United States could ill afford to fight. That peace would last until 1812.

When Jay left the Court, he found himself elected governor of New York, where he fought for penal and judicial reform as well as the abolition of slavery. Jay declined a reappointment to the Supreme Court in 1800, citing the health of his wife. He retired from active politics and died in 1829.

John Jay's contributions to the formation of the United States are noteworthy and deserving of our respect. These words, summing up the legacy of the American Revolution and the cause of popular government in America, echo through the centuries in a way that remain as relevant today as ever before...

"The people are Sovereign. ... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects... with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty."

President Obama Drops "Creator" From The Declaration of Independence

In a speech given to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus at its 33rd annual gala, President Barack Obama cites the preamble to the Declaration of Independence in an effort to cite the values that unite all Americans and make us strong...



Many conservatives have savaged Obama for intentionally dropping "Creator" from the preamble. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't think he misquoted the Declaration of Independence intentionally. As a pastor, I sometimes find myself accidentally mangling a Bible verse or a quote - even at times a passage with which I'm normally very familiar. That kind of thing can happen when you're speaking in public. (We all remember how Chief Justice Roberts mangled the presidential oath, right?) So, I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. It's also possible there was a mistake with the Teleprompter.

Nevertheless, the mistake is worth acknowledging. It's worth pointing out, because the principle at stake is no small matter. According to the Founding Fathers, people are not "endowed" with "unalienable rights" by happenstance, evolution, majority consent, or the government. According to Thomas Jefferson and the Second Continental Congress, our fundamental rights come from the Creator.

As Jefferson famously asked in his Notes on Virginia: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?"

That a human being's fundamental rights come from a divine, intelligent Creator is a core value central to the nation's founding and one our government and all American Presidents should embrace.

Did The Founding Fathers Believe Slavery Was Morally Wrong?

"The prevailing ideas entertained by [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically." This was the assessment of the collective mind of America's Founding Fathers, as offered by the vice president of the Confederate States of America, Alexander H. Stephens, in March of 1861 in his famous (or, more properly, infamous) "Cornerstone" speech.

Stephens would go on to say that the Jefferson and the Founders had it all wrong. The races, said Stephens, were not equal, and the new Confederate constitution corrected the Founders of the United States on that point.

I find this critique of America's Founders to be very interesting, considering that modern-day critics are so frequently alleging that the Founders were racist, pro-slavery, and more. Here in Alexander H. Stephens we have an unequivocal white supremacist saying that the foundations of the United States were based on racial equality.

In case you think "racial equality" (in describing the views of Jefferson and the Founders) takes it too far, the fault lies with Stephens (not me). It was Stephens who said that Jefferon's ideals (which indict slavery) "rested upon the assumption of the equality of races" -- an assumption Stephens said was an "error."

For more on this disagreement between Alexander H. Stephens and Thomas Jefferson, I would like to invite you to check out my latest article over at my American Revolution & Founding Era blog...

"Alexander Stephens vs Thomas Jefferson"

As to what the Founders themselves thought of slavery, I would encourage you to check out Vindicating The Founders by Thomas G. West. A great book that addresses the Founders' views on race, gender, and much more.

George Washington's Inaugural Sermon

On this day (April 30) in 1789, George Washington took the oath of office to become the first President of the United States of America under the newly ratified Constitution of the United States.

**See "Facts About George Washington's Inauguration" over at The American Revolution & Founding Era blog.

After taking the oath, Washington delivered a speech, a custom each President has since followed -- a speech that we know as the Inaugural Address. A portion of Washington's First Inaugural could accurately be described as a "sermon."

That portion of the speech follows:

"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence."

Dictionary.com defines as Sermon as follows:

1.a discourse for the purpose of religious instruction or exhortation, esp. one based on a text of Scripture and delivered by a member of the clergy as part of a religious service.
2.any serious speech, discourse, or exhortation, esp. on a moral issue.
3.a long, tedious speech.

I have to chuckle at #3. Hopefully, my congregation wouldn't describe MY sermons that way. :-) And whether one wishes to think of Washington's first inaugural as "long" or "tedius" is for another discussion.

While the overall purpose of the inaugural address wasn't "religious instruction or exhortation," the portion provided above was definitely included for that reason. Washington clearly wanted to weigh in on a "moral issue" (see description #2 of Sermon) and was very much interested in providing some "religious instruction" (see #1).

The religious portion of Washington's Inaugural was not overtly Christian. In fact, it was broad enough to appeal to Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Unitarian, Deist, and even some Freethinking audiences. But it would NOT have appealed to atheists, what few there were at the time. And its content certainly doesn't resonate with atheists or agnostics today, try as they might to ignore this part of Washington's speech.

George Washington clearly and unmistakably staked out monotheistic tenets in his Inaugural Address. He unequivocally embraced the existence of God, humbled himself before God, emphasized the crucial importance of prayer, and declared that the American people were "bound to acknowledge and adore" God.

These words were no mere rhetorical flourish. They reflect similar themes echoed in other speeches and writings, including his Thanksgiving Proclamation (which he would issue later that same year). What's more, Washington's sentiments were agreeable to the overwhelming majority of the American people and the vast majority of its leaders. The American people of the eighteenth century had no objection to and little discomfort in expressing their belief in, love for and dependence on God. That some do today is not, in the opinion of this author, a sign of progress.

**See "Dependence on God: An American Tradition" (a previous post here on American Creation).

Other than perhaps Thomas Paine, no American Founding Father would've even considered opposing the religious content of Washington's First Inaugural. In fact, some Founders such as John Jay (Washington's first appointee to the Supreme Court) would go even further.

Washington's Inaugural Address is clear evidence of what the late Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas once said: "We are a religious people, whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being."

"I Am The Resurrection And The Life...": Washington's Very Christian Tomb

There has been considerable debate here at American Creation over whether George Washington was a genuine, authentic Christian -- a debate that is of course not limited to this site. Many claim Washington was a Deist. Some, while acknowledging "Deist" is a bit extreme, say Washington was only nominally a Christian, and that, in all likelihood, he never really embraced the deity of Jesus Christ or the orthodox tenets of the Christian faith.

One thing is certain, though: The tomb which currently contains the remains of George and Martha Washington is very Christian.

The Washington Family Tomb

When George Washington died in 1799, his remains were placed temporarily in a family burial vault that was in a state of disrepair. In his will, Washington directed that a new tomb be constructed "at the foot of what is commonly called the Vineyard Inclosure."

The project was delayed for several years, but in 1831, the remains of George and Martha Washington were finally moved to their new resting place. Work on the tomb, particularly its majestic brick enclosure, were concluded in 1835. Today, twenty-five Washington family members are at rest in the tomb.

The Washington Tomb's Christian Message

Visitors to Mount Vernon have the opportunity to look into the tomb containing the remains of George and Martha Washington, along with those of several other members of the Washington family. Standing just a few feet away from the actual remains of our nation's First Couple is something that's quite impressive to any true history buff.

And those who carefully study the back wall of the open vault will find an inscription that quotes some of Jesus' most famous words: "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die."

This quote is taken from John 11:25-26, where Jesus tries to assure Lazarus' family that his earthly death is not the end.

The inclusion of John 11:25-26 unmistakably associates the Washington family, including George and Martha, with the promise of the resurrection of the dead, the central claim of Christianity.

Christianity's Resurrection Claim

Since this blog is read by people from many different faiths, it's not my intention to preach. And since it's more about the study of early American history, I won't provide any kind of detailed explanation of the Christian belief in resurrection. Nevertheless, in order to understand the rationale behind the inscription on the Washington tomb, some explanation is in order.

In I Corinthians 15, Paul emphasizes the promise of life after death, tying its credibility to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. What's more, Paul makes clear that he's not offering some kind of poetic platitude designed to make people feel good. He truly believes in the reality of the Christian faith and elevates Christianity above any exercise in wishful thinking.

**See "Paul And The Deity of Jesus" over at Suite101 Protestantism

The fifteenth chapter of Paul's first letter to Corinth declares the resurrection of Jesus to be an actual event and claims that over five hundred people (many of whom still alive at the time of his writing) saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion. In between the lines, he is essentially daring those who are skeptical to seek out those eyewitnesses.

It's because of this resurrection, Paul writes, that Christians can believe in the "resurrection of the dead." And, says Paul, if somehow the resurrection didn't happen (if it was a hoax), then "our preaching is useless and so is your faith" (I Corinthians 15:12-14).

In his letter to Rome, Paul similarly writes that belief that "God raised [Jesus] from the dead" is essential to one's salvation (Romans 10:9-10).

It is this resurrection that Christians celebrate every Easter, and it's this resurreciton that gives Christians everywhere the assurance of their faith and validates the promises of eternity with God (John 3:16; Romans 3:22-26).

Washington's Christian Faith

Was the decision of Washington's family to put John 11:25-26 above his and Martha's remains reflective of the general's faith? Did George Washington believe in the "resurrection of the dead"? Did Washington believe in Jesus' resurrection?

Joseph Ellis, in his Washington biography His Excellency, concludes that based on the lack of clergy present and/or any recorded overt declarations of faith in Jesus, George Washington "died as a Roman Stoic rather than a Christian saint."

Of course, as Michael and Jana Novak point out in Washington's God, there is "not really a contradiction between being a Stoic and a Christian...regarding key virtues of daily living." Nevertheless, Ellis joins the ranks of many scholars and everyday Americans who argue that George Washington was not really a Christian.

It should also be noted that, one month after his husband's passing, Martha Washington wrote Jonathan Trumbull: "When the mind is deeply afflicted by those irreparable losses which are incident to humanity, the good Christian will submit without repining to the dispensations of divine Providence, and look for consolation to that Being who alone can pour balm into the bleeding heart, and who has promised to be the widow's God."

Martha's note reflects a biblical knowledge of God's promises regarding grief, widows, and sovereignty. She clearly casts herself as a Christian, striving to be a "good" one. Given Martha's use of the word "Providence" (her husband's favorite word for God) and the closeness of their marriage, is it too much to conclude that George and Martha Washington had more in common in their understanding of God and Christianity than not?

Nelly Custis-Lewis wrote that George and Martha Washington "were so perfectly united and happy that he must have been a Christian" and that Martha "had no doubts, no fears for him" as she "resigned him without a murmur into the arms of his Savior and his God, with the assured hope of his eternal felicity." Ms. Custis-Lee should know. She was Martha's granddaughter and adoptive daughter to both George and Martha, upon her father's untimely death. It should also be noted that Nelly was the wife of Lawrence Lewis, the Washington nephew who oversaw construction of the tomb.

It is true that George Washington made few public statements, verbally or in writing, in which he mentioned the name of Jesus Christ. This isn't to say that Washington never mentioned Jesus (as some who challenge Washington's Christian faith allege), but it's true that Washington kept public pronouncements about Jesus to a minimum. It's also true that Washington so frequently refused to partake of Communion that many biographers have concluded he rarely (if ever) took Communion.

John Marshall, a Washington friend and future Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, argued that this shouldn't be used as evidence against Washington's Christian beliefs. Marshall explained: "Without making ostentatious professions of religion, [George Washington] was a sincere believer in the Christian faith, and a truly devout man."

Nineteenth century histian Jared Sparks bluntly declared: "To say that [George Washington] was not a Christian would be to impeach his sincerity and honesty."

Whatever the degree of George Washington's personal belief in Jesus Christ, the Washington tomb, completed in 1831, points to the central promise of Christianity - the one that hundreds of millions of people around the world celebrate each and every Easter, including this one:

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die."

Happy Easter!

Beware Academic Elitism

As we explore the concepts of religion and morality in early American history, to what experts or authorities should we turn? How do we decide whether a certain speaker, activist, or writer can be considered an "expert" or "authority"? Who deserves our attention and respect?

If you've spent much time here at American Creation, you've probably seen several cases where the above questions have been debated -- if not openly, at least in the subtext of the comments. How often have we read someone say that a certain activist, writer, or even blog contributor has dubious or suspect qualifications to address matters of history, because...well....he or she "is not a historian." Not a real historian anyway.

These kinds of exchanges raise some important questions. Does a person need to have a master's or doctorate in history specifically in order to warrant our respectful consideration? Or is a degree even enough? How many books must be published or awards received, before a person is considered sufficiently "credentialed" to warrant our respect?

My thesis is that a speaker, writer, or activist should not be judged (and certainly not dismissed) based solely or even primarily on his or her resume. A person should be evaluated based on character and performance, not on credentials. Having a resume full of degrees, awards, etc. doesn't give someone a monopoly on truth, nor does it exempt him or her from making mistakes or errors in judgment.

To dismiss someone out of hand for a lack of certain credentials can fairly be called "academic elitism" and it has unfortunately raised its ugly head on too many occasions in our society, including here at our American Creation blog.

Scholarship and Credentialism - They Are Not Always The Same

Effective, credible analysis of history requires patience, discipline, careful research, and some form of system designed to compensate for the individual's or group's bias. Regarding the latter, that a person or team will have a bias is natural. No one is free from some kind of bias. But it is possible to account for that bias and put in "checks and balances" to channel and control for it. Thus, it is not elitism to insist that a writer or reseacher employ such skills or disciplines.

On some occasions, activists have failed to employ these skills and have encountered reasonable criticism and scrutiny as a result. David Barton, for example, has acknowledged that his past use of quotes landed him in hot water, because he too casually accepted secondhand or thirdhand sources, rather than confirming the authenticity of the quotes themselves by combing through the original source material. It was a layman's error and a costly one, for it continues to dog his credibility in some circles to this day.

The Internet is full of examples where activists, on all sides of the political spectrum, have lifted quotes out of context or clipped quotes to suit their own purposes. This kind of shoddy, agenda-driven "research" should be called out.

Principles and practices of sound scholarship are certainly needed. But credentialed historians are just as capable of flawed or deceptive "scholarship" as any layperson. Remember Ward Churchill? And how about the late Howard Zinn? Both guys had the official credentials, but their "scholarship" left much to be desired.

It's one thing to demand sound, credible scholarship. It's another to demand that a writer or speaker have a certain resume before you'll give her a hearing!

The Dark Side of Elitism

In a recent article "Judge the Person: Not the Resume," film critic and conservative writer Michael Medved deplored elitism in American culture, writing: "The poisonous polarization of the culture has produced some ill-considered attacks that call into question one of the most fundamental American values: the notion that each individual deserves to be judged on ability, not background, and evaluated on performance rather than credentials.

K12 Academics, an education resource website, defines academic elitism as a belief that "only those individuals who have engaged in scholarship are deemed to have anything worthwhile to say, or do."

Once again, it's not unreasonable to demand that a person "engage in scholarship" insofar as his or her specific studies are concerned. But, all too often, a person is considered to have not "engaged in scholarship," unless he or she has the resume to prove it. Scholarship is too often based on resume.

I grant that a credentialed, professional historian deserves a certain presumption of respect. Nevertheless, a journalist, minister, philosopher, or even one completely outside of social studies can still offer something of value to the study and discussion of history. In fact, at times, such a contribution can be of great value.

David McCullough comes to mind. McCullough's award-winning books are well researched and immensely popular. Yet many deride McCullough, because he lacks a degree in history. To them, McCullough is not a REAL historian. Of course, what this usually means is that the Howard Zinns and quasi-Zinns of the historical scholarship community sneer at McCullough's unabashed patriotism. I mean, a historian - a REAL historian - would never be patriotic, right?

Can Ministers, Theologians, or Activists Offer Good History?

Let's take Dr. Peter Lillback, author of George Washington's Sacred Fire and several other books. A few here at American Creation have dismissed Lillback on the grounds that "he's not a real historian."

Well, Lillback is the president of the renowned Westminster Theological Seminary and head of the Providence Forum. He possesses three degrees: a Bachelor's from Cedarville University, a ThM from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a PhD from Westminster. In addition to serving as president of Westminster, he also teaches a class in historical theology.

It's true that Lillback doesn't have an advanced degree in history specifically, but I can tell you that a degree in religion or theology (and Lillback's degrees and schools are quite impressive in their own right) is similar to one in philosophy, political science, and, yes, even history. Not exact, mind you, but similar in some respects.

I would submit that a minister or theologian, with training in scholarship (be it in the form of an advanced degree or otherwise) can offer something of value to the study and analysis of history. As self-serving as this may sound, a minister or theologian should not be dismissed out of hand for their contributions to the field anymore than a philosopher, political scientist would be.

Of course, scholars like Lillback or activists like David Barton are often dismissed not simply for their lack of history-specific credentials (or lack of "sufficient" history-specific credentials), but because they....heaven forbid...have an agenda!

Anyone who dismisses Lillback or Barton because they have an agenda should never, under any circumstances, pick up a book written by the likes of Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, or Ward Churchill or ever watch a documentary by Michael Moore. If having an agenda disqualifies someone from being taken seriously, then, frankly, you're out of luck until Mr. Spock is born or we invent Data. (That's a wink at my fellow Star Trek fans. And frankly, even Spock and Data had agendas!).

So, knock off this nonsense about agendas! I have no problem with scholars having agendas. None whatsoever. And you shouldn't either.

What matters is how a person HANDLES his or her agenda. Are they honest, disciplined, reasonable, and rational in doing the research and laying the intellectual groundwork for the pursuit of their "agenda"?

Let's Not Forget Common Sense

And, frankly, while I agree that it's important for us to exercise some scholarly discipline in our exploration of these subjects. And I'd certainly hate to see American Creation degenerate into partisan mud-slinging or sloppy, superficial articles that are long on agenda and short on research. Nevertheless, let's not ignore the wisdom of common sense!

There are times when average, ordinary Americans without an Ivy League education have something to offer our society. In fact, there are a LOT of such times. I would submit that our greatest Presidents in American history (George Washington and Abraham Lincoln) were not intellectual giants, when it came to academic training and certainly not when it came to "credentials." But they possessed character, wisdom, and a driving desire to learn and grow. This made them great.

So, again, I am not devaluing the importance of knowledge, education, and wisdom. On the contrary, I'm a big believer in all those things, and in the need for honest, painstaking, disciplined research and analysis. But I categorically reject any implication, assumption, or tendency to automatically extend favor to those with certain CREDENTIALS at the expense of those who may not have them.

I'll allow the late conservative icon William F. Buckley, Jr. the last word. Alluding to the Left's unfortunate bias toward intellectual elitism at the expense of common sense, Buckley famously remarked: "I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."

Samuel Seabury: Anglican Minister and 'Westchester Farmer'

In the midst of rising tensions between the colonies and the Mother Country, England could count on her clergy in America to be among her staunchest supporters. In Samuel Seabury, they would not be disappointed.

Samuel Seabury Rises to England's Defense

In 1774, a youthful and exceedingly energetic Alexander Hamilton published his "Full Vindication of the Measures of Congress", a piece aimed at drumming up support for the First Continental Congress.

Alarmed at the compelling nature of Hamilton's pen and the growing disenchantment many Americans were feeling towards Britain, Anglican minister Samuel Seabury took up the Crown's cause.

In the first of his "Letters from A Westchester Farmer," Seabury expressed dismay that the colonies were "involved in a scene of confusion and discord." Lamenting the persecution of Loyalists, Seabury wrote:

The bands of civil society are broken; the authority of government weakened, and in some instances taken away: Individuals are deprived of their liberty; their property is frequently invaded by violence, and not a single Magistrate has had courage or virtue enough to interpose.

As for the First Continental Congress, Seabury charged that, rather than helping ease tensions and mend relations, they "have either ignorantly misunderstood, carelessly neglected, or basely betrayed the interests of all the Colonies."

Seabury went on to criticize the specific decisions made by the Congress, namely the Non-Importation Agreement, Non-Exportation Agreement, and Non-Consumption Agreement. Seabury claimed that these measures would hurt people who had done the colonies "no harm" and would only excaberate tensions between America and Britain.

Seabury's letters, taken together, were a comprehensive, thorough, and spirited defense of British policies and interests. In his letters, he unmistakably and fairly articulately aligned himself with the British Crown.

Seabury and the Church of England

Americans today are accustomed to the institutional separation of Church and State. So accustomed are we, in fact, that many have called for such a separation to go even further, arguing that religion itself (and all morals or values stemming from religion) should be separated from the public square.

What the founding era generation was dealing with, however, was not whether a certain person or group might be made to feel "uncomfortable" should they happen to hear a public prayer or hear a valedictorian utter the word "Jesus" in her graduation speech. No, for the founding generation, the issue was something much more serious and real.

Samuel Seabury wasn't simply a pamphleteer. He was an official in the Church of England, which was legally and politically intertwined with the British government. The Church of England was indeed under the sovereign authority of the Crown. As an Anglican minister, Seabury was advancing the interests of not simply the British government, but his boss, King George III.

It should be noted, though, that Seabury's letters were at first not tied to him by name, but rather to "A.W. Farmer." However, Seabury's identity as the author would eventually become known (based on his own claims).

The timing of Seabury's authorship being known aside, Seabury's advocacy for the Crown illustrated an important truth. Anglican ministers were personally, professionally, and spiritually vested in the British government.

This, of course, isn't to suggest that's inappropriate for ministers to address questions of public policy (though, I'm sure, there are some who would take that position). Ministers have as much right to speak out on issues as any citizen. The take-away from Seabury's activism is that his involvement was not incidental, nor was it driven solely by personal conviction. As an Anglican clergyman, he was expected to support the Crown.

Seabury (and England) Refuted

Alexander Hamilton would take up his pen once again to defend the American cause and refute Seabury. In his famous "The Farmer Refuted," Hamilton encouraged the "Westchester Farmer" (aka Seabury) to study the "law of nature" by reading "Grotius, Puffendorf, Locke, Montesquieu, and Burlemaqui."

Considerable writing, discussion, and debate has been offered on this site concerning the Divine Right of Kings, the Enlightenment, and the theological beliefs of the religiously affiliated Founders. I will not re-hash all that, except to say that the exchanges between Hamilton and Seabury illustrate part of that divide.

While traditional England-oriented Christians (especially those within the Anglican Church) leaned toward (or, in some cases, embraced) the Divine Right of Kings, a growing consensus in America was that the people were accountable to God directly and not through the government.

To put it in layman's terms, one who embraced the Divine Right of Kings would claim the authority ran from God to the Government and then to the People. Americans increasingly saw it as God to the People and then to the Government.

The Fate of Samuel Seabury

Seabury's Loyalist sympathies would land him in prison for several weeks. Eventually, he escaped to Long Island, once it was safely in British hands. Granted a chaplaincy in the British military, Seabury spent the war as a dutiful minister in the service of King George III.

By 1783, it was clear that Britain would not reclaim her thirteen American colonies. In March of that year, Seabury was elected by ten of his New England Episcopal peers to serve as bishop over the Episcopal Church in America.

That Seabury would choose to remain in the United States was an interesting choice. After all, to say that he was not fully embraced or trusted by the Americans would be something of an understatement.

The Episcopal Church in America, however, needed structure and organization. It had been created as a result of the American Revolution. Anglicans supportive of the American Revolution could, after all, no longer comfortably worship and take Communion (a practice they saw as sacramental) in a church officially tied with King George III, the man they were waging war against. So, the Episcopal Church came into existence.

Seabury sailed for England for his consecration. Even though the Episcopal Church was formally separate from the Church of England, it was still spiritually and theologically aligned. An awkward situation, to say the least. So awkward, in fact, that the London-based Anglican Church refused to consecrate Seabury.

Seabury then turned to the Scottish Church, which granted his request. Seabury then returned to America to bolster and expand the Episcopal Church in the newly recognized United States of America.

Seabury's challenge was a tall one, as he did not enjoy a great deal of support from the new American government and, frankly, not even from all Episcopalians. Perhaps the most famous Episcopalian (former Anglican) in America was George Washington, who refused to even send a letter to Seabury, when asked by a young Episcopal minister for a note of recommendation.

High Church vs. Low Church Anglicanism

Not only was Seabury persona non grata in many quarters for his Loyalist politics, he was also not popular in "Low Church" circles of the American Episcopal Church.

High Church Anglicanism (Seabury's school of thought) was more liturgical and more philosophically aligned with the doctrine of apostolic succession, as originally embraced by the Roman Catholic Church. The difference, of course, was that (according to Anglicans) the King of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke with apostolic authority for the day -- as opposed to the Vatican in Rome.

The influence of the Protestant Reformation in England, however, had divided the Anglican Communion into two groups over this doctrine. High Church Anglicans favored strict apostolic succession, whereas Low Church Anglicans adhered more toward scriptural authority and local church autonomy.

Not surprisingly, High Church Anglicans like Seabury sided with King George III during the American Revolution, whereas Low Church Anglicans like George Washington were more open to the Patriot cause.

Washington's Low Church Anglicanism also made him more open to other denominations, as seen in a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, in which he wrote: "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."

Seabury's consecration as the American Episcopal Bishop was seen as an affront to many Low Church Anglicans, like Washington. In his impressive work George Washington's Sacred Fire, Peter Lillback explains:

[Seabury] had sought ordination independent of the concerns of Anglicans in the Low Church tradition, and he did so from the hands of Scottish bishops, who were more sympathetic to the Catholic side of the royal family, not the normal bishop of London, who had Protestant sympathies. This ecclesiastical maneuvering left the Low Church patriotic laymen in America feeling uncomfortable with Bishop Seabury and with little incentive or enthusiasm to embrace his leadership.

Samuel Seabury is not only one of the more interesting and unknown figures of the American Revolution, but his life and legacy provide an important view of the cultural and religious backdrop of the conflict.

Dependence on God: An American Tradition

In his First Inaugural Address, President George Washington offered his "fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect."

In virtually the same breath, Washington declared: "No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States."

Debates over the role of religion in America's founding often turn on the extremes, with some saying that the Founding Fathers were mostly "Deists" or "free thinkers" (code for non-believers) and others insisting that all the Founders were Bible-thumping, evangelical Christians!

The debate has become so contentious (and, at times, so comical) that obvious truths are overlooked in the battle over particulars. For example, Washington dedicates a large portion of his First Inaugural to his faith in God and his call on Americans to embrace God. Yet, many today would rather argue over whether he said "so help me God" after taking the oath of office on the Bible! This overlooks the fact that a huge chunk of Washington's speech eloquently and emphatically expressed his request for God's help!

It becomes very difficult to establish consensus in such a climate. Difficult, but not impossible. Because regardless of where one stands on the specific faith of the Founding Fathers or the role religion should play in society today, there is one consistent and unmistakable theme in American history: From the colonial period through today, the people of the United States have embraced belief in God and expressed their dependence on Him.

**Side Note: While it may offend some (particularly those given to "political correctness"), I will use the male pronoun to refer to God, since that is how God is revealed and described in the Judeo-Christian tradition.**

Challenging the reality of this theme is an exercise in futility. While a few Americans consider themselves atheist or agnostic, these schools of thought have never dominated nor defined the United States. They are, to put it mildly, in the minority. Most Americans believe in God and (according to several polls) prefer that their elected leaders do so as well.

At this point in the discussion, those frustrated by these realities point to the First Amendment's establishment clause or the constitutional prohibition against religious tests. This misses the point. It's true that the U.S. Constitution bars religious tests for elected officials (a provision initially applied only to the federal government and later extended to the states as well). It's also true that the U.S. Constitution forbids an "establishment" of religion.

This, however, says nothing about the desires of the American public. If the American people desire a war veteran for a President, that is their perogative. If they want only a President who is left-handed, that is also their right. An individual voter has the unqualified right to vote for whomever he or she pleases, based on whatever criteria he or she sets. That's the heart of democracy. Lose that, and you're in serious trouble!

It just so happens that a majority of American voters want their President to possess faith. They want a President who prays and who depends on a Power greater than himself or herself. Why? Because it cuts to the very fabric of America itself! The people of the United States, throughout their history, have held that kind of faith in and reliance on God.

Americans are gratified to read of Dwight D. Eisenhower, who once said: "Do you think I could have fought my way through [World War II], ordered thousands of fellows to their deaths, if I couldn't have got down on my knees and talked to God?" They like to hear that, because most of them would agree with Eisenhower's next words: "I couldn't live a day of my life without God."

Most Americans want to believe that General Washington knelt in the snow at Valley Forge and asked God for wisdom. That's why the painting of him kneeling in prayer next to his horse is so popular. The idea that one of our nation's greatest (if not THE greatest) heroes humbled himself before a Higher Power is, well, downright inspiring! At least it is for a majority of Americans - those who haven't given themselves over to atheism, agnosticism, or cynicism.

Predictably, there are those who challenge the authenticity of the painting. And they usually do so on the particulars - i.e., the fact that Washington rarely if ever prayed on his knees and the questionable nature of the eyewitness testimony that stands behind the Valley Forge prayer tradition. Once again, they lose sight of the forest for the trees! This is like debating the authenticity of the painting of Washington crossing the Delaware River, because he probably didn't stand in the boat! The real question is...Was George Washington a man of prayer? And if he was, is it not likely that he prayed at Valley Forge? Show me a respectable historian who would challenge Washington's belief in Providence or his recognition of the value of prayer! You can't! And, for that reason, that painting of Washington kneeling in prayer is as authentic as it needs to be, and it's staying on my wall!

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with people analyzing paintings. I have no problem with discussing the particulars of American history, uncovering new insights, exposing myths and legends, and the like. That's all good. But I do have a problem with losing sight of the forest for the trees.

Not all Americans are "Christian" and not all the Founders were "Christian," but the tradition of our faith in God and dependence on Him is deeply American. It's a rich part of our nation's heritage and history, and if we ever lose that, we will lose something very precious.

Harry Jaffa: "Essence of God is known by Reason"

In an interview with "Uncommon Knowledge," scholar Harry Jaffa says that the "God of the Declaration of Independence" is based on reason, and that this "essence of God" is important to America's political institutions.

This understanding of God contrasts with that held by some people of faith, who elevate experience or anecdote over logic and study. According to Jaffa, the faith embraced by America's Founders was a rational one -- and one that helped inform their political principles.

Jaffa also argues that the dissolution of objective moral traditions is something that Karl Marx "wanted" and that, the more we abandon Judeo-Christian morality, the more we are "moving into a communist world."

**Check out Jaffa's "Uncommon Knowledge" interview by visiting this link.

The argument concerning the Founders' conception of moral principle is a theme that Jaffa has addressed many times over the years. Jaffa once stated: "The principles of the social contract are a means by which not only the authority of the people, but the authority of God becomes the authority of the law." ("Political Scholar Jaffa Defends Moral Foundation of Government" by Erik Lindstrum, The Daily Princetonian, Sept 30, 2003).

A professor emeritus at Claremont McKenna College in California, Jaffa is the author of A New Birth of Freedom: Abraham Lincoln and the Coming of the Civil War.

Zig Ziglar Talks About the Founding Fathers

World-renowned author and motivational speaker Zig Ziglar weighs in on the Founding Fathers. Ziglar explains that the Founders believed in God and "God's possibles." But, he claims that today "we've kicked God out of just about every place."



While it's true that Ziglar is no professional historian, his opinions reflect those held by millions of Americans. Given Ziglar's wide name recognition and the extended remarks he makes about the Founders and their religious views, I thought it appropriate to post it here for your review and comment.

An Immigrant Praises America's Founders

The following is an excerpt from and link to a commentary piece published July 3 in The Washington Times.

The author, Ian de Silva, is an immigrant to the United States, and takes critics of the Founding Fathers to task. In particular, de Silva excoriates those "liberals" (his term) who harbor resentment toward the Founding Fathers, due to the Founders being "white men."

It's a thought-provoking read....sure to spark some discussions here.

***********

"The Founding Fathers: An Immigrant's Appreciation"
by Ian de Silva

No other day of the year compels us, as Americans, to reflect on the greatness of this country as does the Fourth of July.

But the trouble is that, in this age of shallow values, intellectually hollow ideas such as cultural diversity are promoted over national cohesion. So, in many areas of the country, especially in academia and news media, the Fourth of July has become a generic celebration where the great men who actually brought forth Independence are barely mentioned. In fact, some critics make little effort to hide their resentment of those great men of 1776.

Of course, there is a reason for such indifference and resentment. All the Founding Fathers were white men.

To read the rest of the article, click here.