American Pulpits: The Battleground of the American Revolution

 

The battlefields of the American Revolution are hallowed landmarks of our nation’s struggle for independence.  These historical attractions serve as much more than mere summer vacation destinations or 6^th grade Social Studies research topics.  They are, in fact, reminders of the toil, strife and loss that was required before the United States could claim its sovereignty.  And while these battlefields give us a palpable link to our nation’s founding, another battlefield, intangible and underappreciated, stands with equal importance to Bunker Hill or Yorktown.

            American Christian pulpits, though not the site of artillery or musket fire, operated as some of the most critical combat zones on which frontline battles of the Revolution waged.  Ministers of various churches acted like spiritual generals, shaping the opinions of their respective congregations by offering the necessary justification or opposition for the impending conflict with Britain.  Accordingly, the sermons given by America’s plethora of Christian ministers proved every bit as influential and important as Thomas Paine’s Common Sense or the Boston Tea Party.  The American Revolution was not only a war of bullets and power, but a battle waged from the pulpits across the many colonies, each passionately supporting or opposing the Revolution by appealing to the same scriptures and Christian teachings, with Patriots taking a more nuanced view of scripture, and Loyalists adopting an extremely literalist, all-or-nothing understanding of Bible teachings.

Christianity, The Bible, and Early American Society

To understand how Christianity and Bible teachings were weaponized by both Patriot and Loyalist-sympathizing ministers, one must first comprehend the tremendous importance religion had on early American society.  Simply put, religion was not just a mere sideshow venue of the American Revolution but instead was a premiere stage on which the drama unfolded.  This comes as little surprise to those well versed in the history of Colonial America, which was a world defined on Christian beliefs and teachings.  But it is not enough to simply say that Christianity and the Bible were significant for their spiritual value alone.  The reality of Colonial American society was that Christianity and the Bible permeated every nook and cranny of daily life, including and perhaps especially political matters.  As one prominent historian has noted, “For all of the early English settlers, whether they were settled in the North or the South, the Bible was the central text of religious and political discourse.”[1]  Acclaimed American Historian Mark Noll supports this position when he writes, “The Bible sanctified all manner of public speech…Once the Bible had achieved a place of honored distinction for selves and society, it became a lens through which believers perceived the external significance of temporal events, but also a torch that shone its illuminating rays on those events.”^[2]  In short, the Bible, its teachings, and Christianity became the foundational measuring stick by which all matters of life were assessed. 

For a population that had placed almost all their stock upon the altar of Christianity and the Bible, it comes as no surprise to discover that the preaching and sermons of ministers was esteemed as almost canonical.  No other medium in early American society was able to influence or inform the community more than the sermon.  As Historian Harry Stout has pointed out, the average church attendee, “listened to something like seven thousand sermons in a lifetime…For all intents and purposes, the sermon was the only regular voice of authority.”[3]

It is for these reasons that ministers of various Christian denominations were the first to start digging the trenches of war into which both Loyalist and Patriot camps sought refuge.  And since the settlers of all the American colonies depended so greatly upon their ministers for guidance and clarity, it is reasonable, if not obvious, to assume that their preaching determined the political persuasions of a large majority of said colonists. As early American Historian James Byrd aptly summarized, “It was the clergy who made the Revolution meaningful to most common people” because “there were dozens of ordinary people who read the Bible and looked to their ministers for an interpretation of what the Revolution meant.”[4]

Patriot and Loyalist Preaching: A Juxtaposition

Even though religion and Bible teachings took the premiere role in shaping the minds and hearts of early American society, it would be a mistake to assume that every church, minister and congregation felt the same way about what was being preached.  Different interpretations and perspectives on the American Revolution naturally led to different interpretation and perspectives on the Bible, the Christian message and its significance in sanctioning or opposing a separation with Great Britain.  By and large, Patriot and Loyalist ministers relied heavily on many of the same Bible passages but offered vastly different interpretations.  Historian Gregg Frazer summarizes the differences by arguing that Loyalists appealed primarily to history, law and Biblical literalism, while Patriot preaching tended towards Bible theory, Enlightenment reason and fear tactics.[5]  And while Frazer’s analysis is appropriate in the abstract, it fails to account for the many specific anomalies which were of tremendous importance in the shaping of public sentiment in specific colonies.  For example, at least 1/3 of all Anglican ministers in the colonies turned out to be Loyalist sympathizers, yet nearly half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence (none were Anglican clergy) were members of the Anglican faith.[6]  In addition, Pennsylvania Quakers, known for their stance of neutrality, earned from themselves enemies on both sides, yet appealed to their Christian faith as a means of justifying support for the Revolution in ways other than fighting.[7] 

What these anomalies show is that support and opposition for the American Revolution often boiled down to the message sponsored by specific ministers, in specific churches, shared with specific congregations.  It is a historical misnomer that all members of particular denominations, colonies, or ethnic groups favored the Loyalist or Patriot persuasion.  In reality the matter was far more nuanced.  As Frazer again notes, “Though religious affiliation clearly played a role it was not the decisive factor for many.”[8]  What mattered most was the actual preaching of the minister that most influenced a particular community. 

In the years leading up to the American Revolution, it was rare to find a church or a minister who had not pontificated on the reasons why colonists should or should not remain loyal to Great Britain.  For Loyalist ministers, the goal was clear: let the Bible speak for itself by appealing exclusively to a literalist interpretation of scripture that allowed for zero wiggle room on the issue of allegiance to the King of England.  Oftentimes this allegiance was compared to a parent/child relationship, with the colonists acting the part of a wayward youth.  An analysis of popular Loyalist sermons reveals this goal as plainly as possible.  Again, Gregg Frazer lends his support for this understanding of Loyalist sermons when he states, “In their sermons, as a general rule, the Loyalist preachers appealed more to the Bible and held to a more literal and contextual interpretation of the relevant texts of scripture than did the Patriot preachers.”[9]  A leading example of this very practice can be found in the sermons of Anglican Preacher Jonathan Boucher.  For Boucher, and his fellow Loyalists, the Bible in its simplest form could not be refuted.  In one of his sermons, Boucher offers his literalist interpretation of 2 Peter and employs the parent/child comparison with the following commentary:

No sooner were the children weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breast, than their parents began to teach them knowledge, to enable them to understand doctrine…And on this point the law was not vague and uncertain.  The text is clear and strong, and particular even to minuteness: parents were to teach their children, whilst they sat in the house, or walked by the way; when they lay down, and when they sat up…On the authority of the text and some other similar passages, we are led to infer, that parental instruction was not in general communicated so much my lectures or lessons but by conversation, with the child giving heed to the parent.[10]

Boucher’s appeal to Biblical literalism was supported by his peer, Bishop Charles Inglis, the first Anglican Bishop ordained in the colonies, who echoed Boucher’s assertions with the following:

When a Man becomes a Soldier, he ceases not to be a Christian, or a Member of Society. The Duties, the Principles of the Christian and Citizen, he should therefore keep in View, and never lose Sight of them. These should regulate his Conduct, whilst vindicating his own civil and religious Rights, and those of his Fellow Citizens…And trust me, that this will be so far from damping his Ardour, or depressing his Courage, that it will animate both -- it will add Fortitude to his Breast—Strength and Vigour to his descending Arm.[11]

In contrast, ministers in favor of the American Revolution tended to favor a more broadminded interpretation of the Bible, particularly focused on passages dealing with liberty or the suppression of liberty, particularly as they related to the Jewish nation of old.  The Reverend Isaac Backus’ now infamous sermon on religious liberty portrays such a message:

And as the Jews were ordered not to set up any rulers over them who were not their brethren; so this colony resolved to have no rulers nor voters for rulers, but brethren in their churches…We view it to be our incumbent duty, to render unto Caesar the things that are his, but that it is of as much importance not to render unto him any thing that belongs only to God, who is to be obeyed rather than man. And as it is evident to us, that God always claimed it as his sole prerogative to determine by his own laws, what his worship shall be, who shall minister in it, and how they shall be supported.[12]

The idea of Old Testament Jews, with liberties and freedoms oppressed, found no greater manifestation than the Exodus story.  As Historian James Byrd point out, “If the Moses and the Exodus have remained prominent in America, the American Revolution is a major reason why.  By making the Exodus story their own, especially by associating it so strongly with the republican ideals of liberty and the republican institutions of the new nation, the patriots set the parameters for later Americans.”[13]  This message of oppression and suppression of liberty was the single greatest factor that gave Patriot ministers the advantage over their Loyalist counterparts.  The message resonated better with a public that was ripe for change.  Gregg Frazer reinforces this perspective with the following:

The [Patriots] clearly won the rhetorical and propaganda battle.  They won in large part because they shut down and literally destroyed [Loyalist] avenues of communication.  But they also won because they had talented propagandists such as Samuel Adams, because they had agents such as the Sons of Liberty keeping the passions of the people inflamed. And because they had a more inspiring and exciting message.  The [Loyalist] message was the obligation to obey the law and the rather humiliating idea of subordination…The [Patriots] message of independence was dynamic and flattering to the people.[14]  

          One of the most unique examples of how Patriot and Loyalist ministers differed in their interpretation of scripture, along with the message they delivered to their congregants, is that of Jacob Duché.  Originally a devout Patriot, Duché was one of the most vocal opponents of Great Britain.  Duché was even selected to offer the opening prayers at the First Continental Congress where he asked for God’s blessings and protection from the “rod of the oppressor” and asked for heaven’s “nurturing care” to “defeat the malicious designs of our creel adversaries.” ^[15]  In a sermon given just a few months later, Duché invoked the standard narrative of Patriot preachers, calling upon his parishioners to remember the bondage of the Jewish people and reminding them of their responsibility to safeguard the liberties God had granted them.[16]  To everyone’s surprise and dismay, Duché did not remain a Patriot.  After being arrested by the British in 1777, Duché had a rapid and dramatic change of heart, changing his persuasion on the war and becoming a full Loyalist.  In his letter to General George Washington, Duché demonstrates the profound change of heard he had experienced when he wrote, “My sermon speaks for itself & utterly disclaims the idea of idependency…How sadly have you been abused by a faction void of truth & void of tenderness to you & your country!”   Duché continues his insulting rant directed at Washington by insisting that the Patriot ideas of liberty are misguided and reconciliation with King George was the hope of heaven.[17]

          Apart from his rapid and dramatic change of persuasion, what is noteworthy about Duché’s change of heart is his accompanying change of rhetoric.  Duché went from being the voice of opposition to the evil oppression of Britain upon American liberties to then advocating for reconciliation with King George and insisting that America’s understanding of liberty and independence was misguided.  This not only reveals the power of persuasion but how both Loyalist and Patriot ministers held tightly to a very particular narrative, particularly as it related to the concept of liberty. 

Romans 13: The Great Battlefield

The Patriots ability to control the narrative from the pulpit gave them a tremendous advantage in terms of their ability to win over converts for the cause of revolution, but it did not guarantee them a spiritual victory.  The one area in which Loyalists appeared to maintain the moral high ground was on the issue of loyalty owed to the king, and the apparent Biblical sanction such allegiance seemed to require.  The Apostle Paul, admonition, found in the 13^th chapter of Romans, clearly stated that submission to one’s authority was required of God, which presented a hurdle for Patriot ministers who sought Biblical endorsement for the cause of revolution.  The warning of Romans 13 to “be subject unto the higher powers,” along with the reminder that “Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation,” proved to be a formidable obstacle for ministers who hoped to find a path for America’s independence.^[18] 

The dilemma for Patriot ministers was obvious: how do you justify opposition to a sovereign leader when the Bible seems to oppose such action?  This was not a mere sideshow question for the Revolution’s participants.  As Historian Daniel Dreisbach has pointed out, “Bible texts weighed heavy on the American mind during the conflict with Great Britain…Romans 13 was the single most cited…and on their face, these texts made little allowance for resistance to civic rulers.”^[19]

The minister who led the charge against the standard interpretation of Romans 13, which had
long been the trump card from Loyalist ministers, was Boston Congregational Minister Jonathan Mayhew.  Mayhew, who had undergone a change in his own personal religious persuasions, was well known for his blunt preaching style that was often divisive in nature.[20]  Mayhew’s influence was so profound that John Adams went so far as to call him one of the most influential figures of the Revolution, whose sermon he had “engraved on my memory.”^[21]    

The year 1750 marked the debut of Jonathan Mayhew’s landmark sermon.  As opposed to so many of his predecessors, Mayhew did not look to twist words of scripture or to double down on their absolute significance.  Instead, Mayhew let prudence dictate the interpretation of scripture.  Appealing to other Bible examples in which an absolutist tone is rarely if ever assumed, Mayhew wrote:

But who supposes that the apostle ever intended to teach, that children, servants and wives, should, in all cases whatever, obey their parents, masters and husbands respectively, never making any opposition to their will, even although they should require them to break the commandments of God, or should causelessly make an attempt upon their lives?  No one puts such a sense upon these expressions, however absolute and unlimited. Why then should it be supposed, that the apostle designed to teach universal obedience, whether active or passive, to the higher powers, merely because his precepts are delivered in absolute and unlimited terms?^[22]

 

Instead of taking scripture at face value, as the Loyalist ministers had been doing since the beginning of the conflict, Mayhew made an appeal to reason.  As Jonathan Mayhew Biographer J. Patrick Mullins reminds us, Mayhew “reconciled the natural right of resistance with the Christian duty of obedience in light of scripture, history and real Whig political philosophy.”^[23]  In other words, Mayhew’s hermeneutics adopted many of the same beliefs as many figures of the Enlightenment who had preceded him.  For Patriot ministers and supporters this essentially meant they believed they could have their cake and eat it too.   

Mayhew went even further with his condemnation of evil leaders, stating that Paul’s message rebuked those who “use all their power to hurt and injure the public,” adding that “such as are not God’s ministers, but Satan’s.”^[24]  In so doing, Mayhew had successfully shifted the burden of Romans 13 to God’s chosen leaders and away from the masses.  In Mayhew’s mind, it was not the American colonists who needed to worry about God’s wrath but rather the King of England, who was “acting in an illegal and oppressive manner.”^[25]

Even though his sermon was delivered two decades before independence was even debated in Philadelphia, Mayhew’s perspective on Romans 13 reveals an important truth about how many Americans came to view the American Revolution.  The American Revolution was not a coup d’etat.  There was no removal of the King of England.  Instead, the American Revolution was a separation due to the perceived wickedness and illegitimate reign of the King.  King George III, along with Parliament, had forfeited their right to sovereignly reign over the colonies, pure and simple. This perspective, of a separation of Britain, can be traced, in large part, to Mayhew’s unique interpretation of Paul’s declaration in Romans 13, and this view was later canonized by Jefferson in the very words of the Declaration of Independence when he wrote, “"He [King George III] has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us" and, “For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies” and finally, “For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments.”^[26]

Conclusion

            In terms of its influence, religion was not some mere sideshow of the American Revolution.  If anything, religion was one of the most central components to the question of separation with Britain, so much so that ministers from every denomination, colony and persuasion felt impressed to weigh in on the matter.  Patriot ministers tended to favor a more open-minded approach to Biblical interpretation and Christian teachings, relying heavily upon appeals to reason and liberty that had been advanced by Enlightenment thinkers.  On the other hand, Loyalist ministers took a hardline stance with scriptural interpretation, insisting that little to no wiggle room could or should be tolerated.  Much of this battle came down to the concept of liberty and resistance to authority, as defined in Romans 13.  Ministers like Johnathan Mayhew effectively swayed public opinion to favor a more open approach to Paul’s admonition and by placing the blame for violating liberty squarely on the shoulders of the British king and Parliament. 

            The differences between Patriot and Loyalist ministers, though profound on specifics, were quite similar in terms of their understanding of Christian teachings.  Both sides felt they were on the side of truth and endeavored to protect the Christian faith.  As a result, one can easily see how both Patriot and Loyalist ministers felt deep and profound conviction that their Christian duty demanded they take a stand.  The sermons delivered by both camps proved to be the most profound way in which the American citizenry was both informed and persuaded, making the wars of the pulpit one of the most critical battlegrounds of the American Revolution.      

---

[1]Daniel Dreisbach, Reading the Bible with the Founding Fathers (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017).  Pp. 24.

[2] Mark Noll, In the Beginning Was the Word: The Bible in American Public Life, 1492-1783 (Oxford University Press, 2016).  Pp. 326.

[3] Harry Stout, The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture on Colonial New England (New York: Oxford   University Press, 2012). Pp. 3.

[4] James Byrd, Sacred Scripture, Sacred War: The Bible and the American Revolution (New York: Oxford        University Press, 2013).  Pp. 2.  Oxford Scholarship Online. oxford-universitypressscholarship-                com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199843497.001.0001/acprof-9780199843497

[5] Gregg Frazer, God Against the Revolution: The Loyalist Clergy’s Case Against the American Revolution (University Press of Kansas, 2018).  Pp. 2-3. 

 

[6] James Bell, A War of Religion: Dissenters, Anglicans and the American Revolution (New York: Palgrave MaCMillan,                2008).  Pp. 237.

[7] Jean Specht, “Being a Peaceable Man, I have Suffered Much Persecution”: The American Revolution and Its            Effects on Quaker Religious Identity." Quaker History vol. 99, no. 2 (2010): 37-      48. doi:10.1353/qkh.2010.0004.  Specht notes that Pennsylvania Quakers, though unwilling to fight in the              Continental Army, were willing to help supply soldiers with food and other goods.  In addition, many       Quakers did advocate for Revolution and even fought, Nathaniel Greene being the chief example. 

[8] Frazer, God Against the Revolution, 5.

[9] Ibid, 36.

[10] Jonathan Boucher, A View of the Causes and Consequences of the American Revolution: In Thirteen Discourses,    Preached in North America Between the Years 1763 and 1775, with a Historical Preface (London: printed          for G.G. & J. Robinson, 1797).  Pp. 175-176.  Sabin Americana: History of the Americas, 1500-1926,      link.gale.com/apps/doc/CY0100135629/SABN?u=vic_liberty&sid=SABN&xid=08def3e0&pg=1.

 

[11] Charles Inglis, The Christian Soldier’s Duty Briefly Delineated: In A Sermon Preached at King’s Bridge before the     American Corps Newly Raised for His Majesty’s Service (September 7, 1777). Evans Early American Imprint   Collection.  https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N12180.0001.001/1:3?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

[12] Isaac Backus, An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty Against the Oppressions of the Present Day (1773).        Quoted in Ellis Sandoz, Political Sermons of the American Founding Era: 1730–1805: vol. 1 (Indianapolis:                Liberty Fund, 2012.Project MUSE, muse.jhu.edu/book/18247.  Pp. 338-339.

[13] James Byrd, Sacred Scripture, Pp. 72. 

[14] Gregg Frazer, God Against the Revolution, Pp. 18.

[15] Jacob Duché, First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774 (Philadelphia, September 7, 1774).  Office of the        Chaplain of the United States House of Representatives.       https://chaplain.house.gov/archive/continental.html

[16] Jacob Duche, The Duty of Standing Fast in our Spiritual and Temporal Liberties, A Sermon Preached in Christ          Church, July 7, 1775. Before the First Battalion of the City and            Liberties of Philadelphia; and now Published                 at Their Request.  Philadelphia: 1775.  Evans Early American Imprint Collection.  https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N11057.0001.001/1:4?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

 

[17] Jacob Duché to George Washington, October 8, 1777.  National Archives, The Founders Online.                  https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-11-02-0452

[18] Romans 13:1-2.  The Holy Bible: The King James Version (WorldWide Bible Assoc.: 2019).

[19] Daniel Dreisbach, Reading the Bible with the Founding Fathers, 110.

[20] J. Patrick Mullins, Father of Liberty: Jonathan Mayhew and the Principles of the American Revolution (University   of Kansas Press: 2017). Pp. 20.

[21] John Adams to Hezekiah Niles, February 13, 1818.  From Founders Online, National Archives website.                  https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6854

[22] Jonathan Mayhew, A Discourse concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers: With                some Reflections on the Resistance made to King Charles I. And on the Anniversary of his Death: In which              the Mysterious Doctrine of that Prince's Saintship and Martyrdom is Unriddled.  1750.  Electronic Texts in               American Studies.  https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/etas/44      

[23] J. Patrick Mullins, Father of Liberty, 52.

[24] Ibid, 28.

[25] Ibid, 34.

[26] Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence (1776).  National Archives, America’s Founding Documents.                 ttps://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-  transcript?_ga=2.124293001.206360532.1615091205-1499524405.1603812361   

John Quincy Adams used a law book in 1825

Every four years a flurry of articles appear that cover the events surrounding the presidential inauguration. Many of these articles, like the January 20, 2021 AP news article, Biden’s Bible puts him in line with inaugural tradition, claim John Quincy Adams used a law book in 1825. One such article appeared eight years ago at the time of President Barack Obama’s second inauguration. In this particular article, Dean Obeidallah expressed the opinion that even though there’s been a long tradition of president’s using a Bible, "Presidents should not swear in on a Bible." In making the case, she mentions the swearing-in ceremonies for both John Quincy Adams, and Theodore Roosevelt (with more emphasis on the former).

The Constitution does not require that the president take the oath of office by swearing on a Bible. That would have been a very simple requirement for the constitutional drafters to include. To the contrary, the Founders wanted to ensure that Americans of any faith – or no faith – could hold federal office.

They set it forth plainly in Article VI: “… No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Placing a hand on a Bible while reciting the presidential oath is simply a tradition started by George Washington. Indeed, two presidents, Teddy Roosevelt and John Quincy Adams, did not use a Bible at their swearing-in ceremonies.

Although Roosevelt’s reasons are unclear, John Quincy Adams’ reasons could not be more plain.

Adams, the son of President John Adams, was a religious man. But he chose to be sworn in with his hand on a book of U.S. laws. He wanted to demonstrate that he recognized a barrier between church and state and that his loyalty was to our nation’s laws above all else.

Despite the many repeated claims that John Quincy Adams used a law book, the reasoning put forward as to why John Quincy Adams “chose to be sworn in with his hand on a book of U.S. laws” is totally incorrect. A law book did play a role at the March 4, 1825 inauguration of President JQA, but it was not for the purpose of placing his hand on the book (unless he was a palm reader). To be precise, Chief Justice John Marshall presented JQA with a law book from which he read the presidential oath.

The account written up in the July 6,1825 issue of The Independent Chronicle tells what actually took place::

A Contrast. – John Quincy Adams, President of the United States, is the son of the second President that ever ruled over America, the well known and peaceful successor of Washington – the Numa of the United States; and if we may judge from principles which he has taken the first occasion of testifying, he is well worthy of the honor which such an elevation confers. The manly plainness and simplicity of the form of his inauguration deserves notice. Think of the childish ceremonies, the idle pageantry, the ridiculous mummeries, holy oil, the feathers, furs, and flippery of a coronation in Europe, as contrasted with this dignified scene! At Washington, in the capitol, Mr. Adams, in a plain suit of black, ascends the Speaker’s chair, pronounces his address to his fellows citizens, walks to the table of the Judges, and on a volume of the laws of the United States reads his oath of office, and thus the magistrate of a mighty state installed.

What is plain to every president-elect is that even by John Quincy Adams’ own account a Bible was not used, and that a president-elect can chose to follow the same example set by our sixth president, which was a tradition already set in place by his five predecessors. According to contemporary historical records, the fact is that if we start with Washington’s second inauguration and examine the succeeding inaugural ceremonies for John Adams (once), Thomas Jefferson (twice), James Madison (twice), and James Monroe (twice), we’ll find they all fall in line, where there’s not the slightest indication of a Bible having been used.  

William Livingston's Political Philosophy

This article by Myron Magnet details the political philosophy of American founder William Livingston. I may have reproduced it before (from 2012); but I read it again and the following passage stuck out at me.

At its heart, the college debate was political, and it led Livingston to set forth his deepest political beliefs, the first public exposition of Lockean social-contract theory in the colonies, complete with Locke’s insistence on the right to resist and depose a monarch. Journalistic and unsystematic, his half-dozen essays on the subject add up to a coherent argument that provided the Revolution’s key justification. Untangled, it runs like this.

Before there was any government, nature made men free and equal and endowed them with rights. Yet people voluntarily “consented to resign that Freedom and Equality” and put themselves under “the Government and Controul of” a ruler, as “a Remedy for the Inconveniences that sprang from a State of Nature, in which . . . the Weak were a perpetual Prey to the Powerful.” To “preserve to every Individual, the undisturbed Enjoyment of his Acquisitions, and the Security of his Person,” men “entered into Society” and appointed magistrates or kings “to decide Controversies,” investing them “with the total Power of all the Constituents, subject to the Rules and Regulations agreed upon by the original Compact, for the Good of the Community.”

This was a choice of the lesser of two evils, for “Government, at best, is a Burden, tho’ a necessary one. Had Man been wise from his Creation, he . . . might have enjoyed the gifts of a liberal Nature, unmolested, unrestrained. It is the Depravity of Mankind that has necessarily introduced Government; and so great is this Depravity, that without it, we could scarcely subsist,” wrote Livingston, more strongly influenced by Thomas Hobbes’s vision of the State of Nature as a war of all against all than even Locke was. To guard against man’s inborn tendency to invade the “Person or Fortune” of his neighbor, he wrote, echoing Hobbes’s understanding of psychology, we “have ceded a Part of our original Freedom, to secure to us the rest.”

 

Some scholarly folks have noted that the philosophers' "state of nature"/social contract and rights theory is kind of ridiculous. 

Perhaps it was, but it was also fundamental to the American Revolution (more the Revolution than writing and ratifying of the US Constitution). 

I admit that this theory has nothing to do with the Bible or classical political philosophy. However, the interesting part of the story is many ministers bought into this theory, incorporated it into the pulpit in order to convince populations of American "Christians" to go along with it.

Move Over Dr. Zinn, Here Comes Dr. Seuss

Last year, I posted an American Creation blog, A New Book-oath on ‘A People’s History’ Has Come to Town, that reported the April 9^th, 2019 swearing-in ceremony of JoBeth Harmon, who had been elected to the office of Oklahoma City Council. What was unusual about this occasion was the use of Howard Zinn’s A People History of the United States as the book upon which the newly elected office holder chose to take her oath.

As it turns out, a couple of months later on August 13^th ,  a newly elected St. Louis County councilwoman, Keli Dunaway, made another unusual choice by placing her hand on a copy of Oh, the Places You’ll Go! by Dr Seuss. Here’s a snippet taken from a Boston Globe article, Why a county councilwoman was sworn into office on a Dr. Seuss book explaining her choice:

It was a choice with personal meaning. Dunaway said her single mom was a coal miner who would say if she believed in herself and worked hard, Dunaway could achieve anything.

‘‘In my experience in life, that’s been true,’’ the graduate of the University of California Los Angeles Law School said.

When Dunaway, a former Barack Obama field organizer, became pregnant with her daughter in 2012, she was looking for books that offered the same inspiration as her mother’s advice. ‘‘Oh, the Places You’ll Go!’’ was the book.

 

A few more details are available at the Raw Story website, ‘Places You’ll Go’ for swearing-in ceremony instead of ‘The Bible’, by Sara K. Burris.

 

AU: "The Faith of Our (Founding) Father: George Washington Wasn't As Pious As Christian Nationalists Would Have You Believe"

 From Rob Boston. Check it out here. A taste:

While in private life, Washington attended church services about once a month. As president, he attended more often, and while he undoubtedly believed in faith as an important component of public virtue, nothing in his personal behavior indicates a high degree of attachment to conservative Christian dogma. He had a habit of leaving services before communion, a practice that angered some pastors.

Nor was Washington one to spend Sundays in quiet prayer and contemplation. Accounts of enslaved people from Mount Vernon plantation speak of frivolity on Sunday, with drinking and card playing being the norm.

Claude Blanchard, a French military officer who dined with Washington, later wrote in his journal that he was surprised there was no formal grace. Blanchard noted, “We remained a very long time at the table. They drank 12 or 15 healths with Madeira wine. In the course of the meal beer was served and grum, rum mixed with water.”

When Washington died in December 1799, he broke with custom of the day and did not call for a minister to be present at his bedside. Historian Joseph Ellis observed, “He died as a Roman Stoic rather than a Christian saint.”

Andrew Seidel: "Leave God Out of the Presidential Oath"

 This is from Andrew Seidel of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. A taste:

The spoken words have been as deliberate as the written words. We know that Washington didn’t add the words to the oath. Edward Lengel, former editor-in-chief of the Papers of George Washington project, concluded, “any attempt to prove that Washington added the words ‘so help me God’ requires mental gymnastics of the sort that would do credit to the finest artist of the flying trapeze.”

Like so much U.S. mythology, including Rip Van Winkle, Ichabod Crane, and the Headless Horseman, we owe this Washingtonian myth to Washington Irving.

American Creation's Ray Soller has done a great deal of very important detective work over the years on this issue.

John Milton and Isaac Newton: From Arianism to Socinianism

I need to put this book on my "to read" list. 

"In a book in progress, I will argue that Milton is an early adopter of a set of positions characteristic of the Newton circle of the late seventeenth century. Shared Arian belief in a preexistent Son precluded full agreement with Socinians, who believed that the Son did not predate the birth of Jesus. Nevertheless, Milton and Newton shared Socinian and quasi-Socinian positions, for example, an emphasis on reason and an attack on metaphysics in biblical interpretation, an insistence on toleration, opposition to infant baptism, and a focus on the exemplary character of the Christ’s passion as opposed to stressing the crucifixion as atonement. Complicating reliance on categories and labels, the boundaries between Arians and Socinians in the seventeenth century were sufficiently fluid that one of Newton’s circle, Hopton Haynes, described Newton as Socinian, while another, William Whiston, labeled him as Arian. Frank Manuel, a leading scholar of Newton and religion, describes Newton as some Milton scholars have described Milton, as Arian in theology and Socinian in religion."

This was often the kind of "Christianity" that elite philosophical types in the American founding lauded. Or at least they lauded Milton and Newton (and Locke, Clarke and others).  

Francis Hopkinson's Anti-Trinitarian

Francis Hopkinson was one of America's founders -- a "Founding father." He was not a "key founder" however (meaning that he's one that most people don't remember). 

He may also have been a unitarian. What I have discovered over the many years of researching America's founders personal religious views is that virtually all of were in some way formally connected with a church that had a Trinitarian creed. But we really don't know what they believed in until we dig a little deeper into the record.

Theological unitarianism was "en vogue" amongst some of the more "philosophically minded" theists.

I came upon a passage from Hopkinson where I thought he identified himself as an anti-Trinitarian. However, reading the passage in context Hopkinson appears to be speaking of someone else, perhaps a fictitious character. A "cobbler." 

As he wrote: 

ON my arrival in this country, I was much chagrined to find that the doctrine of the Trinity was generally received and professed; a doctrine against which I had acquired the strongest antipathy from my master, the great philosopher. However, as war raged in the country, there was no time for theological disquisitions; and as the justice of the war was clearly on the side of the Americans, I resolved to take an active part in their cause, and enlisted myself a soldier in the Pennsylvania line. I went through inexpressible toil and danger, in marches, counter-marches, skirmishes and battles, and was finally wounded at the siege of York-Town, when lord Cornwallis and his army surrendered to the allied forces of France and America.

After the peace, I supported myself by cobling and patching, and employed my leisure hours in combating the doctrine of the Trinity, and devising grand schemes for public utility.

 See also here. 

From 2018, Gier reviews Lillback's GWSF

I missed this in 2018. The notable Unitarian Universalist scholar Nick Gier reviewed Peter Lillback's "George Washington's Sacred Fire," a massive tome which attempts to prove George Washington was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian. 

From Dr. Gier's review:

Washington and Jefferson: Both Nominal Anglicans

Lillback really has to stretch the evidence and indulge in a lot speculation to make Washington an orthodox, trinitarian Christian. Lillback likes to use syllogistic reasoning to refute previous Washington scholars. Here is the essence of his argument in the form of a syllogism: major premise: Anglicans are orthodox Christians; minor premise: Washington was an Anglican; therefore, Washington was an orthodox Christian.

Thomas Jefferson was also a vestryman in the Anglican church and attended church regularly throughout his life, but Lillback would never draw the conclusion that Jefferson was an orthodox Christian. This fact leads us to believe that the major premise is obviously false.

Washington was a nominal Episcopalian (the Anglicans renamed after the Revolution) who attended church irregularly, ceasing after his retirement. His diaries show that he frequently dishonored the Sabbath. We learn from one entry that he would have collected his rents on Sundays, but he declined because the people living on his land were “apparently very religious.” 

No Evidence for Belief in the Trinity or the Deity of Christ

The weakest arguments in the book are the ones devoted to proving that Washington believed in the deity of Christ and the Trinity. In all of his voluminous writing only once does he speak of Jesus and this single incident, a speech to the Delaware Indians, most likely written by an aide more orthodox than he. On the manuscript of another speech to Indian leaders, we can clearly see the word “God” crossed out and the phrase “Great Spirit” written in Washington’s own hand.

Merry Christmas from the Moon

 

It was on Christmas Eve 1968 that the astronauts of Apollo 8, Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, and Bill Anders, became the first of mankind to see an earthrise from the orbit of the moon, and looking back on us, they spoke these words:


Anders: "We are now approaching lunar sunrise. And, for all the people back on earth, the crew of Apollo 8 have a message that we would like to send to you...

"In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth. And the Earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness."

Lovell: "And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."

Borman: "And God said, Let the waters under the Heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas: and God saw that it was good."

And from the crew of Apollo 8, we close with good night, good luck, a Merry Christmas, and God bless all of you, all of you on the good earth."


It is good. God bless us, every one.

Jedidiah Morse to James Madison

Jedidiah Morse was one of the forces of orthodox, Calvinistic religious correctness who was sorry to see "heresies" gain traction during the American founding. Among other things, he was an enemy of theological unitarianism and had quite an amusing exchange with John Adams that I've reproduced numerous times.

Here I just discovered his letter to then President James Madison on what Morse saw as an appalling plan to spend government money to buy the library of Thomas Jefferson. The letter to Madison is dated November 23, 1814. I reproduce it in whole below:

Perhaps you may Wonder to See Such a Schroll as this; Coming from an old man, now in the 89th year of his age; who has lived to See the End of two Distressing Wars but does not much Expect to See the much desired End of the present, Cruel, unnecessary, unjust War; Esteemed so by thousands of the good people of the United States and the Expences of it, too heavy, and grievous to be borne; But what I principally aimed at, in writing this to your Excellency, was, that I am Informed, by the papers; that Congress, has it in Contemplation to purchase; Mr. Jeffersons Library, at the Enormous price of 25000. Dollars; which Consists Chiefly, of Deistical Books; and hetrodox Works; Such as Arian, Socinian-Arminian; antinomian; Paines age of reason, and others of his Deistical Works; Ethan Allens Bible;1 and what not of a Deistical Cast;2 if Congress wants a Library, I am willing they Should have one; but Not Mr. Jeffersons. I will take leave to propose a better one; and in a more just and Easy way; which is as follows (viz) that Each member of Congress; procure a book, or books to the amount, or Value of three Dollars, which is but half a days wages; which will hardly be felt; his Excellency, the President, to lay the foundation, of the Library, or Set the first Example,3 by putting the first Book, if he Shall So Choose, and approve of the same—and Each member of Congress; Shall Insert his name, in the book or books, he Shall so procure; and lodge in the Library; Whither they be ancient, or modern history; Geography; gazetteers or theoligy; or whatever book, or books, he Shall Choose to lodge in the library; that Each member of Congress; may know by the Name; the religious Sentiment of the Donor; if any Easier way, to procure a Library Can be devised by our Congress; and Not to add, to the burden, which the people of the United States, now groan under, and Co[m]plain of, and not without Just Cause; I have Nothing to object; and pray I may be Excused for my boldness; in attempting to write to one, who is So much Superior in office; tho. not in age, as myself; and with due Consideration, and Submission Subscribe with my own hand and name your Excellencys humle Servant 

Jedidiah Morse4

Are Mormons Christian?

That's the title to a Volokh Conspiracy post. There is actually a court case in Arizona on this question. Eugene Volokh aptly sums up the court's opinion: "Not for secular courts to judge, holds the Arizona Court of Appeals."

James Madison said the very same thing in his Notes on the Memorial and Remonstrance. That he didn't want courts of law making these judgments was a strong motive in driving that document.

Below doesn't quote from the Arizona case but Madison's aforementioned Notes:

3. What is Xnty ? Courts of law to Judge.

4. What edition: Hebrew, Septuagint, or Vulgate ? What copy what translation ?

5. What books canonical, what apocryphal ? the papists holding to be the former what protestants the latter, the Lutherans the latter what the protestants & papists ye former.

6. In what light are they to be viewed, as dictated every letter by inspiration, or the essential parts only ? Or the matter in general not the words ?

7. What sense the true one for if some doctrines be essential to Xnty those who reject these, whatever name they take are no Xn Society?

8. Is it Trinitarianism, Arianism, Socinianism ? Is it salvation by faith or works also, by free grace or by will, &c., &c.

9. What clue is to guide [a] Judge thro' this labyrinth when ye question comes before them whether any particular society is a Xn society ?

10. Ends in what is orthodoxy, what heresy. Dishonors Christianity.

Relax, The Future is in Good Hands

 

The First Amendment Never Separated God and Government

Virginia Governor Thomas Jefferson, 1779.  The First Amendment never separated God and government. It left religion to the states.

In the Founding era the existence of God was seen as a plain fact, not just one theory among many.

Resolved, that it be recommended to the several states to appoint THURSDAY the 9th of December next, to be a day of publick and solemn THANKSGIVING to Almighty God, for his mercies, and of PRAYER, for the continuance of his favour and protection to these United States; to beseech him that he would be graciously pleased to influence our publick Councils, and bless them with wisdom from on high, with unanimity, firmness and success; that he would go forth with our hosts and crown our arms with victory; that he would grant to his church, the plentiful effusions of divine grace, and pour out his holy spirit on all Ministers of the gospel; that he would bless and prosper the means of education, and spread the light of christian knowledge through the remotest corners of the earth; that he would smile upon the labours of his people, and cause the earth to bring forth her fruits in abundance, that we may with gratitude and gladness enjoy them; that he would take into his holy protection, our illustrious ally, give him victory over his enemies, and render him finally great, as the father of his people, and the protector of the rights of mankind; that he would graciously be pleased to turn the hearts of our enemies, and to dispence the blessings of peace to contending nations.

That he would in mercy look down upon us, pardon all our sins, and receive us into his favour; and finally, that he would establish the independance of these United States upon the basis of religion and virtue, and support and protect them in the enjoyment of peace, liberty and safety.”

I do therefore by authority from the General Assembly issue this my proclamation, hereby appointing Thursday the 9th day of December next, a day of publick and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God, earnestly recommending to all the good people of this commonwealth, to set apart the said day for those purposes, and to the several Ministers of religion to meet their respective societies thereon, to assist them in their prayers, edify them with their discourses, and generally to perform the sacred duties of their function, proper for the occasion.

Given under my hand and the seal of the commonwealth, at Williamsburg, this 11th day of November, in the year of our Lord, 1779, and in the fourth of the commonwealth.

THOMAS JEFFERSON

Text from Virginia Gazette (Dixon & Nicolson), 20 Nov. 1779.

John Quincy Adams' Unitarianism

I've spent much time researching John Adams' unitarianism, which could be quite militant at times. I've spent less time on his son, John Quincy Adams' creed. I know at one time JQA was a Calvinist/Trinitarian and had some very interesting discussions and debates with his father in their exchange of letters.

However, the younger Adams apparently converted to something like unitarianism as he aged. 

Below is what Koty Arnold has written and compiled:

... The letter where JQ "defends" the Trinity to his father is somewhat lukewarm, though he at that time did appear to adhere to the doctrine. ... [I]n the span of a few years, JQA would conform to the Unitarian liberalism that was then so popular in New England. He wrote in his memoirs about his contempt for orthodox Christianity, especially Calvinism, for its belief in doctrines like the atonement and original sin. The Trinity he dismissed as "unimportant" to the Christian religion, which is really just about earthly moral conduct.

"Solemn nonsense and inconceivable absurdity. This is the impression which I can never remove from my mind when I hear a Calvinistic preacher hammering upon that everlasting anvil of the atonement. "Incredulous odi"--I disbelieve and I hate. It is always to me an admonition of the weakness of the human intellect. That the execution, as a malefactor, of one person, the Creator of all worlds, eighteen hundred years ago, should have redeemed me, born nearly eighteen centuries after his death, from eternal damnation is not only too shocking for my belief, but I ask myself what there can be above the level of the beasts which perish in the animated being that can believe it. A melancholy monument of mental aberration and impotence."

"That man is a vicious, wicked animal is the fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion. That he cannot save himself from eternal punishment is the doctrine of the Catholic churches, and of Calvin. If he cannot save himself, he is not a responsible being; that is the conclusion of justice and a conclusion from which I could not escape if I would. The mission of Christ was to teach all mankind the way to salvation. His death, an ignominious death, was necessary to the universal spread of His doctrine. He died for mankind, as Curtius died for his country, as Codrus died for his people. In this sense I can believe the doctrine of the atonement, and in no other. Christ died as a man, not as God."

"The only Importance of religion to my mind consists in its influence upon conduct; and upon the conduct of mankind the question of Trinity or Unity, or of the single or double personal nature of Christ has or ought to have no bearing whatsoever."

"I told him in substance what I have written to my son George, that I believed the nature of Jesus Christ was superhuman; but whether he was God or only the first of created beings was not clearly revealed to me in the Scriptures."

Read more about Mr. Arnold here.  

Update: As Tom Van Dyke points out, JQA was arguably agnostic on the Trinity during this time.

"I did not prescribe to many of his doctrines, particularly not to the fundamental one of his Unitarian creed. I believe in one God but his nature is incomprehensible to me; and of the question between the Unitarians and the Trinitarians, I have no precise belief, because I have no definite understanding."

How Howard Zinn Hijacked History and Christopher Columbus

From “Debunking Howard Zinn: Exposing the Fake History That Turned a Generation against America” by Mary Grabar. This excerpt originally appeared at The College Fix and is reprinted here by permission of the author.

Howard Zinn rode to fame and fortune on the “untold story” of Christopher Columbus—a shocking tale of severed hands, raped women, and gentle, enslaved people worked to death to slake the white Europeans’ lust for gold.

Today, that story is anything but untold. Zinn’s narrative about the genocidal discoverer of America has captured our education system and popular culture. The defacement of statues of Columbus with red paint had already become an annual ritual in many places.

Zinn is the inspiration behind the current campaign to abolish Columbus Day and replace it with “Indigenous Peoples’ Day.” High school teachers cite his book in making the case for the renaming to their local communities. In October 2018, San Francisco, Cincinnati, and Rochester, New York, joined at least sixty other cities in replacing Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples’ Day. Six states also do not recognize the holiday as Columbus Day. Many articles reporting on this trend cited Howard Zinn’s role in the change in attitude.

Stanford anthropology Professor Carol Delaney, who was quoted in a Courthouse News Service article to provide a counter-narrative, informed reporters that Columbus acted on his Christian faith and instructed his crew to treat the native people with kindness. But such inconvenient facts are inevitably drowned out by the Columbus-hate that Howard Zinn has succeeded in spreading.

Presumably extrapolating from the “many volumes” he had read, Zinn found the inspiration for the dramatic opening sentences of “A People’s History of the United States” [presented in full at the link by the aptly-named historyisaweapon.com—Ed.]:

“Arawak men and women, naked, tawny, and full of wonder, emerged from their villages onto the island’s beaches and swam out to get a closer look at the strange big boat. When Columbus and his sailors came ashore, carrying swords, speaking oddly, the Arawaks ran to greet them, brought them food, water, gifts. He later wrote of this in his log: ‘They . . . brought us parrots and balls of cotton, and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks’ bells. They willingly traded everything they owned. . . . ’”

The quoted passage from Columbus’s log continues with Columbus’s description of the Arawaks. They are “well-built” and handsomely featured. Having never seen iron, they accidentally cut themselves on the Europeans’ swords when they touch them. The passage ends with Columbus’s now infamous words: “They have no iron. Their spears are made out of cane. . . . They would make fine servants. . . . With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.”

The ellipses in this passage are Zinn’s, not mine. Those omissions are essential to Zinn’s dishonest retelling of the Columbus story. By leaving crucial words out of the quotation, Zinn makes Columbus say something very different from what he actually said.

It’s unlikely that he even read as much of “Columbus’s journals” or the works of “Las Casas, the great eyewitness” as he claimed. The truth is that Zinn’s description of Columbus’s first encounter with the American Indians is lifted from “Columbus: His Enterprise: Exploding the Myth,” a book for high school students that Zinn’s friend and fellow anti-Vietnam War activist, Hans Koning, first published in 1976.

Zinn perpetuates Koning’s smears. In Koning’s telling and in Zinn’s, Columbus set out to enslave a uniformly gentle people for the sole purpose of enriching himself with gold. In fact, that is far from the truth. European efforts to find a sea route to Asia had been going on for hundreds of years. As William and Carla Phillips point out in “The Worlds of Christopher Columbus,” Columbus’s voyages of discovery were a continuation of Europeans’ ventures of sailing to Asia—at first, around Africa—that had begun in 1291. For centuries before Columbus, Portuguese and Spanish explorers had also ventured farther and farther out into the Atlantic Ocean.

Thus, Columbus’s mission was multi-faceted and inspired by several different motivations: “to reach the East Indies, so as to take Islam in the rear, and to effect an alliance with the Great Khan—a mythical personage who was believed to be the sovereign of all that region, and favorable to the Christian religion—and finally . . . to diffuse Christianity throughout that unknown continent and trade with the traditional sources of gold and spices.”

Desires to find new lands for more resources and to escape enemies and persecution are not impulses unique to Europeans. The natives of North America “in prehistoric times” themselves came from Asia and “crossed the land bridge across the Bering Strait to the lands of the Western Hemisphere.”

When he encountered naked natives instead of the Asian merchants he was expecting, Columbus did not jump to thoughts of working them to death for gold as Zinn, following Koning, suggests. For example, in his log entry for October 12, 1492, Columbus wrote, “I warned my men to take nothing from the people without giving something in exchange”—a passage left out by both Koning and Zinn.

But Zinn’s most crucial omissions are in the passage from Columbus’s log that he quotes in the very first paragraph of his People’s History. There he uses ellipses to cover up the fact that he has left out enough of Columbus’s words to deceive his readers about what the discoverer of America actually meant. The omission right before “They would make fine servants” is particularly dishonest. Here’s the nub of what Zinn left out: “I saw some who bore marks of wounds on their bodies, and I made signs to them to ask how this came about, and they indicated to me that people came from other islands, which are near, and wished to capture them, and they defended themselves. And I believed and still believe that they come here from the mainland to take them for slaves.”

In his translation of Columbus’s log, Robert Fuson discusses the context that Zinn deliberately left out:

“The cultural unity of the Taino [the name for this particular tribe, which Zinn labels “Arawaks”] greatly impressed Columbus…. Those who see Columbus as the founder of slavery in the New World are grossly in error. This thought occurred to [Samuel Eliot] Morison (and many others), who misinterpreted a statement made by Columbus on the first day in America, when he said, ‘They (the Indians) ought to be good servants.’ In fact, Columbus offered this observation in explanation of an earlier comment he had made, theorizing that people from the mainland came to the islands to capture these Indians as slaves because they were so docile and obliging.”

Zinn’s next ellipsis between “They would make fine servants” and “With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want” covers for Zinn’s dishonest pretense that the second statement has anything at all to do with the first. The sentences that Zinn joins here are not only not in the same paragraph—as he dishonestly pretends by printing them that way on the very first page of A People’s History— but they’re not even in the same entry of Columbus’s log. In fact, they’re from two days apart.

Zinn’s highly selective quotations from Columbus’s log are designed to give the impression that Columbus had no concern for the Indians’ spiritual or physical well-being—that the explorer was motivated only by a “frenzy for money.”

But literally the explorer’s first concern—the hope that he expressed in the initial comment about the natives in his log—was for the Indians’ freedom and their eternal salvation: “I want the natives to develop a friendly attitude toward us because I know that they are a people who can be made free and converted to our Holy Faith more by love than by force.”

Zinn just entirely omits the passage in which Columbus expresses his respect and concern for the Indians. Zinn also suppresses—and, where he doesn’t suppress, downplays— the evidence from even the sympathetic Las Casas that the Indians could be violent and cruel. Zinn has to admit that they were “not completely peaceful, because they do battle from time to time with other tribes.” But, like Koning, he is eager to explain their violent behavior away, arguing, “but their casualties seem small, and they fight when they are individually moved to do so because of some grievance, not on the orders of captains or kings.”

In Zinn’s telling, the Arawaks—or black slaves, or Cherokees, or New York Irish, or whoever—must always be persecuted innocents and the condemnation of their sufferings must be absolute. The officially oppressed cannot be blamed even for any crimes they themselves commit, which are inevitably the fault of their oppressors.

According to Zinn, there’s no such thing as objective history, anyway: “the historian’s distortion is more than technical, it is ideological; it is released into a world of contending interests, where any chosen emphasis supports (whether the historian means to or not) some kind of interest, whether economic or political or racial or national or sexual.”

Once ideology has become a moral virtue, Zinn can discount standards of scholarship—such as those of the American Historical Association—as having to do with nothing more important than “technical problems of excellence”—standards of no importance compared to his kind of history, which consists in forging “tools for contending social classes, races, nations.”

Thus it would seem that the noble political purpose behind Zinn’s history justifies him in omitting facts that are inconvenient for his Columbus-bad-Indians-good narrative.

"Debunking Howard Zinn" is available from Regnery Publishing.

Allan Bloom on the Moderns' Solid Ground

With this, I complete my series on Allan Bloom analysing the philosophical construct of the "state of nature" from which modern liberalism emerged. This passage is from pages 165-167 of "The Closing of the American Mind."

This scheme provides the structure for the key term of liberal democracy, the most successful and useful political notion of our world: rights. Government exists to protect the product of men's labor, their property, and therewith life and liberty. The notion that man possesses inalienable natural rights, that they belong to him as an individual prior, both in time and in sanctity, to any civil society, and that civil societies exist for and acquire their legitimacy from ensuring those rights, is an invention of modern philosophy. Rights, like the other terms discussed in this chapter, are new in modernity, not a part of the common-sense language of politics or of classical political philosophy. Hobbes initiated the notion of rights, and it was given its greatest respectability by Locke. Unlike the other terms, however, we understand rights perfectly and have immediate access to the thought underlying them. The others are alien, problematic; and to understand them requires a great effort that, I am arguing, we do not make. But rights are ours. They constitute our being; we live them; they are our common sense. Right is not the opposite of wrong, but of duty. It is a part of, or the essence of, freedom. It begins from man's cherished passion to live, and to live as painlessly as possible. An analysis of universal needs and their relation to nature as a whole demonstrates that this passion is not merely an imagination. It can be called a right and converted into a term of political relevance when a man is fully conscious of what he needs most, recognizes that he is threatened by others and that they are threatened by him. The spring that makes the social machinery tick is this recognition, which generates the calculation that, if he agrees to respect the life, liberty and property of others (for which he has no natural respect), they can be induced to reciprocate. This is the foundation of rights, a new kind of morality solidly grounded in self-interest.

To say, "I've got my rights," is as instinctive with Americans as breathing, so clear and evident is this way of looking at things. It signifies the rules of the game, within which men play peacefully, the necessity of which they see and accept, and the infringement of which arouses moral indignation. It is our only principle of justice. From our knowledge of our rights flows our acceptance of the duties to the community that protects them. Righteousness means for us respect for equal rights equally guaranteed by the force of government. Everyone in the world today speaks of rights, even the communists, the heirs of Marx, who ridiculed "bourgeois rights" as a sham and in whose thought there is no place for rights. But almost every thoughtful observer knows that it is in the United States that the idea of rights has penetrated most deeply into the bloodstream of its citizens and accounts for their unusual lack of servility. Without it we would have nothing, only chaotic selfishness; and it is the interested source of a certain disinterestedness. We feel people's interests should be respected.

This scheme represented a radical break with the old ways of looking at the political problem. In the past it was thought that man is a dual being, one part of him concerned with the common good, the other with private interests. To make politics work, man, it was thought, has to overcome the selfish part of himself, to tyrannize over the merely private, to be virtuous. Locke and his immediate predecessors taught that no part of man is naturally directed to the common good and that the old way was both excessively harsh and ineffective, that it went against the grain. They experimented with using private interest for public interest, putting natural freedom ahead of austere virtue. Self-interest is hostile to the common good, but enlightened self-interest is not. And this is the best key to the meaning of enlightenment. Man's reason can be made to see his vulnerability and to anticipate future scarcity. This rational awareness of the future and its dangers is enough to set the passions in motion. In the past men were members of communities by divine commandment and by attachments akin to the blood ties that constitute the family. They were, to use Rousseau's phrase, "denatured." Their loyalties were fanatic and repressive of their natures. Clear reasoning wiped that slate clean in order to inscribe on it contracts calmly made with expectation of profit involving the kinds of relations found in business. Calculated work is the sum of the whole affair. Thomas Watson said it all with the motto he placed on the walls of his offices and factories: "Think"; for he was addressing himself to men who were already working. 

Americans are Lockeans: recognizing that work is necessary (no longing for a nonexistent Eden), and will produce well-being; following their natural inclinations moderately, not because they possess the virtue of moderation but because their passions are balanced and they recognize the reasonableness of that; respecting the rights of others so that theirs will be respected; obeying the law because they made it in their own interest. From the point of view of God or heroes, all this is not very inspiring. But for the poor, the weak, the oppressed—the overwhelming majority of mankind—it is the promise of salvation. As Leo Strauss put it, the moderns "built on low but solid ground."  

So I end this series with the one place in this book that Bloom cites his mentor Leo Strauss. I think, the next series I do will be on Strauss on modernity, putting that quotation into context.

And I do note this "report" given from Bloom and before him Strauss is disputed. Did they really properly understand Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau? And is it true that the "rights talk" that we take for granted is a product of modernity?