William Livingston on New Jersey View on Religion & Government

In the 1947 Everson case, the Supreme Court essentially nationalized Madison and Jefferson's "Virginia Plan" on disestablishment. Subsequent scholarship has aptly noted, while the Founders generally agreed on religious liberty, they disagreed on establishment policy. Therefore, religion (especially establishment policy) was left to the states. Virginia was the most "disestablished" state. Massachusetts was the most "established" state. Most of the other states were somewhere in between. They tend to be ignored or at least less focused on.

Jefferson and Madison, of course, formulated the policy that prevailed in Virginia. John Adams to an extent, represents the Massachusetts' view. Adams helped write Mass.'s original constitution which contains its view on religion and government.

William Livingston, originally from New York, wrote on church-state issues, as a New Yorker, in the Independent Reflector magazine. Later, as governor of New Jersey, Livingston wrote, under the pseudonym "Cato," two addresses on church-state policy that referenced provisions New Jersey's state constitution. The addresses were published in 1788 in the American Museum magazine.

Here is the relevant provision of NJ's Constitution:

XVIII. That no person shall ever, within this Colony, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner, agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor, under any presence whatever, be compelled to attend any place of worship, contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall any person, within this Colony, ever be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or any other rates, for the purpose of building or repairing any other church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right, or has deliberately or voluntarily engaged himself to perform.

XIX. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect. who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.

It's not as established as Mass., nor as disestablished (or religiously equal) as Virginia. Yet the rhetoric that Livingston uses to defend New Jersey's model is arguably more anti-clerical, anti-establishment, pro-religious liberty than Jefferson's and Madison's Virginia's documents.

Also notable is Livingston's Lockeanism. Although Jefferson and Madison's documents likewise build from a Lockean there is far more explication of Lockean theory in Livingston's two Cato addresses.

I've already uploaded the two "Cato" documents but it seems I am going to have to write out some of its passages before I get more folks to reflect on the ideas.

I just found on googlebooks, the February 18, 1778 address by Livingston, which I can copy, paste and reproduce.

"If, in our estimate of things, we ought to be regulated by their importance, doubtless every encroachment upon religion, of all things the most important, ought to be considered as the greatest imposition; and the unmolested exercise of it, a proportionable blessing.

By religion, I mean an inward habitual reverence for, and devotedness to the Deity, with such external homage, either public or private, as the worshipper believes most acceptable to him. According to this definition, it is impossible for human laws to regulate religion without destroying it; for they cannot compel inward religious reverence, that being altogether mental and of a spiritual nature; nor can they enforce outward religious homage, because all such homage is either a man's own choice, and then it is not compelled, or it is repugnant to it, and then it cannot be religious.

The laws of England, indeed, do not peremptorily inhibit a man from worshipping God, according to the dictates of his own conscience, nor positively constrain him to violate it, by conforming to the religion of the state: But they punish him for doing the former, or what amounts to the same thing, for omitting the latter, and consequently punish him for his religion. For what are the civil disqualifications and the privation of certain privileges he thereby incurs, but so many punishments? And what else is the punishment for not embracing the religion of others, but a punishment for practising one's own? With how little propriety a nation can boast of its freedom under such restraints on religious liberty, requires no great sagacity to determine. They affect, tis true, to abhor the imputation of intolerance, and applaud themselves for their pretended toleration and lenity. As contra-distinguished, indeed, from actual prohibition, a permission may doubtless be called a toleration; for as a man is permitted to enjoy his religion under whatever penalties or forfeitures, he is certainly tolerated to enjoy it. But as far as he pays for such enjoyment, by suffering those penalties and forfeitures, he as certainly does not enjoy it freely. On the contrary, he is persecuted in the proportion that bis privilege is so regulated and qualified. I call it persecution, because it is harassing mankind for their principles; and I deny that such punishments derive any sanction from law, because the consciences of men are not the object of human legislation. And to trace this stupendous insult on the dignity of reason to any other source than the one from which I deduced it in the preceding essay, I mean the abominable combination of King-Craft and Priest-Craft, (in everlasting indissoluble league to extirpate liberty, and erect on its ruins boundless and universal despotism,) would I believe puzzle the most assiduous enquirer. For what business, in the name of common sense, has the magistrate (distinctly and singly appointed for our political and temporal happiness) with our religion, which is to secure our happiness spiritual and eternal? And indeed among all the absurdities chargeable upon human nature, it never yet entered into the thoughts of any one to confer such authority upon another. The institution of civil society I have pointed out as originating from the unbridled rapaciousness of individuals, and as a necessary curb to prevent that violence and other inconveniences to which men in a state of nature were exposed. But whoever fancied it a violence offered to himself, that another should enjoy his own opinion? Or who, in a state of nature, ever deemed it an inconvenience that every man should choose his own religion? Did the free denizens of the world, before the monstrous birth of Priest-Craft, aiding by and aided by the secular arm, ever worry one another for not practising ridiculous rites, or for disbelieving things incredible? Did men in their aboriginal condition ever suffer persecution for conscience sake? The most frantic enthusiast will not pretend it. Why then should the members of society be supposed, on their entering into it, to have bad in contemplation the reforming an abuse which never existed? Or why are they pretended to have invested the magistrate with authority to sway and direct their religious sentiment? In reality, such delegation of power, had it ever been made, would be a mere nullity, and the compact by which it was ceded, altogether nugatory, the rights of conscience being immutably personal and absolutely inalienable, nor can the slate or community as such have any concern in the matter. For in what manner doth it affect society, which is evidently and solely instituted to prevent personal assault, the violation of property and the defamation of character; and hath not (these remaining inviolate) any interest in the actions of men—how doth it, I say, affect society what principles we entertain in our own minds, or in what outward form, we think it best to pay our adoration to God? But to set the absurdity of the magistrate's authority to interfere in matters of religion, in the strongest light, I would fain know what religion it is that he has authority to establish? Has he a right to establish only the true religion, or is any religion true because he does not establish it? If the former, his trouble is as vain as it is arrogant, because the true religion being not of this world, wants not the princes of this world to support it, but has in fact either languished or been adulterated wherever they meddled with it. If the supreme magistrate, as such, has authority to establish any religion he thinks to be true, and the religion so established is therefore right and ought to be embraced, it follows, since all supreme magistrates have the same authority, that all established religions are equally right, and ought to be embraced. The emperor of China, therefore, having, as supreme magistrate in his empire, the same right to establish the precepts of Confucius, and the Sultan in his, the imposture of Mahomet, as hath the king of Great Britain the doctrine of Christ in his dominion, it results from these principles, that the religions of Confucius and Mahomet are equally true with the doctrine of our blessed Saviour and his Apostles, and equally obligatory upon the respective subjects of China and Turkey, as Christianity is on those within the British realm; a position which, 1 presume, the most zealous advocate for ecclesiastical domination would think it blasphemy to avow.

The English ecclesiastical government, therefore, is, and all the religious establishments of the world, are manifest violations of the right of private judgment in matters of religion. They are impudent outrages on common sense, in arrogating a power of controlling the devotional operations of the mind and external acts of divine homage not cognizable by any human tribunal, and for which we are accountable only to the Great Searcher of hearts, whose prerogative it is to judge them.

In contrast with this spiritual tyranny, how beautiful appears our catholic constitution in disclaiming all jurisdiction ever the souls of men, and securing, by a law never to be repealed, the voluntary, unchecked moral suasion of every individual, 'and his own self directed intercourse with the father of spirits, either by devout retirement or public worship of his own election. How amiable the plan of entrenching, with the sanction of an ordinance, immutable and irrevocable, the sacred rights of conscience, and renouncing all discrimination between men on account of their sentiments about the various modes of church government, or the different articles of their faith."

That's all the 1822 googlebooks reproduces. It is most, but not all, of Livingston's 1778 address. (For more, again, see here.)

Montesquieu on Religion in a Republic

Of all the source material quoted by our Founding Fathers, Charles baron de Montesquieu was at or near the top. As one of France's top minds on political science during the Enlightenment (particularly his ideas on separation of powers), Montesquieu's pearls of wisdom were sure to filter down to America's founders, who were more than anxious to learn all they could about the ins and outs of republican government. And Montesquieu had plenty to say on the matter.

Montesquieu believed that there were essentially three key ingredients to ensure a republic's success and survival: education, morality and a relatively small geographic boundary. And when it came to morality, Montesquieu didn't hold back on his feelings. Though he admitted to having no personal interest in the validity/invalidity of any given religion (Montesquieu was no theologian), Montesquieu did believe that religion was fundamental to good government, and that some religions were better equipped for certain government systems:

The Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the Gospel is incompatible with the despotic rage with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty. As this religion forbids the plurality of wives, its princes are less confined, less concealed from their subjects, and consequently have more humanity: they are more disposed to be directed by laws, and more capable of perceiving that they cannot do whatever they please.

While the Mahometan princes incessantly give or receive death, the religion of the Christians renders their princes less timid, and consequently less cruel. The prince confides in his subjects, and the subjects in the prince. How admirable the religion which, while it only seems to have in view the felicity of the other life, continues the happiness of this! It is the Christian religion that, in spite of the extent of the empire and the influence of the climate, has hindered despotic power from being established in Ethiopia, and has carried into the heart of Africa the manners and laws of Europe.

[...]

From the characters of the Christian and Mahometan religions, we ought, without any further examination, to embrace the one and reject the other: for it is much easier to prove that religion ought to humanise the manners of men than that any particular religion is true. It is a misfortune to human nature when religion is given by a conqueror. The Mahometan religion, which speaks only by the sword, acts still upon men with that destructive spirit with which it was founded.

And Montesquieu got even more specific when he broke down which Christian religions he believed were better fit for certain governments:

When a religion is introduced and fixed in a state, it is commonly such as is most suitable to the plan of government there established; for those who receive it, and those who are the cause of its being received, have scarcely any other idea of policy than that of the state in which they were born.

When the Christian religion, two centuries ago, became unhappily divided into Catholic and Protestant, the people of the north embraced the Protestant, and those of the south adhered still to the Catholic. The reason is plain: the people of the north have, and will for ever have, a spirit of liberty and independence, which the people of the south have not; and therefore a religion which has no visible head is more agreeable to the independence of the climate than that which has one. In the countries themselves where the Protestant religion became established, the revolutions were made pursuant to the several plans of political government. Luther having great princes on his side would never have been able to make them relish an ecclesiastical authority that had no exterior pre-eminence; while Calvin, having to do with people who lived under republican governments, or with obscure citizens in monarchies, might very well avoid establishing dignities and preferments.

In other words, the Catholic version of Christianity is best for monarchies, while Protestant/Calvin faiths are suited to republics...or so says Montesquieu.

And while we could debate Montesquieu's understanding of Christianity, Islam, etc., the point I am trying to make is that Montesquieu, and the founders who quoted him, believed religion was as indispensable to republicanism as were the separation of powers (also a Montesquieu idea). And several of the founders actually appear to agree with Montesquieu's belief that Christianity was the best fit for their republican experiment:

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen."
~John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, December 25, 1813.

"Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity...and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system."
~Samuel Adams

" Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."
~Charles Carroll to James McHenry, November 4, 1800.

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. 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 a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever."
~Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.

Now let's be careful here. These quotes are NOT proof that the Founding Fathers wanted to establish a Christian nation. Instead, they illustrate that the founders upheld Christianity (what brand of Christianity is another debate for another day) above other forms of worship as the best means by which morality and virtue could be preserved; a component of republican society which they believed was of the utmost importance.

Of course, this same desire to ensure virtue and morality caused many Christian zealots, then and now, to go beyond the mark:

"Whether our religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachment to Ahab ["Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?" 2 Chronicles 19:2] affords a salutary lesson."
~The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 1794-1826.

It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.
~Governor Samuel Johnston, July 30, 1788 at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention.

"The great misunderstanding of ‘the separation of church and state’ is closer in spirit and letter of the law to the old Soviet Union than it is to the spirit, letter of the law, and actions of the founders of this country."
~D. James Kennedy, What If America Were a Christian Nation Again? (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982), 5.

"They [the founders] were quite clear that we would create laws based on the God of the Bible and the 10 Commandments."
~David Barton, America’s Godly Heritage (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilders Publishing, 1993), 36.

As with any new idea, a few overzealous, misinformed and even ignorant individuals have (and continue to) poison(ed) the well of understanding, causing scores of historically illiterate followers to believe in a false reality.

And though Montesquieu's ideas on religion may seem biased and even a little racist, there is no doubt that they played an important role (along with many of his other ideas) in the development of American republicanism.

***Next Up: Montesquieu's belief that republicanism only works in small, localized societies and how it relates to the founders leaving religion to the states.***

The Rutherford Challenge

I've perused the "Christian Nation" debates for some time. And one oft-repeated claim I hear from the pro-Christian Nation side is that Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex was extremely popular during the time of the Founding and that's where John Locke got his ideas from.

From my meticulous research, I've concluded the claim is false. But I'm open minded towards the evidence.

Rutherford anticipated some of Locke's ideas on resisting the magistrate. That might explain why America's Founding era Presbyterians were open to Locke's ideas. Rutherford, however, did not agree with Locke or America's Founders on religious liberty and in fact justified Calvin's putting Servetus to death.

Further, it could be that many ordinary Presbyterians knew and appreciated Rutherford and/or that the Presbyterian pulpit of the American Founding championed his ideas. There's just no extant evidence of this. The notable pro-revolt Congregational and Presbyterian sermons do not rely on Rutherford, but Locke. And few if any notable Founding Fathers cited Rutherford by name in favor of revolt. I know John Adams did nominally reference the name of some of the Calvinist pro-resisters. But he did so while citing an endless plethora of authority for why America was justified in revolting against Great Britain.

Finally I've heard it claimed, yes, they cited Locke, but Locke relied on Rutherford. But this is false as well. Locke doesn't cite Rutherford. From what I've seen there is NO connection between Locke and Rutherford other than *some* similarity in their ideas.

There is a reason why I entitled this post a "challenge." If I am wrong, show me the money.

William Livingston February 18, 1778

Here I've uploaded another Livingston address. Footnote 3 to the Feb. 4, 1778 address seemed to indicate that BOTH of these pieces were "inserted" by Mathew Carey in Dec. 1788 to the "American Museum." The pieces were given under Livingston's name and dated 1778.

I'll try to track down some more info and answer when exactly and in whose hand these addresses were written.

The dates are important because, as we will see, some of the arguments here strikingly parallel those in Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, written in 1785.

It's also interesting to see how the anti-clerical, pro-religious liberty, anti-establishment rhetoric is used to support the New York/New Jersey plan on religion and government (too often we focus on Virginia or the Massachusetts models only).

Livingston 3

Livingston 4

Livingston 5

William Livingston, Cato, February 4, 1778

I've uploaded the entire text from William Livingston's address as "Cato," February 4, 1778 which I quoted in my last post. If the text is too small, use the magnifying glass tool.

Pay close attention to the 3rd footnote. And that's because our next upload will be of a piece by Livingston dated February 18, 1778. Yet the footnote appears to inform that it was "inserted" by Mathew Carey under Livingston's name in 1788. The reason why the ten years make a difference is because, as we will see, the arguments there strikingly parallel Madison's in the Memorial and Remonstrance. If these were Livingston's words in 1778 we could reasonably concluded Madison lifted the ideas (that's how close they are). But if they were Carey's words in 1788, it's likely he lifted the ideas from Madison. Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance was written in 1785.

Livingston 1

Livingston 2

Update: In rereading the footnote, it seems that BOTH pieces were "inserted" by M. Carey in 1788. However, I can't tell (yet) who wrote the pieces (Livingston, under whose name they were given or Carey) and when they were written (1778 when dated or 1788 when published). The difference matters. Because as noted if they were written in 1778, they anticipate Madison's argument in the Memorial and Remonstrance, and some of Jefferson's Virginia arguments too. It's true that the "Whigs" -- Jefferson, Madison, and Livingston -- cribbed Locke. However, it wasn't just "Locke," but rather how Jefferson understood Locke, how Madison understood Locke, how Livingston understood Locke, etc.

Interesting "Christian Nation" Debate

The following is a debate between Herb Silverman (a distinguished mathematics professor and self-proclaimed atheist) and E. Ray Moore (pastor, theologian and passionate advocate for the Christian Nation thesis), held at USC just a few months ago. And though both of these men are not professional historians, their debate is still interesting to watch, since they address many of the issues that we have discussed ad nauseum at this blog. It also illustrates some of the typical ignorance of many "enlightened" thinkers on both sides. Moore spews the typical conservative rhetoric that America was once a great "Christian" nation but has lost its way, and that the only way to return to our former greatness is to recognize the "obvious" Christianity of our founders. Silverman, on the other hand, exhibits the time-honored tradition of the left of exclusively referencing Madison, Jefferson, Franklin and Paine (founders who fit his agenda) while conveniently ignoring the scores of other founders who would cringe at the notion of a completely secular America. Regardless of these obviously biased mindsets, this debate is still interesting to watch:

Part 1: Moore's opening statement:


-Moore reveals his stunning ignorance of the Holy Trinity Church v. United States case. Justice David Brewer's opinion was dicta, not part of the holding, and it had no relevance at all to the legal issue. This case had nothing...NOTHING to do with America's "Christian" heritage.

Part 2: Moore's Opening Statement (cont.) and Silverman's Opening Statement:


-Silverman, of course, only mentions the select few founders (Jefferson, Madison, Franklin) who fit with his view of "secular" founders. He never mentions the other founders who were quite religious.

Part 3: Silverman's Opening Statement (cont.):


Part 4: Moore's Rebuttal:


Part 5: Silverman's Rebuttal:

-Silverman brings up the important point that not all "Christianity" is the same. If America is a "Christian" nation, which brand of Christianity are we talking about?

Part 6: Moore and Silverman's Cross Examinations:


Part 7: Q & A:


Part 8: Moore's Closing Statement:


Part 9: Silverman's Closing Statement:


Your thoughts...

Lieberman, Beck, and Inalienable Rights

Sandy Levinson's post at Balkinization brings to light the need for a national debate on the meaning of Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in the wake of the "Times Square Bomber." It brings up two very interesting questions:

1. Should the rights of citizens be stripped for joining enemy forces?
2. Do only U.S. citizens accused of acts of terror have a right to a fair trial?

Levinson cites of the opposing positions of Glen Beck and Joe Lieberman. Lieberman says yes to number 1. Beck says no to number 1 and yes to number 2. This is where the Declaration and Bill of Rights come into play. The Declaration says that the rights to life, liberty, and property are God given and thus inalienable. In other words, they cannot be taken away. To some the Bill of Rights only pertains to "We the People" and thus only to citizens. Lieberman and Beck are involved in an interesting debate. Nonetheless, I think something important is being overlooked in this post.

Here is Lieberman:

“It’s time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law [depriving citizenship of those who enlist in foreign militaries against the US] to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations,” he said, “whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship, and therefore be deprived of rights that come with that citizenship when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist act.”

Here is Beck:

"He’s a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens,” Mr. Beck said. “He has all the rights under the Constitution. We don’t shred the Constitution when it’s popular. We do the right thing.”

I cannot go along with Lieberman in wanting to strip citizens of their rights under the Constitution based on a mere accusation. Nor do I advocate depriving citizens of other nations the same rights we enjoy here unlike Beck. If we all have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness then how can one justify taking away the most helpful tool in protecting against aribtrary abuses of this right by those in power?: The right to a trial by jury. This is the question that Levinson overlooks. I guess it comes down to whether one believes that God or the state grants rights. I think the Declaration of Independence makes it clear where our founders stood on the principle of inalienable rights.

Though, perhaps it is not the simple considering the John Adams was responsible for both defending the British soilders who were involved in the Boston Massacre and the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Romans 13 Is Really Beside the Point

In response to my last post Brad Hart left the following comment:

"Here's my question: do you honestly believe that the entire American Revolution hung on religion? Or more specifically on the interpretation of Romans 13? Or could it be that early colonial Americans, like any group of people, got really pissed off at the repeated perceived abuses of the British and were ready to throw down as a result? And didn’t really need too much justification to break out a can of whoop-ass on their European brethren? Bible or no bible, preacher or no preacher, natural law or no natural law, this fight was a’gonna happen. Yes, religion is an important factor, and the purpose of our blog is sound, but let’s not assume that it was the ONLY factor."

As far as Romans 13 goes I think it was important to the people who cared about what God thought. How many people was that?  I have no idea but we do know that the group that worried the King the most was the Presbyterians, the Declaration of Independence was amended to be more attractive to Calvinists, and Adams is quoted as stating that Mayhew's sermon was a key to the Revolution. As I have stated numerous times, it probably was a large and influential faction.

With that stated, this is not the focus of my series of posts on Christian ideas that help shape the founding and what role interpostion/resistance theory had to play in this.  Nor is it to state that religion was the only thing that mattered to the colonists. The focus of these posts is what the founding actually did hang on: the foundations of inalienable rights. This following comment from Tom Van Dyke sums up what I have been trying to get at better than I can:

"As for K of I's key point, my own interest in religion and the Founding comes down to this key point, the origin of the concepts of rights and liberty. It's not just about Aquinas, and I've been very surprised to see the road lead through Calvinism as well, although neither are their final destination, the Founding.

But the question remains, in 2010, just as when Jefferson first asked,

'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 they are not to be violated but with his wrath?'"

Attempts by modern secularists to separate inalienable rights from their theological roots are not only futile they are historically inaccurate. This is David Barton's larger point that often gets pushed aside with petty arguments on minor points. Shame on those who do it.

William Livingston on Church State Separation

When we last met 3rd, arguably 2nd tier Founding Father William Livingston (a signer of the Constitution and a governor of New Jersey) we learned he was radically anti-creedal and anti-ecclesiastical, but that he did believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible. He was, therefore, either a theological unitarian or a proto-Quaker who downplayed or was agnostic on orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. (He was a member of the Presbyterian club, but didn't believe in their official doctrines, which was not at all unusual for the Founding Fathers.)

My community college library where I work, interestingly, has William Livingston's papers (and unlike the David Library, they let me check the work out).

Under the pseudonym "Cato," Livingston wrote on Church-State issues. In that year he makes arguments arguably using the rhetoric of "separation." Interestingly, Phillip Hamburger's otherwise thorough work misses Livingston.

Unfortunately, I can't, as I like to do, copy, paste, and link to a public domain work. So I'll have to actually write his words out. From a work dated February 4, 1778, he writes:

Hence the motley junction of king-craft and priest-craft (the most fatal engine ever invented by Satan for promoting human wretchedness) usually called the alliance between church and state, but in reality a most atrocious conspiracy between two public robbers, for sharing between them the plunder of nations; and for that purpose mutually supporting and supported by each other. And hence all politico-ecclesiastical establishments under pretence of promoting religion, by kings who generally have none, and church dignitaries who seldom care for any.

Next we will see Livingston making arguments that strikingly parallel those made in James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance.

Rothbard on Bailyn on Trenchard and Gordon

Very interesting:

Bailyn's Crucial Breakthrough

The crucial breakout from the miasma of American historiography of the Revolution came from one man. He was able by sheer force of scholarship to overthrow the Consensus and Progressive views and to establish a new interpretation of the causes of the American Revolution. This was Harvard Professor Bernard Bailyn, who, breaking through the hermetic separation of European and American historians, found his inspiration in the great work of Caroline Robbins, The Eighteenth Century Commonwealthman. For Bailyn realized that Professor Robbins had discovered the "missing link" in the transmission of radical libertarian thought after John Locke. She had found it in a group of dedicated writers, inspired by the English Revolution of the seventeenth century, who continued to reject the centrist Whig settlement of the eighteenth century. These writers carried forward the ideals of natural rights and individual liberty. In the course of editing a volume of Revolutionary pamphlets, Bailyn discovered that Americans were indeed influenced, on a massive scale, by these libertarian articles and pamphlets. Many of these publications were reprinted widely in the American colonies, and clearly influenced the revolutionary leaders. The most important shaper of this libertarian viewpoint was Cato's Letters, a series of newspaper articles in England in the early 1720s written by John Trenchard and his young disciple Thomas Gordon. The collected Cato's Letters were republished many times in eighteenth century England and America.

Trenchard and Gordon, and the other libertarian writers, transmuted John Locke's abstract and often guarded political philosophy into a trenchant, hard-hitting, and radical libertarian creed. Not only did men have natural rights of life, liberty, and property, which governments must not invade, but "Cato" and the other writers declared that government – power – was always and ever the great enemy of liberty, and stood ready to aggress against it. Hence, power must always be diminished as far as possible. Men must watch it continually with utmost hostility and vigilance, lest it break its bonds, and destroy the rights of the individual. "Cato" particularly denounced the propensity for tyranny of the British government of the day. This message found an eager reception in the American colonies.

Thus, Bernard Bailyn established the American Revolution as at one and the same time genuinely radical and revolutionary. He showed that it was motivated largely by firmly and passionately held libertarian ideology, summed up in the phrase "the transforming libertarian radicalism" of the American Revolution. Bailyn's findings were first presented in the "General Introduction" to his edition of Pamphlets of the American Revolution, 1750–1776, Vol. 1, 1750–1765. The only volume of pamphlets yet published in the series, it included the works of such revolutionary leaders as the Rev. Jonathan Mayhew, Thomas Fitch, James Otis, Oxenbridge Thacher, Daniel Dulany, and John Dickinson.

An expanded version was published as Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Also see the companion volume by Bailyn, The Origins of American Politics, which offered an excellent explanation for the British royal governors being weak in the eighteenth century at the same time that the King was dominant at home. A useful summary of the Bailyn thesis is provided by Bailyn's "The Central Themes of the American Revolution: An Interpretation" in S. Kurtz and J. Hutson, eds., Essays on the American Revolution. The scintillating writings of "Cato" have been collected in an excellently edited volume by David L. Jacobson, The English Libertarian Heritage.

One problem with the generally correct Bailyn thesis is its exclusive emphasis on ideology, as it affected the minds and hearts of the Americans. Historians find it easy to slip into the view that the deep ideologically motivated hostility to Britain, while genuinely felt, was merely an expression of "paranoia." Indeed, Bailyn himself almost fell into this trap in his recent overly sympathetic biography of the leading Massachusetts Tory, Thomas Hutchinson. One of the best historians of this period, Edmund Morgan, in the New York Review of Books duly noted and warned against the trap in his review of this work.

An excellent corrective to this exclusive concentration on the subjective is the work of the most important political (as contrasted to ideological) historians of the pre-Revolutionary period. In the definitive history of the Stamp Act crisis of 1765–1766, Edmund and Helen Morgan demonstrated the majority nature of the revolutionary movement. They attacked, as well, the actual depredations of Great Britain on American political and economic rights. Edmund and Helen Morgan, The Stamp Act Crisis: Prologue to Revolution. Also see the companion source book of documents, Edmund S. Morgan, ed., Prologue to Revolution: Sources and Documents on the Stamp Act Crisis, 1764–1766. Particularly important is the monumental and definitive, though densely written, two-volume political history of the coming of the American Revolution by Bernhard Knollenberg, Origins of the American Revolution: 1759–1765; and Growth of the American Revolution, 1766–1775. By examining British archives, Knollenberg shows that the supposed paranoia and "conspiracy theories" of the American colonists were all too accurate. The British officials were indeed conspiring to invade the liberties of the American colonies after the "salutary neglect" of the pre-1763 period.

For the rest, see here.

Locke, Ponet, and the Universal Law

Over the last months, Jon Rowe and I have been involved in a conversation about key influences on the American Founding. While we both agree that many varied and diverse ideas were foundational to the founding, I think he errors when he exaggerates the impact of Enlightenment ideas in this process. His line of reasoning can be seen in the following comment to one of my last posts:

"Well I think we can point by point show the differences between Ponet and Locke. However, the burden still remains on the other side to show a connection between Locke and Ponet et al. AND to show that the American Presbyterians and Congregationalists who argued pro-revolt relied on *those* Calvinists like Rutherford more so than on Locke."

For those who have not been following this discussion Ponet is refering to John Ponet the reformed theologian that was a contemporary of John Calvin. Locke refers to John Locke. This response is connected to a discussion about interpostion/resistance theory and its intellectual roots. Jon contends that the founding generation looked to Enlightenment sources to get around a supposed ban on resistance to tyrants as taught by John Calvin and others. My view is that the reasoning/theology they used was part of a the long tradition of Protestant and Catholic teachings on this subject that by far pre-dated the Enlightenment.

Furthermore, I have challenged Jon's notion that Locke's writings on this topic are much different than Ponet and others. I contend that perhaps the "Harvard Narrative's" poster boy for the Enlightenment is in fact more correctly understood as part of the continuation of the long tradition of political theology alluded to above. In other words, Locke had more in common with Ponet than one might think. Below is the beginning lines of both Ponet's A Short Treatise on Political Power and Locke's Second Treatise. I will allow both men to speak unmolested other than to say that the foundation of both of their arguments seems to be a case for inalienable rights grounded in the imago dei and the "universal law."

John Ponet:

"As oxen, sheep, goats, and other such unreasonable creatures cannot for lack of reason rule themselves, but must be ruled by a more excellent creature, that is man: so man, although he has reason, yet because through the fall of the first man, his reason is radically corrupt, and sensuality has gotten the upper hand, he is not able by himself to rule himself, but must have a more excellent governor. Those of this world thought that this governor was their own reason. They thought that they by their own reason might do the things they lusted for, not only in private matters, but also in public. They thought reason to be the only cause that men first assembled themselves together in companies, that commonwealths were designed, that policies were well governed and long continued: but those of that mind were utterly blinded and deceived in their imaginations, their works and inventions (though they never seemed so wise) were so easily and so soon (contrary to their expectations) overthrown.

Where is the wisdom of the Greeks? Where is the fortitude of the Iberians? Where is both the wisdom and the force of the Romans gone? All have vanished away, nothing almost left to testify that they were, but that which declares well, that their reason was not able to govern them. Therefore, such were desirous to know the perfect and the only governor of all, constrained to seek further than themselves, and so at length to confess, that it was one God that ruled all. By Him we live, we move, and we have our being. He made us, and not we ourselves. We are His people, and the sheep of His pasture. He made all things for man: and man He made for Himself, to serve and Glorify Him. He has taken upon Himself the order and government of man, His chief creature, and prescribed a rule to him, how he should behave himself, what he should do, and what he may not do.

This rule is the law of nature, first planted and grafted only in the mind of man, then after that his mind was defiled by sin, filled with darkness, and encumbered with many doubts. God set this rule forth in writing in the Decalogue, or the Ten Commandments: and after that, reduced by Christ our Savior to just two commands: You will love the Lord your God above all things, and your neighbor as yourself. The latter part He also expounded on: Whatever you would want done unto yourself, do that unto others."

John Locke:

"TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man. A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.

This equality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in itself, and beyond all question, that he makes it the foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the great maxims of justice and charity. His words are, 'The like natural inducement hath brought men to know that it is no less their duty, to love others than themselves; for seeing those things which are equal, must needs all have one measure; if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire, which is undoubtedly in other men, being of one and the same nature? To have any thing offered them repugnant to this desire, must needs in all respects grieve them as much as me; so that if I do harm, I must look to suffer, there being no reason that others should shew greater measure of love to me, than they have by me shewed unto them: my desire therefore to be loved of my equals in nature as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to them-ward fully the like affection; from which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn, for direction of life, no man is ignorant'

But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's." (Bold print was added by me for effect)

Joseph J. Ellis: When Historians Attack

...and misuse their scholarly authority
by Tom Van Dyke

Historians have their partisan points of view, just like normal people. You gotta vote for somebody. But Joseph J. Ellis beclowns his reputation bigtime in a recent WaPo op-ed, taking a Jefferson quote out of context for nefarious purposes, and even worse, completely misreading Madison and "originalism" in a predictable attack on Supreme Court justices he predictably doesn't like.

Now, it's not like normal people on both sides of the Great Partisan Divide don't bend history toward their druthers and try to enlist the Founders for their cause---it's de rigeur these days, and that's fine. But Ellis is largely known as an accredited historian when dealing with other than current issues.

And sure, as a gentleman of the left, he was entitled to stretch a thin point in making his preferred candidate Barack Obama into a sort of Founding Father. His transformation of the Tea Party movement into the Whiskey Rebellion was even more banal and baseless. But now Dr. Ellis has simply committed scholarly malpractice.

Ellis quote-mines Jefferson, who not incidentally, was not a framer of the Constitution:

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did beyond amendment. . . . Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs . . . Each generation is as independent of the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before."

He was telling us, in his own lyrical way, that we are on our own. Jefferson would vote against any nominee who claimed merely to be an umpire calling balls and strikes in a strike zone already determined by the Founders.

The scholarly problem here is that Jefferson was writing about Virginia meeting to discuss amending its 1776 state constitution, whose flaws Jefferson had opposed for decades. [Letter to Kercheval, 1816.]

The context has zip, nada, zero to do with "judicial review." The subject, as the reader can see for himself, is the legislative and amendment processes. [The US Constitution itself is amendable via Article V.] Invoking Jefferson here against the Supreme Court is simply a non sequitur.

Ellis goes on to invoke Madison's apparent evolution from his centralist Virginia Plan to a lover of states' rights and federalism. If it's Madison's credibility Ellis wishes to attack, I leave the rebuttal on that point to the equally accredited and far more judicious historian Gordon S. Wood.

Regardless, Ellis gets completely out of his depth in a patent and blatant misunderstanding of contemporary jurisprudence. Ellis attacks the judicial philosophy of those SC justices as "original intent," but that's a complete misnomer. Their philosophy is "textualism" and/or "original meaning," exactly as Madison himself wrote:

"As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution, the debates and incidental decisions of the Convention can have no authoritative character. However desirable it be that they should be preserved as a gratification to the laudable curiosity felt by every people to trace the origin and progress of their political Institutions, & as a source perhaps of some lights on the Science of Govt. the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it recd. all the authority which it possesses."

and to that, let's add Jefferson himself, since although he's not as an authoritative witness as Madison, Ellis seems to prefer him:

“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

There's more I could write contra Prof. Ellis, but it's the custom here at the American Creation blog to keep the partisanship at arm's length [partisanship fouls up historical inquiry, as we've seen here]. The predictable partisan battle can be found in the WaPo comments section itself. I'll restrict myself to Prof. Ellis' formal errors and the rebuttals from the Founders themselves.

But yes, this one made me angry. Ellis builds his case on heated partisan rhetoric and a single out-of-context Jefferson quote. As he is a Jefferson biographer himself, there's no excuse for this.

What would Jefferson have said about the other side of today's Supreme Court, which Ellis clearly favors? Oh wait, Jefferson his ownself already did did:

"Time and changes in the condition and constitution of society may require occasional and corresponding modifications. One single object, if your provision attains it, will entitle you to the endless gratitude of society; that of restraining judges from usurping legislation.

And with no body of men is this restraint more wanting than with the judges of what is commonly called our General Government, but what I call our foreign department. They are practising on the Constitution by inferences, analogies, and sophisms, as they would on an ordinary law. They do not seem aware that it is not even a constitution, formed by a single authority, and subject to a single superintendence and control; but that it is a compact of many independent powers, every single one of which claims an equal right to understand it, and to require its observance.

...

This member of the government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining, slyly, and without alarm, the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."---Letter to Livingston, 1825.

If Prof. Ellis wasn't aware of this letter, he's a bad scholar. If he is, he's a dishonest man.

[HTs and acknowledgement of some arguments borrowed from NRO. Source quotes verified by this author.]

Rev. Jeremiah Leaming to Bishop William White II: You're not a Unitarian, Are You?

I won't reproduce the whole thing. Just the offending passage from Leaming's letter, June 9, 1789:

I am not able to see why there may not be a general union, although we did not agree in every little circumstance. I suppose you agree with, as in all Articles of Faith. Although you have cast out two of our creeds, I imagine you do not mean to deny the Divinity of our blessed Lord : for if we are ever justified, it must be by the merits of Christ, and no created being can do any thine by merit for another. All he can do is only to act up to the dignity of his nature; and God has a right to all this, because he gave all the ability.

On the futility of persecution in politics

"In politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution." -- Alexander Hamilton.

Dr. Priestley is at the Bottom of the Plan

A Unitarian Founding Era Conspiracy? Yeah, there sorta was.

This letter is from Rev. Jeremiah Leaming to Bishop William White, one of the first Episcopal Bishops in America and the first Bishop of Pennsylvania.

Stratford, June 16th, 1788.

My Rev. and dear Sir :

I have received your kind and obliging letter, dated the 10th of last February, and I should have answered it before this time, but have waited to hear how the affair turned out, after the Convention in Virginia, with Dr. Griffith.

—— As to the affair upon which our correspondence commenced, it appears to me, that the union of the Churches is, at present, a matter that cannot be effected. I was in hopes to see it accomplished soon after your return from England. But you inform me some object, and will have nothing to do with the Scotch Succession. Dr. P-------y is at the bottom of the plan. He has contrived it to make this country all Unitarians; for, to accomplish that, he must demolish the Church in these States. However, if we do not lend him a helping hand, he cannot do it. The Church will never fall, unless it is pulled down by her own members.

Perhaps you will say, you cannot think there is any such scheme on foot. It will not be long before you will find that what I have told you is fact. The Presbyterians are employed by, to fill all the Southern States with their sort of Ministers, before the Church is supplied with Episcopal Clergymen. Where people have no principles about the nature of a Christian Church, a man ordained by the Laity is as good as any. And a man who professes to believe no creed, but only this, that he believes not in any creed, is as good a Christian as any man can be. By this scheme the Unitarian doctrine is to take place. In order to preserve the Church, the members should be vigilant, lest the foundation should be undermined by clandestine enemies. If true Christianity is not preserved by the Episcopal Church, it will soon take its flight from these States, for Unitarians will be the whole.

In order that the common people, members of the Church in this state, might understand the mature of the Christian Church, and some of its leading doctrines, I have lately published a small treatise upon various subjects, a copy of which I now send you. This I should not have presumed to do, if you had not in a familiar manner expressed your desire that I would communicate to you any matters that might turn up with regard to our Church.

If you should, upon the reading of it, approve what I have advanced, I should be glad to know if reprinting of it would be of any advantage to the people of your State, who are under your care, If we desire to preserve the Church, we must acquaint the people for what end the Church was appointed, and what the doctrines of a Christian Church are, in order that they may understand them.

Thus I have expressed my sentiments freely, and perhaps have been too open. But this must be my apology: in love I have done it, and in love I hope it may be received.

I am, with every sentiment of esteem and regard, Right Rev. Sir,

our sincere friend and verv humble Servant,

JEREMIAH LEAMING.

Joseph Priestley to Theophilus Lindsey on Jefferson

Northumberland, April 23, 1803.

Dear Friend,

In my last I promised to send you a copy of Mr. Jefferson's letter on reading my pamphlet entitled "Socrates and Jesus compared." The above is that copy. He is generally considered as an unbeliever: if so, however, he cannot be far from us, and I hope in the way to be not only almost, but altogether what we are. He now attends public worship very regularly, and his moral conduct was never impeached. I should, on several accounts, be glad to make the visit he proposes, but my business will not admit of it. If I leave this place, either the printing of my works must be intermitted, or I must request the aid of Mr. C, which I am not fond of doing; and though lie does his best, I find he has not been sufficiently used to the work.

Adam Smith and the Founders

by Ben Abbott
Guest Blogger

On occasion, commenters have asked to what degree the Founders were influenced by the Scotsman Adam Smith, the moral philosopher and father of modern economics. In 2004, David Prindle authored an essay on Smith's influence on James Madison, colorfully titled The Invisible Hand of James Madison. From the abstract:

"Scholars have disagreed about how to interpret James Madison's Federalist essays 10 and 51, in which he explains and justifies the underlying principles of the new Constitution. Was Madison the architect of a structure of counterpoise, which would force individuals, interests, and institutions to obstruct one another so as to avoid tyranny, or was he a republican statesman, designing a system that would recruit virtuous citizens to public office."

Prindle dismisses the dichotomy "Was Madison arguing that the Constitutional system designed to thwart bad people, or to recruit good ones?," and asserts that Madison likely intended both. Prindle's Madison encompasses both republican virtue and restraint of tyranny. To substantiate his position, Prindle examines Adam Smith's mixed motives in writing The Wealth of Nations:

"[Smith] wanted to combat the prejudice, derived from the natural law tradition, that individual interests were necessarily anti-social, and therefore furnished an excuse for government economic regulation [...] Smith wanted to show that there was a way that economies could be designed so that nations could become richer [...] he wished to demonstrate that an economy was not necessarily a zero-sum game, but could be structured so as to grow at a rate considerably faster than population increase. Morally, he wanted to refute the notion that self-seeking must always be contrary to the public interest. To help him accomplish these twin goals, he invented modern economic reasoning."

Smith summarized his idea as

"As every individual [...] by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of greatest value, intends only his own gain, he is in this as in many other cases led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention...By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectively than when he really intends to promote it."

Above, Smith is not saying that the participants in free enterprise have virtuous intents, but that their actions become virtuous due to market forces. Similarly, in Federalist 51, Madison argues "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition," because when it does, government officials must compete in a contest of virtue. Even if their intentions are not virtuous, their actions become virtuous due to competition.

Thus, there are strong parallels in Smith's approach to commerce and that of Madison's approach to politics. Given Madison's familiarity with Smith's work, it is likely that Madison's perspective was influenced by the Scotsman.

Prindle's essay is reasonably short, but more thorough than what has been posted above. It is a worthy read.

Finals Week

I've just emerged from somewhat of a media-blackout, surrounding the flurry of academic activity that surrounds the end of a university semester. It is always around this time that I start to reflect on the nature of the American College or University. What would the founders of our great academic institutions think of how things go today? Surely, the founders of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, William & Mary, et al could not have foreseen the changing nature of education. When designing the curriculum of the University of Virginia, Jefferson didn't know that what he knew as "philosophy" or "natural philosophy," at least, would end up splintering into dozens of different fields. Perhaps they could see the day where Latin and Greek would less useful than the modern languages; there is evidence of that.

But in general, I truly wonder what our founders would think about the modern university, where most students don't know who Tully is, let alone can they parse him. And most students would politely decline to decline the Greek paradigms.

Aside from that, how has the purpose of the university changed? I suspect Jefferson or Adams would feel the same way I do when I hear students discussing the mad rush to sell their textbooks after the semester is over: why would you want to sell back a textbook? If the information contained therein is of no interest to you, why did you take the class?

We know the answer to that, of course, but the larger question is still: what is the purpose of the university? I doubt many of our founders went to university simply to go through the motions to get a degree so they could get a job. But perhaps I'm mistaken about this, maybe the university has always been that place you go to make yourself more hire-able--and if you learn something or better yourself in the process, fine.

Perhaps I'm rambling, which is not to be unexpected after a busy time, but I would be interested if anybody has any insight into this. Did any of the founders discuss all-night cram-sessions before an exam? Did any of them complain in their diaries about getting a pittance for their used textbooks? Somebody should write a book about the founders as students.

Do you think students have always been, for the most part, short sighted, not concerned so much about their long term enlightenment and the pleasure of learning, but only concerned about getting the best grade for minimal effort?

America's National Day of (Fighting Over) Prayer

If you've followed my posts over the past couple of years it should come as no surprise that I absolutely, 100% reject the "America is a Christian Nation" nonsense. My reasons for such a stance are many (and I won't dive into them today) but sufficeth me to say that I believe such as stance is actually quite anti-Christian in nature. With that said, I don't want to be misunderstood here. This does not mean that I believe religion played no role in the founding of America. Quite the contrary. I believe it was (and still is) a fundamental component of American republicanism; one that we cannot and should not do without. Religious freedom and diversity is as important to us as are our separation of powers.

And I don't believe I am alone in my beliefs. The role of religion has always been a difficult juggling act throughout American history. The question of when and how religion can be taken too far (or not far enough) in relation to government was a question even our Founding Fathers wrestled with. And in our modern era the story is no different.

Which bring us to May 6, 2010. Today is, by presidential proclamation, the National Day of Prayer. And as can be expected, the typical pro and con voices of "reason" have emerged to support/lament this time-honored practice of fighting over prayer, more specifically prayer being sanctioned by government officials. And though I tend to oppose the "Christian Nation" crowd on a regular basis, I am choosing to stand with them today. The National Day of Prayer is a good thing and the secularists need to back off. Here's why:

First off, let's travel back a ways to the era of our Founders. Yes, many of them were "Theistic Rationalists," "Unitarians," "Deists," "atheists" or any other "ist" you can think of. However, these same heathens LOVED to pray (it's true). Take, for example, the First Continental Congress. You all know the story. It was suggested that the first official act of business should be to begin with a prayer but when deadlocked over who should give that prayer, Samuel Adams (a pious man to say the least) arose and stated that he was "no bigot, and could hear a Prayer from any gentleman of Piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his Country." Shortly thereafter, Jacob Duché, an Anglican minister, was selected to lead the group in prayer.

Fast forward to the war for independence. One of the first General Orders issued by General Washington required soldiers to adhere to a moral code that included prayer:

The General most earnestly requires, and expects, a due observance of those articles of war, established for the Government of the army, which forbid profane cursing, swearing and drunkeness; And in like manner requires and expects, of all Officers, and Soldiers, not engaged on actual duty, a punctual attendance on divine Service, to implore the blessings of heaven upon the means used for our safety and defense.

And then there is the case of John Hanson, president of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, who, in 1782, issued a proclamation calling for a national day of thanksgiving in which the nation was to "give thanks to God" for their good fortune during the war.

And let us not forget, despite the controversy over whether or not he said "So Help Me God", President George Washington stated in his first inaugural address:

No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people 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 then there are the numerous Thanksgiving proclamations made by several early presidents, each of which implored the American populace to give thanks to God through prayer. Bottom line: prayer, in whatever form, is as American as apple pie.

Of course not everyone liked the idea of prayer being sanctioned by government. In 1812, John Adams actually lamented his call for a national day of prayer and thanksgiving:

The National Fast, recommended by me turned me out of office. It was connected with the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which I had no concern in. That assembly has alarmed and alienated Quakers, Anabaptists, Mennonists, Moravians, Swedenborgians, Methodists, Catholicks, protestant Episcopalians, Arians, Socinians, Armenians, & & &, Atheists and Deists might be added. A general Suspicion prevailed that the Presbyterian Church was ambitious and aimed at an Establishment of a National Church. I was represented as a Presbyterian and at the head of this political and ecclesiastical Project. The secret whisper ran through them “Let us have Jefferson, Madison, Burr, any body, whether they be Philosophers, Deists, or even Atheists, rather than a Presbyterian President.” This principle is at the bottom of the unpopularity of national Fasts and Thanksgivings. Nothing is more dreaded than the National Government meddling with Religion."

-- John Adams to Benjamin Rush, June 12, 1812

And Thomas Jefferson:

Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the time for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and right can never be safer than in their hands, where the Constitution has deposited it. ...civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.

~Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808.

And James Madison:

There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the Executive Proclamations of fasts & festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of injunction, or have lost sight of the equality of all religious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the Executive Trust I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith & forms. In this sense, I presume you reserve to the Govt. a right to appoint particular days for religious worship throughout the State, without any penal sanction enforcing the worship.

~James Madison to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822.

And while most modern presidents have followed suit by declaring national days of prayer (Harry Truman even signed a bill requiring presidents to do just that), some presidents sided with Jefferson. Presidents Ulysses S. Grant and Theodore Roosevelt spoke up for what Roosevelt called "absolutely nonsectarian public schools." Roosevelt added that it is "not our business to have the Protestant Bible or the Catholic Vulgate or the Talmud read in schools."

Yes, truly the debate over prayer has a long and tedious history. As Diana Butler, author of the controversial book, A People's History of Christianity points out:

When it comes to prayer, Americans love to fight -- and our prayers have driven us apart. Arguing over prayer is an American tradition.

In the 1600s, Puritans rejected the formalized prayer of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and founded their own churches as a way of protesting state-supported prayer. For their trouble, the Anglicans put them in jail. When they got out, they left England and settled in the New World. But the Anglicans were already there with their own colonies and outlawed Puritan prayers again. So the Puritans outlawed Anglican prayer in their own colonies. Quakers, disgusted with the Puritan-Anglican quarrel, rejected verbal prayers altogether, choosing to pray silently instead.

In the 1740s, during the Great Awakening, the new evangelical preachers practiced extemporaneous prayer. They rejected all written prayers in favor of being "moved by the Spirit" and making up public prayers on the spot. Many in traditional churches -- Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Congregationalists -- found extemporaneous prayer to be theologically shallow and "unlearned" and forbade its exercise in their churches. These groups didn't imprison each other over prayer. Instead, they consigned each other to hell and set up rival denominations to insure their own salvation. American churches split over prayer, leaving some to free-form prayer and others to written and ritualized prayers.

After the Revolutionary War, a puzzling question arose: Whose prayer would undergird the new nation? How might prayer be practiced in the commons? What words should bless state functions?

The political leaders (perhaps recognizing that prayer was above their pay grade) came up with a unique and practical answer: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." In other words, "We won't touch that prayer-thing with a twenty-foot pole. You are on your own, people."

Of course, the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the Constitution didn't solve anything. Congress, despite trying to avoid the issue, had chaplains -- most typically of the formal type -- who prayed for their work. And Americans -- even in the early period when most of them were Protestants -- kept arguing over whose prayer was theologically accurate and most spiritually effective. Entire denominations were formed on the basis of devotional style. And as Americans argued and denominations split over prayer, religious leaders and politicians continued to proclaim days of prayer for national unity.

And though it's likely that the debate over prayer's role in the halls of government is sure to remain for as long as the stars and stripes continue to fly, I believe it is important for us all to recognize one important fact: whether you favor prayer being intertwined with government or not we must acknowledge its role in American history. Americans are, for the most part, a prayer-loving people. I am reminded of the very first post ever done here at American Creation entitled, "Did Washington Pray at Valley Forge?" In that post, I pointed out that the story of Washington kneeling in prayer (and made famous by Arnold Frieberg's now infamous painting) is surely a farce. Despite its obvious mythology, fellow blogger Brian Tubbs made an excellent point. He stated, in this blog's first ever comment:

Whether GW knelt in prayer at Valley Forge as depicted by the paintings is like asking whether he stood in the boat when he crossed the Delaware. GW probably didn't kneel in the snow at Valley Forge. But I'm sure he prayed at Valley Forge. That GW prayed in the exact manner depicted in the famous painting may be called into question. That he was a man of prayer cannot be challenged.

And so it is with prayer on a national level. Perhaps we are not a Christian Nation and that a separation of church and state does keep the men of the cloth from dictating policy. This truth, however, does not mean that we need to throw the baby out with the bath water. We have been, and probably always will be, a nation of praying people.

And maybe both the pro and anti-prayer advocates can appeal to Jesus for a resolution on this matter:

"Thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men...

"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret." ~ Matt. 6:5-6

Book review: The Intellectual Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy

Oftentimes incredibly influential books are relatively short.  Thomas Paine's Common Sense, for example, was originally published as a pamphlet.  The Communist Manifesto, one of the most perniciously influential books of the last 200 years, isn't much larger.  So, when it comes to influence, the bigger treatise isn't always the one that people turn to.  In an academic culture that often values heft over insight, one book that demonstrates that less can be more when it comes to historical analysis is the late Douglass Adair's 185 page landmark study, The Roots of Jeffersonian Democracy.  Written in 1943, the work was Adair's doctoral dissertation at Yale.  It is now back in print, republished in 2000 by Lexington Books.  As the introduction to the Lexington Books edition puts it, the checkout list for Adair's dissertation reads like  "a who's who of early American history."  The number of scholars across ideological and methodological camps who have been influenced by Adair is astounding.

And there is good reason that Adair's dissertation is so influential:  it is that rarity among books that start as dissertations -- a clear, concisely worded, focused study of its topic.  And Adair's topic is ambitious, no less than understanding the roots of the political theories of the formative period of the American Republic.

While the title of Adair's dissertation centers on Jeffersonianism, most of the study is devoted not to Jefferson but to those around him.  Madison figures prominently, but so does Hamilton.  Adair's presentation of Hamilton is generous, and Adair goes out of his way to discuss Hamilton's contributions to the emerging constitutionalism of the early American nation.   And not just Hamilton's influence on the constitutional convention and the ratifying debates afterward, but Hamilton's deeper political convictions regarding the need for a "balanced government," one that was limited not only in scope but also in its ability to concentrate power in the hands of any one group, interest or person.  Part of this idea of balance included the notion of an aristocracy of ability and position that would be able to temper the passions of the mass of the people.  It was this emphasis on balanced government that, in Adair's view, motivated the Federalist Party, and bound together such different personalities as Hamilton and John Adams in common political endeavor. 

Adair's study also details the powerful influence that classical Greco-Roman political theory had on the discussions regarding American government during the founding period.  Aristotle and his disciples as well as Plato's student Xenophon figured prominently not only in Federalist political theory, but in the rising political ideology of the Jeffersonian Republicans.  Adair notes that Hamilton's concerns for balanced government were bolstered by appeals to classical theorists.  In Adair's telling, Hamiliton was widely although not deeply read in the classics, and he was so enamored of classical political theory that he "could not turn his reading of ancient history at all toward the clarification and ordering of the American world in which he lived."

Indeed, Adair's study of this component of Hamilton's intellectual formation serves as a cautionary tale about the risks of imbibing too much of the classics at the expense of understanding one's present surroundings.  As Adair puts it, "his [Hamilton's] classical learning operated to distort and becloud so many political phenomena lying under his very eyes that he could never deal with them realistically, except in minor matters of technique." 

The real star of Adair's book is James Madison, the one-time disciple of Washington and ally of Hamilton who eventually became the scholar- and politician-apprentice to Thomas Jefferson.  Madison, in Adair's view, had a far more nuanced and realistic understanding of both of classical patrimony and the political reality of the early American Republic.  Madison's understanding of the necessary constitutional order included limitations on both federal and state power, a recognition of the rights of the majority along with a commitment to the protection of the rights of the minority.

According to Adair, Madison's defense of the Virginia Plan in the constitutional convention flowed out of these concerns, and reflected a prudential approach to ensuring both minority rights and majority governance.  In line with Republican political ideas, Madison did not see history, as Adair puts it, "just the struggle of the rich and the poor trying to devour each other.  The problem of faction did not pivot entirely upon the conflict of haves and have-nots."  With this insight, Madison escaped the trap of classical political theory, eluding the chains of the Greek and Roman philosophers who saw such struggle at the heart of every system of government.  And for this escape Madison was indebted in no small part to writers of the Scottish Enlightenment, notably David Hume, as Adair details.

This isn't to say that Madison and the Jeffersonian Republicans were able to maintain a completely clear-headed view of early American politics.  If Hamilton and the Federalists got lost in classical political theory, Madison and the other Jeffersonians fell into the myth of the "virtuous farmer."  The "ideal commonwealth," as Adair summarizes Madison's views, "would operate among a nation of husbandmen[.]"  And it is in this regard that Adair's study loses much of its energy.  Adair fails to see that just as the Federalists were too committed to classical political theory, the Jeffersonians were too committed to an agrarian polity that was rapidly losing ground to the rising industrial economy of the West.  Adair didn't see that it was precisely in this way that the Jeffersonians made a critical misstep, completely overlooking the economic trends that were then a-building.

One of the things that is so fascinating about early American Republic is that both the Federalists and the Republicans had such critical and (in hindsight) obvious conceptual errors.  A fully modern blogger might say that each side suffered from epistemic closure!  If the Federalists were lost in Greek philosophy, they were at least clear-headed when it came to understanding the way the winds were blowing when it came to economics.  If the Republicans were able to see their immediate political world with clear vision, their agrarian dogmatism left them vulnerable to being blindsided by the emerging world of banks, trade and industrial production.

This weakness on the part of the Jeffersonians explains, at least in part, the inability of the Republicans to dismantle much of the Federalist architecture of government and the economy after the revolutionary election of 1800.  Adair did not address this aspect of the respective weaknesses and strengths of the Federalists and Republicans, nor did Adair extend his study to deal with Jefferson's tenure as president.  No study, of course, is perfect, but the lack of such discussion is a noted lack in a book that otherwise excels in a deep reading of the intellectual trends of the early republic.

And such a discussion would have provided a better glimpse at something that Adair did note well, namely the pessimism that Jefferson and Madison had at the prospects for the American nation.  Indeed, the Republican inability to understand the new economic realities that were then on the rise led both Madison and Jefferson to hold a pronouncedly negative view of the long-term viability of the new republic.  Eventually they thought, as Adair points out, that the republic would become too crowded and too corrupt for constitutional government to remain; "commerce and manufactures" would eventually overwhelm the nation.  The best that Madison hoped for was "at least a generation" of constitutional government among the American people.

Its flaws aside, though, it is difficult to heap too much praise on this book.  Adair's study is a insightful look into what he describes as "the alien intellectual territory" of Jefferson and Madison.  It is notable for its depth, for its insight, and for its examination of the sources for much of the political thought of the early republic.  It is a book well worth reading.