Categories: Articles

“The General Principles of Christianity” – Context Leading to Adams’ June 28, 1813, Letter to Jefferson

When writing to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813, John Adams discusses the fact that America achieved independence through the general principles of Christianity. The letter itself, however, was the culmination of events which began nearly fifteen years earlier.

Adams and Jefferson were friends for many years but fell out after the events of the presidential election of 1800. By the year 1813 Jefferson and Adams had resumed their friendship after the repeated urgings of Dr. Benjamin Rush.1 This newly revived friendliness, however, was significantly tested when private letters written by Jefferson to Dr. Joseph Priestly were published in the biography of Rev. Theophilus Lindsey. One of the letters from 18012 included apparent and harsh censures of Adams’ policies. Upon readings this book Adams wrote to Jefferson on May 29, 1813, saying, “I wish to know if you have seen this book. I have much to say on the subject.”3

After waiting for twelve days without a response, Adams again took up his pen on June 10, 1813, and went through the 1801 Jefferson letter responding to the various claims made against him. Adams focused on the part where Jefferson had quoted him, writing: “The President himself declaring that we were never to expect to go beyond them in real science.”4 In the original letter to Rev. Priestly, Jefferson explains his disgust at this alleged statement by the then President Adams, exclaiming:

Those who live by mystery & charlantanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy, – the most sublime & benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man, – endeavored to crush your well-earnt & well-deserved fame.”5

Responding to these now twelve year old charges, Adams declared:

The sentiment that you have attributed to me in your letter to Dr. Priestley, I totally disclaim, and demand, in the French sense of the word, of you the proof. It is totally incongruous to every principle of my mind and every sentiment of my heart.6

Four days later Adams wrote another letter to Jefferson continuing the project of rebuffing Jefferson’s claims from 1801, but this time focusing mainly on the “alien law.”7

On June 15, 1813, Jefferson responded to the initial letter from May 29. The existence of the biography and even the person of Theophilus Lindsey was entirely new information to him. After looking back upon his own copies of the letters sent to the Dr. Priestly, Jefferson began explaining these letters. He told Adams that, “it was a confidential communication of reflections on these from one friend to another, deposited in his bosom, and never meant to trouble the public mind.”8 He further explained:

Still less must they [readers of the letters in question] consider it as looking personally towards you. You happen, indeed, to be quoted, because you happened to express more pithily than had been done by themselves, one of the mottos of the party. This was in your answer to the address of the young men of Philadelphia.9

At the end of the letter Jefferson makes clear that he sees no need to drag up things from so long ago remarking: “I should see with reluctance the passions of that day rekindled in this, while so many of the actors are living, and all are too near the scene not to participate in sympathies with them. About the facts you and I cannot differ; because truth is our mutual guide.”10

Upon receiving Jefferson’s letter, Adams retrieved his response to the address of the young men of Philadelphia from 1798, fifteen years prior.11 Adams then proceeded to correct Jefferson’s misconception of what had been said. The young men of Philadelphia had addressed Adams during the time when hostilities with France where high, assuring the President that they were, “accentuated by the same principles on which our forefathers achieved their independence.”12 In answer to this Adams admonished them to hold fast to those fundamental principles:

Science and morals are the great pillars on which this country has been raised to its current population, opulence, and prosperity. Without wishing to damp the ardor of curiosity, or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will haphazard a prediction, that after the most industrious  and impartial researches, the longest liver of you all will find no principles, institutions, or systems of education more fit, in general, to be transmitted to your posterity than those you have received from your ancestors.13

It was from this statement that Jefferson had drawn the criticism that Adams thought no improvement could be made upon the sciences of the ancestors, thereby implying that he was one of those who preferred “mystery and charlantanerie” over the simplicity of Christianity. Perceiving Jefferson’s misunderstanding, Adams described the principles which he referred to in his 1798 letter. He began by walking through what his answer did not mean:

Could my answer be understood by any candid reader or hearer, to recommend to all the others the general principles, institutions, or systems of education of the Roman Catholics, of those of the Quakers, or those of the Presbyterians, or those of the Philosophers? No.14

Adams here dismissed any idea that he attempted to propagate and employ for personal power a “most perverted system” of values instead of that “most sublime and benevolent” form of Christianity. Carrying on, Adams revealed what he truly meant, saying:

The general principles in which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles on which that beautiful assembly of young men could unite, and these principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty…15

Adams explained to Jefferson that in actuality they both desired the same ends – that the simplicity of those general principles of the Christian faith be maintained by the younger generation just as it had been by their own.

Endnotes

1 Cf. https://wallbuilders.com/resource/benjamin-rush-dream-about-john-adams-and-thomas-jefferson/

2 Thomas Jefferson to Doctor Joseph Priestly, March 21, 1801, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Paul Ford (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905), IX:216.

3 John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, May 29, 1813, Founders Archives.

4 John Adams, The Works of John Adams, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), X:40.

5 Jefferson, Works of Jefferson, IX:217.

6 Adams, Works of Adams, X:41.

7 Adams, Works of Adams, X:42.

8 Jefferson, Works of Jefferson, XI:294.

9 Jefferson, Works of Jefferson, XI:294.

10 Jefferson, Works of Jefferson, IX:296.

11 Adams, Works of Adams, IX:187.

12 Adams, Works of Adams, X:44.

13 Adams, Works of Adams, X:44.

14 Adams, Works of Adams, X:45.

15 Adams, Works of Adams, X:45.

Daniel Webster – Vidal v. Girard’s Executors

In the last year of his life Daniel Webster (1782-1852) stood before the New York Historical Society and declared:

That if we, and our posterity, shall be true to the Christian religion, if we shall respect his commandments, if we, and they, shall maintain just, moral sentiments, and such conscientious convictions of duty as shall control the heart and life, we may have the highest hopes of the future fortunes of this country.1

Daniel Webster

Such a stance was, however, not a rarity for Daniel Webster who regularly defended the Christianity throughout his life. One example was in 1844, when Webster rose for the final summation in the case of Vidal v. Girard’s Executors and “delivered one of the most beautiful and powerful arguments in defense of the Christian religion ever uttered.”2

The case concerned the legality of the will of Stephan Girard. In his will Girard had set aside a trust of two million dollars3 for the formation of a college for the education of “as many poor white male orphans, between the ages of six and ten years, as the said income shall be adequate to maintain.”4 The executors of his will, and specifically of the construction and maintenance of the college, were declared the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of Pennsylvania.5 After proceeding through many of the details concerning the organization of the school, Girard lists several “conditions on which my bequest for said college is made and to be enjoyed.”6 The second of these restrictions dictated stipulations regarding the teachers to be employed:

I enjoin and require, that, no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever, shall ever gold or exercise any station or duty whatever in the said college, nor shall any person ever be admitted for any purpose or as visitor, within the premises appropriated for the purposes of said college.7

After making such a striking demand, Girard attempted to explain and justify this action writing:

In making this restriction, I do not mean to cast any reflection upon any sect or person whatsoever; but as there is such a multitude of sects, and such a diversity of opinion amongst them, I devise to keep the tender minds of the orphans, who are to derive advantage from this bequest, free from the excitements which clashing doctrines and sectarian controversy are so apt to produce.8

The familial heirs of Girard, however, contested the viability the bequest by saying that these sections of the will rendered it void. The plaintiff’s case was argued by Daniel Webster and another preeminent advocate of the day, Walter Jones. The attorneys submitted two main objections to the will. The Court summarized these two objections, writing that:

The principle questions, to which the arguments at the bar have been mainly addressed, are; First, whether the corporation of the city of Philadelphia is capable of taking the bequest of the real and personal estate for the erection and support of a college upon the trusts and for the uses designated in the will: Secondly, whether these uses are charitable uses valid in their nature and capable of being carried into effect consistently with the laws of Pennsylvania.9

The second of these issues addressed whether or not the will was valid according to the laws of Pennsylvania. Webster submitted two reasons why it would be unacceptable. He first argued that the beneficiaries of the bequest (i.e. the “poor white male orphans”) were a category:

So loose a description, that no one can bring himself within the terms of the bequest, so as to say that it was made in his favor. No individual can acquire any right, or interest; nobody, therefore, can come forward as a party, in a court of law, to claim participation in the gift.10

The second objection Webster offers (which takes up the vast majority of his speech) is that the will is invalid due to the breach of the common law by being averse to Christian education. He declares that:

In the view of a court of equity this devise is no charity at all. It is no charity, because the plan of education proposed by Mr. Girard is derogatory to the Christian religion; tends to weakens men’s reverence for that religion, and their conviction of its authority and importance; and therefore, in its general character, tends to mischievous, and not to useful ends.11

Webster argues at length that due to the will banning the presence of any ecclesiastic from ever entering the college compound, Mr. Girard attacks Christianity to such an extent that it will substantially harm the community; thus creating a breach of both the common law of America and the general interests of Philadelphia.12 To show this he questions the Court asking:

Did the man ever live that had a respect for the Christian religion, and yet had no regard for any of its ministers? Did that system of instruction ever exist, which denounced the whole body of Christian teachers, and yet called itself a system of Christianity?13

Pressing further against anti-religious intention he found apparent in Girard’s will, Webster denounces its claim to charity by explaining that any charity which excludes Christ fails to even meet the definition of charity.

No, sir! No, sir! If charity denies its birth and parentage—if it turns infidel to the great doctrines of the Christian religion—if it turns unbeliever—it is no longer charity! There is no longer charity, either in a Christian sense, or in the sense of jurisprudence; for it separates itself from the fountain of its own creation.14

Stephan Girard

Webster, understanding that the will did not explicitly exclude all Christian teaching, next argues that any attempt to declare the will allows for lay-teaching of religion would be completely antithetical to the spirit and intention of the will—thus rendering the trust equally void. Webster submits that if Girard’s desire was to prevent all conflict concerning the Christian faith from arising and splitting apart the contingent of young scholars, then any religious education would lead to differences of opinion, especially if the students were taught by lay ministers. He inquires:

Now, are not laymen equally sectarian in their views as clergymen? And would it not be just as easy to prevent sectarian doctrines from being preached by a clergyman as being taught by a layman? It is idle, therefore, to speak of lay preaching. … Everyone knows that laymen are as violent controversialists as clergymen, and the less informed the more violent.15

Next Webster takes on the premise of Girard’s exclusion itself. He derides the reasoning of Girard, declaring:

But this objection to the multitude and differences of sects is but the old story—the old infidel argument. It is notorious that there are certain great religious truths which are admitted and believed by all Christians. All believe in the existence of a God. All believe in the immortality of the soul. All believe in the responsibility, in another world, for our conduct in this. All believe in the divine authority of the New Testament. … And cannot all these great truths be taught to children without their minds being perplexed with clashing doctrines and sectarian controversies? Most certainly they can.16

To give an example of how all the various sects and denominations can work, Webster refers the Court to the example the Founding Father’s established in the first Continental Congress. There, setting aside all differences in religious opinions, they came together to pray and ask God’s help in the War for Independence, Webster reminded the Court that many of the delegates doubted the propriety of praying together due to their differences but Samuel admonished them:

It did not become men, professing to be Christian men, who had come together for solemn deliberation in the hour of their extremity, to say that there was so wide a difference in their religious belief, that they could not, as one man, bow the knee in prayer to the Almighty, whose advice and assistance they hoped to obtain.17

Justice Joseph Story

Building upon that image of the Founders on their knees in prayer, Webster closes his case by clearly defining the two positions on the issue of Girard’s will. On the one side, there are “those who really value Christianity,” and who “plainly see its foundation, and its main pillars… [who] wish its general principles, and all its truths, to be spread over the whole earth.”18 On the other side, however, are those who do not value Christianity, and thus, “cavil about sects and schisms, and ring monotonous changes upon the shallow and so often refuted objections.”19 With that dichotomy, Webster charged the Court to likewise defend the Christian faith and preserve American society.

Although a unanimous decision for Girard’s executors, the Court, in its written opinion, agreed with all of Webster’s arguments concerning the breach of common law arising from flagrant attacks upon Christianity. Justice Joseph Story, author of the opinion, confirms Webster’s understanding of the law’s relationship to the Christian religion:

It is said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.20

We are compelled to admit that although Christianity be a part of the common law of the state, yet it is so in this qualified sense, that its divine origin and truth are admitted, and therefore it is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public.21

Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country. … There must be plain, positive, and express provisions, demonstrating not only that Christianity is not to be taught; but that it is to be impugned or repudiated.22

In the areas pertaining to Christianity and the common law Webster and the Court concurred. The difference did not come from a disagreement concerning the interpretation of the law, but rather the interpretation of the will. Webster held that where the letter of the will may not have openly assailed Christianity, the spirit of the will clearly did. The Court, however, rejected this interpretation, insisting instead that the exclusion of Christian pastors from the school on the grounds of sectarian conflict did not necessitate exclusion of Christian education in general. Story explains:

But the objection itself assumes the proposition that Christianity is not to be taught, because ecclesiastics are not to be instructors or officers. But this is by no means a necessary or legitimate inference from the premises. Why may not laymen instruct in the general principles of Christianity as well as ecclesiastics. There is no restriction as to the religious opinions of the instructors and officers. … Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as a divine revelation in the college — its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained, and its glorious principles of morality inculcated? What is there to prevent a work, not sectarian, upon the general evidences of Christianity, from being read and taught in the college by lay-teachers? Certainly there is nothing in the will, that proscribes such studies.23

So the Court dismissed Webster’s argument that the will was hostile to Christianity, thus deciding the trust to be valid. Even though the Court differed from Webster’s reading of the will, this case provides an interesting view into the mindset of this early Supreme Court regarding the freedom of religion in American schools. Both Webster and Story advocated clearly for the important role of the Bible in education.

Endnotes

1 Daniel Webster, An Address Delivered before the New York Historical Society (New York: New York Historical Society, 1852), 47.
2 Fanny Lee Jones, “Walter Jones and His Times,” Records of the Columbia Historical Society Vol. V (Washington: Columbia Historical Society, 1902), 144.
3 The Will of the late Stephan Girard (Philadelphia: Thomas Silver, 1848), 16.
4 The Will (1848), 21.
5 The Will (1848), et al.
6 The Will (1848), 22.
7 The Will (1848), 22-23.
8 The Will (1848), 23.
9 Vidal et al. v. Girard’s Executors, 43 US 127, 186 (1844).
10 Daniel Webster, In Defense of the Christian Ministry, and in Favor of the Religious Instruction of the Young (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1844), 10.
11 Webster, In Defense of the Christian Ministry (1844), 10.
12 Webster, In Defense of the Christian Ministry (1844), 11.
13 Webster, In Defense of the Christian Ministry (1844), 13.
14 Webster, In Defense of the Christian Ministry (1844), 16.
15 Webster, In Defense of the Christian Ministry (1844), 21.
16 Webster, In Defense of the Christian Ministry (1844), 35.
17 Webster, In Defense of the Christian Ministry (1844), 36.
18 Webster, In Defense of the Christian Ministry (1844), 37.
19 Webster, In Defense of the Christian Ministry (1844), 37.
20 Vidal et al. v. Girard’s Executors, 43 US 127, 198 (1844).
21 Vidal et al. v. Girard’s Executors, 43 US 127, 198 (1844).
22 Vidal et al. v. Girard’s Executors, 43 US 127, 198 (1844).
23 Vidal et al. v. Girard’s Executors, 43 US 127, 200 (1844).

Lyndon B. Johnson and the Bible

On January 19, 1966, Lyndon Baines Johnson (1908-1973), the 36th president of the United States, held a ceremony at the White House to declare that 1966 would be a “Year of the Bible.” On that occasion he remarked that, “No human accountant can calculate the immense good that your Society has done over the years.”1 Throughout his life, and especially while he was in office, Johnson repeatedly referred to the Bible in his conversations and speeches. Billy Graham, who was a personal friend to President Johnson, in an interview said of Johnson, “Well he had, as you know, an overwhelming personality. He always liked to have preachers around him.”2 Being one of those of those preachers, Graham had personal insight into Johnson’s faith and recalled:

He was very religious. … In fact, a number of times I had prayer with him in his bedroom at the White House, usually early in the morning. He would get out of bed and get on his knees, while I prayed. I never had very many people do that.3

Johnson’s did not, however, confine his faith to private displays alone. In his speeches for various occasions and audiences he quoted the Bible extensively. Here are but a few examples:

To President Zalman Shazar of Israel:

And you know that our Republic, like yours, was nurtured by the philosophy of the ancient Hebrew teachers who taught mankind the principles of morality, of social. justice, and of universal peace.

This is our heritage, and it is yours.

The message inscribed on the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia is the clarion call of Leviticus:

“Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the Inhabitants thereof.”

It is a message not only for America, or for Israel, but for the whole world.

We cannot proclaim tonight that all men have liberty, that all men are moral, that all men are just. We do not have universal peace.

But those of good will continue their work to liberate the human spirit from the degradation of poverty and pestilence, of hunger and oppression. As spiritual heirs of the Biblical tradition we recognize that no society anywhere can be more secure unless it is also just.4

On lighting the Christmas tree at the White:

For nearly 200 years of our existence as a nation, America has stood for peace in the world. At this Christmas season–when the world commemorates the birth of the Prince of Peace–I want all men, everywhere, to know that the people of this great Nation have but one hope, one ambition toward other peoples: that is to live at peace with them and for them to live at peace with one another.

Since the first Christmas, man has moved slowly but steadily forward toward realizing the promise of peace on earth among men of good will. That movement has been possible because there has been brought into the affairs of man a more generous spirit toward his fellow man.

Let us pray at this season that in all we do as individuals and as a nation, we may be motivated by that spirit of generosity and compassion which Christ taught us so long ago.5

On the death of the Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Spellman:

THE LORD has called home a man who served Him and all His children well.

Cardinal Spellman gave his life to God. For half a century, his faith and works were testament to God’s enduring and universal love of men.

The race of man mourns him now, for mankind was his ministry. The grace of his goodness touched all manner of men and nations. He brought to all who opened their hearts to his spirit the miracles on which men must build their earthly hopes–truth and charity, mercy and compassion, trust in God and in the destiny of God’s human family.6

At a fundraising dinner in Detroit:

So the ultimate test of our beloved America is the larger purpose to which we turn our prosperity.

We must first turn it toward relief of the oppressed, the underprivileged, and the helpless. We must, in the words of the Bible, “Learn to do well, seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow” (Isaiah 1:17).7

At the Annual Swedish Day Picnic in Minneapolis:

The Bible counsels us: “To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven . . . a time of war and a time of peace” (Ecclesiastes 3:1, 8).

So I come today to speak to you in the hope that, after decades of war and threats of war, we may be nearing a time of peace.8

At a breakfast meeting in Portland:

But it was not territory that made us great. It was men. Our West is not just a place. The West is an idea. The Bible says, “Speak to the earth and it shall teach thee” (Job 12:8). And here, in the West, we learned man’s possibilities were as spacious as the sky that covered him. We learned that free men could build a civilization as majestic as the mountains and the rivers that nourished him. We learned that with our hands we could create a life that was worthy of the land that was ours.

And that lesson has illuminated the life of all America–east, west, north, and south.9

To the crowd at Soldiers and Sailors Square in Indianapolis:

The Bible tells us “Every man’s work shall be made manifest” (1 Corinthians 3:13). This is true, too, of our Government.

Seldom has an administration’s work been made manifest more abundantly than this one. We promised 4 years ago, under the leadership of that beloved, great champion of this country, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, that we would get the country moving again. Well, it is moving.10

At the Fifth Regiment Armory in Baltimore:

Our adversaries are not weak. They are strong, but I can assure you faithfully tonight that America is stronger. And I

want to announce to them and I want to announce to you that they should have no doubts or illusions about America’s strength.

In the words of the Bible, “When the strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace” (Luke 11:21).

We have strength in our country tonight, and you young men that must patrol our borders and wear those uniforms must maintain that strength.11

And at a rally in Chattanooga:

The Bible admonishes us to “run with patience the race that is set before us” (Hebrews 12:1).

Run with patience, and that is what I intend to do. We have grown strong in the last 4 years, and we must continue to increase that strength.12

As evident by this small sampling of his many appeals to the Bible, President Johnson clearly saw the need for Americans and America itself to be guided by the Scripture.

Endnotes

1 Lyndon B. Johnson, “Remarks at a Ceremony Marking 1966 as the “Year of the Bible.” The American Presidency Project.
2 Oral history transcript, Billy Graham, interview 1 (I), 10/12/1983, by Monroe Billington, Transcripts of Oral Histories Given to the Lyndon B. Johnson Library, LBJ Presidential Library, accessed December 18, 2023.
3 Billy Graham Oral History, LBJ Presidential Library, accessed December 18, 2023.
4 Lyndon B. Johnson, “Toasts of the President and President Zalman Shazar of Israel,” The American Presidency Project.
5 Lyndon B. Johnson, “Remarks at the Lighting of the Nation’s Christmas Tree: December 18, 1964,” The American Presidency Project.
6 Lyndon B. Johnson, “Statement by the President on the Death of Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York,” The American Presidency Project.
7 Lyndon B. Johnson, “Remarks at a Fundraising Dinner in Detroit: June 26, 1964,” The American Presidency Project.
8 Lyndon B. Johnson, “Remarks at the Annual Swedish Day Picnic, Minnehaha Park, Minneapolis: June 28, 1964,” The American Presidency Project.
9 Lyndon B. Johnson, “Remarks on Conservation at a Breakfast in Portland Saluting the Northwest-Southwest Power Transmission Intertie,” The American Presidency Project.
10 Lyndon B. Johnson, “Remarks in Indianapolis at Soldiers and Sailors Square,” The American Presidency Project.
11 Lyndon B. Johnson, “Remarks Before Two Groups at the Fifth Regiment Armory in Baltimore,” The American Presidency Project.
12 Lyndon B. Johnson, “Remarks at an Airport Rally in Chattanooga,” The American Presidency Project.

Four Letters on Government – John and Samuel Adams

Samuel Adams (1722-1803) and his second cousin, John Adams (1735-1826), were important and longstanding actors in the struggle for American independence. John Adams expounds on this in his diary on February 9, 1772:

Is it not a pity that a brace [pair] of so obscure a breed should be the only ones to defend the household, when the generous mastiffs and best-blooded hounds are all hushed to silence by the bones and crumbs that are thrown to them, and even Cerberus himself is bought off with a sop? … they [John and Samuel Adams] have a sense of honor and a love of their country, the testimony of a good conscious, and the consolation of philosophy, if nothing more, which will certainly support them, in the cause of their country, to their last gasp for breath, whenever that may happen.1

John Adams

This “brace of Adamses” kept their word and continued to advocate for the liberty of their country through the War for Independence, and throughout the course of their lives, as demonstrated by a series of letters between them in 1790. John Adams was the vice president of the US and Samuel was the lieutenant-governor of Massachusetts during this period. Published in 1802 under the title Four Letters, discuss the future government of America from the perspectives of both the Federalist John Adams and the Anti-Federalist Samuel Adams.

John Adams, responding to an earlier letter from Samuel, recounts a recent visit to Philadelphia:

The sight of our old Liberty Hall and of several of our old friends, had brought your venerable idea to my mind, and continued it there a great part of the last week; so that a letter from you, on my arrival, seemed but in continuation.2

He then asks Samuel:

What, my old friend, is this world about to become? Is the millennium commencing? Are the kingdoms of it about to be governed by reason? Your Boston town meetings and our Harvard College have set the universe in motion. Every thing will be pulled down. So much seems certain. But what will be built up? Are there any principles of political architecture? What are they?3

Samuel Adams answers this query in his response:

You ask,—what the is about to become? and,—is the  millennium commencing? I have not studied the prophecies, and cannot even conjecture. The golden age, so finely pictured by poets, I believe has never as yet existed but in their own imagination. … The same tragedies have been acted on the theatre of the world, the same arts of tormenting have been studied and practiced to this day and even religion and reason untied have never succeeded to establish the permanent foundation of political freedom and happiness in the most enlightened countries on the earth.4

The elder Adams, as he turns his attention towards the hopeful element that he sees in mankind, becomes more positive:

The love of liberty is inter-woven in the soul of man, and can never be totally extinguished and there are certain periods when human patience can no longer endure indignity and oppression. The spark of liberty then kindles into a flame, when the injured people, attentive to the feelings of the just rights, magnanimously contend for their complete restoration.5

He reverts to his previous manner as he recounts how history shows that so often these sparks of freedom lead not to the flame of liberty, but rather to the flame of tyranny, remarking that, “such contests have too often ended in nothing more than ‘a change of impostors and impositions.’”6 Seeing that such a threat faces America as well, Samuel Adams explains the only hope he sees for preserving liberty:

Let the divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age, by impression the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls; of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity and universal philanthropy, and, in subordination to these great principles, the love of their country; instructing them in the art of self-government, without which they never can act a wise part in the government of societies, great or small; in short, of  leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system, which will happily tend to subdue the turbulent passions of men, and introduce that golden age…7

Sam Adams

Samuel, having placed his hopes in subsequent generations’ education in the tenets of true virtue, quips: “When this millennium shall commence, if there shall be any need of civil government, indulge me in the fancy, that it will be in the republican form, or something better.8

In his response, John Adams expresses his own pessimism regarding the nation’s—and more generally the world’s—ability to provide such an education. He agrees with his older cousin but reflects:

I think with you, that knowledge and benevolence ought to be promoted as much as possible; but, despairing of ever seeing them sufficiently general for the security of society, I am for seeking institutions which may supply in some degree the defect. If there were no ignorance, error, or vice, there would be neither principles nor systems of civil or political government.9

In this, the difference surfaces between the two Adams’. Anti-federalist Samuel Adams prefers to hope for the elevation of the people to a sufficient capability for self-government, while federalist John Adams places his hopes in the ability of an active government to preserve the safety of the nation by institutional means. Both aim for the secured liberty of America, but one seeks to achieve it by strengthening the people first, while the other aims to strengthen the government first. John Adams further explains his position:

With you, I have also the honor most perfectly to harmonize in your sentiments of the humanity and wisdom of promoting education in knowledge, virtue, and benevolence. But I think that these will confirm mankind in the opinion of the necessity of preserving and strengthening the dikes against the ocean, its tides and storms. Human appetites, passions, prejudices, and self-love will never be conquered by benevolence and knowledge alone, introduced by human means.10

John also takes a different route regarding the effects of the people’s strong affection for liberty and freedom so lauded by Samuel Adams. The younger says:

The numbers of men in all ages have preferred ease, slumber, and good cheer to liberty, when they have been in competition. We must not then depend alone upon the lover of liberty in the soul of man for its preservation. Some political institutions must be prepared, to assist this love against its enemies. Without these, the struggle will end only in a change of impostors. … Let us be impartial, then, and speak the whole truth. Till we do, we shall never discover all the true principles that are necessary.11

To the objections on the primacy of universal education over a strong government Samuel Adams responds:

I am very willing to agree with you, in thinking that improvements in knowledge and benevolence receive much assistance from the principles and systems of good government. But is it not as true that, without knowledge and benevolence, men would neither have been capable nor disposed to search for the principles or form the system? Should we not, my friend, bear a grateful remembrance of our pious and benevolent ancestors, who early laid plans of education? by which means, wisdom, knowledge, and virtue have been generally diffused among the body of the people, and they have been enabled to form and establish a civil constitution, calculated for the preservation of their rights and liberties.12

He then continues to argue for the necessity of a widespread educational system directed towards the moral development of the community:

I am far from thing the people can be deceived, by urging upon them a dependence on the more general prevalence of knowledge and virtue. It is one of the most essential means of further, and still further improvements in society, and of correcting and amending moral sentiments and habits and political institutions; till, “by human means,” directed by Divine influence, men shall be prepared for that “happy and holy state,” when “the Messiah is to reign.”13

Samuel Adams end by expressing that while John views government as the tool which will level both the aristocracy and the people, he believes that education is the true leveling agent:

Wise and judicious modes of education, patronized and supported by communities, will draw together the sons of the rich and the poor, among whom it makes no distinction; it will cultivate the natural genius, elevate the soul, excite laudable emulation to excel in knowledge, piety, and benevolence; and, finally, it will reward its patrons and benefactors, by shedding its benign influence on the public mind. Education inures men to thinking and reflection, to reasoning and demonstration. It discovers to them the moral and religious duties they owe to God, their country, and to all mankind.14

These four letters provide a window into the party conflicts which were raging between the Federalists and Anti-Federalist—though they show a much more civil and thoughtful tone than was generally seen at the time. In its most basic form, the “brace of Adamses” are seeking to answer how best the freedom of society can be improved. While they both value the necessities for education and political principles, the real difference arises from where they place primacy.

Endnotes

1 John Adams, February 9, 1772, The Works of John Adams (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1850) 2:295-296.
2 The Works of John Adams (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851) 6:411.
3 John Adams to Samuel Adams, September 12, 1790, Works (1851), 6:411-412.
4 Samuel Adams to John Adams, October 4, 1790, Works (1851), 6:412.
5 Samuel to John, October 4, 1790, Works (1851), 6:413.
6 Ibid.
7 Samuel Adams to John Adams, October 4, 1790, Works (1851), 6:414.
8 Ibid.
9 John Adams to Samuel Adams, October 18, 1790, Works (1851), 6:415.
10 Adams to Samuel Adams, October 18, 1790, Works (1851), 6:416.
11 Adams to Samuel Adams, October 18, 1790, Works (1851), 6:418.
12 Samuel Adams to John Adams, November 1790, Works (1851), 6:422.
13 Samuel Adams to John Adams, November 1790, Works (1851), 6:423.
14 Samuel Adams to John Adams, November 1790, Works (1851), 6:425.

What Hath God Wrought

On May 24, 1844, a seismic breakthrough occurred: the first telegraphic message was transmitted between cities. People in two separate and distant geographic locations could instantly communicate with each other!

What was that first message? It was a Bible verse: Numbers 23:23 “What hath God wrought!” Such a message today likely would be met with much criticism, but for most of history–especially most of American history–religion was not seen as a hindrance to scientific thought but rather just the opposite.

This particular scientific breakthrough came at the hands of dedicated Christian inventor Samuel F. B. Morse. Morse (developer of the famous Morse Code) was also a celebrated painter, and while painting a portrait in Washington, D.C. in 1825, he received word that his wife in New England was seriously ill. He quickly returned home but found his wife had not only died but had already been buried.

Frustrated at the length of time it had taken the message to reach him, he sought a better and faster method of long distance communication. Morse initially developed a single strand telegraph which could transmit messages only over a short distance. He continued to perfect his invention until finally developing a means of transmitting magnetic signals over long distances.

Morse demonstrated his invention at the U. S. Capitol, and in 1843 Congress appropriated money to construct a telegraph line between the Capitol and Baltimore. That first telegraphic message (pictured below) from Numbers 23 was sent from the basement of the U.S. Capitol the following year. (That message had been suggested by the daughter of a friend.)

Many years later, looking back over that invention, Morse reflected:

If not a sparrow falls to the ground without a definite purpose in the plans of infinite wisdom [Matthew 10:29], can the creation of the instrumentality so vitally affecting the interests of the whole human race have an origin less humble than the Father of every good and perfect gift [James 1:17]? . . . I use the words of inspiration [that is, the Bible] in ascribing honor and praise to Him to Whom first of all and most of all it is pre-eminently due. “Not unto us, not unto us, but to God be all the glory” [Psalm 115:1]. Not what hath man, but “What hath God wrought!” [Numbers 23:23]

(You can read more about Samuel F. B. Morse’s invention in the Numbers 23 article in The Founders Bible.)

Biblical faith permeated Morse’s life. For example, in an 1830 letter (from WallBuilders’ collection, a page of which is pictured on the right), Samuel included a religious poem he had written earlier in life:

Yield then thy pen to God to draw
On the next leaf His perfect law
So when thy book of life is done
Cleans’d by the blood of God’s own Son.
From sin’s dark blots and folly’s stain
A purer volume shall remain
And rest (to grace a splendid prize)
In Heaven’s alcoves in the skies.

The use of Morse’s telegraphic invention grew rapidly and expanded not only across America but also the globe. (See, for example, an 1858 sermon from WallBuilders’ library, The Atlantic Telegraph: As Illustrating the Providence and Benevolent Designs of God, was preached after the laying of a trans-Atlantic telegraph cable.) Today we enjoy the modern technological blessings that sprang from what Christian inventor Samuel F. B. Morse began on May 24, 1844.

The “Red Tails”

In 1938, a civilian pilot training program, open to black Americans, began under President Franklin Roosevelt who anticipated possible war in Europe. Also, under the 1940 Selective Training and Service Act black Americans could be drafted. The group of black pilots trained as part of the US Army Air Corps are known as the Tuskegee Airmen.

Between 1941-1946 nearly 1,000 pilots were trained at Tuskegee Institute (founded in 1881 by Booker T. Washington). These pilots formed the 99th Fighter Squadron and were sent overseas in 1942. Their first combat experience was on June 2, 1943 on Pantelleria, an Italian island. In July 1944, three additional all-black squadrons joined them to make up the 332nd Fighter Group. Known for the red paint on the tails of their planes, the 332nd were nicknamed “Red Tails.”

The “Red Tails” flew over 1,400 combat missions, where they destroyed nearly 300 enemy aircraft, over 600 railroad cars, and 40 boats. The 332nd flew many of its combat missions as protective escorts for vulnerable bomber groups. They were so successful that many bomber crews specifically requested them during the missions. Altogether, about 150 Tuskegee Airmen were killed and 32 were taken prisoner.

For their many acts of bravery, the Tuskegee Airmen received many awards. The 332nd was awarded a Presidential Unit Citation for the longest bomber escort mission. The 99th had received two Presidential Unit Citations before joining the 332nd. Members of this famous groups were also awarded 96 Distinguished Flying Crosses, 14 Bronze Stars, and 8 Purple Hearts. WallBuilders’ collection includes various signatures and pictures of the Tuskegee Airmen. Theirs is truly a story worth remembering today.

Let’s thank God for the over one million courageous Americans who paid the ultimate price for us all. Let’s pray for the surviving family members of those who have died in this generation to protect our freedoms, and let’s also pray for protection for all those who are currently deployed to various danger spots around the world.

Blessed be the Lord my Rock,
Who trains my hands for war,
and my fingers for battle
Psalm 144:1 (NKJV)

June 14th in History

June 14th is the birthday of the Army, created by the Continental Congress on June 14, 1775.1 The next day, George Washington was elected Commander-in-Chief2 and soon issued orders that set the tone for the military, including one declaring:

The blessings and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger. The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor so to live and act as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.3

Over the 242 years since its inception, the US Army–and indeed the entire American military–have repeatedly lived up to the high ideals set forth by its first Commander-in-Chief.

Speaking of the Army after the Civil War in 1871, Frederick Douglass reminded the nation:

We must never forget that the loyal soldiers who rest beneath this sod flung themselves between the nation and the nation destroyers. If today we have a country not boiling in an agony of blood (like France)–if now we have a united country, no longer cursed by the hell-black system of human bondage–if the American name is no longer a by-word and a hissing to a mocking earth–if the Star-Spangled Banner floats only over free American citizens in every quarter of the land, and our country has before it a long and glorious career of justice, liberty, and civilization–we are indebted to the unselfish devotion of the noble army who rest in these honored graves all around us.4

During WWI, General John Pershing reminded Americans:

Three thousand miles from home, an American army is fighting for you. Everything you hold worthwhile is at stake. Only the hardest blows can win against the enemy we are fighting. Invoking the spirit of our forefathers, the army asks your unflinching support, to the end that the high ideals for which America stands may endure upon the earth.5

And in WWII, General George Marshall spoke about the mission of the United States:

We are determined that before the sun sets on this terrible struggle, our flag will be recognized throughout the world as a symbol of freedom on the one hand and of overwhelming force on the other.6

By the way, June 14th is also Flag Day, commemorating June 14, 1777, when the Continental Congress passed a resolution “that the flag of the thirteen United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation.”7

Let’s celebrate the flag as well as the Army and American military who so ably defend our God-given freedoms and God-blessed nation!

Endnotes

1 “Wednesday, June 14, 1775,” Journals of the Continental Congress (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1905), II:89-90; “U.S. Army’s 250th Birthday Festival,” U.S. Army, accessed June 9, 2025.
2 “Thursday, June 15, 1775,” Journals of the Continental Congress (1905), II:91.
3 General Orders, July 9, 1776, The Writings of George Washington, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1922), 5:245.
4 Address on Decoration Day, 1861, The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, From 1817 to 1882. Written by Himself (London: Christian Age Office, 1882), 365.
5 “General John J. Pershing,” Library of Congress, accessed June 9, 2025.
6 Inscriptions, World War II Memorial Registry, accessed June 9, 2025.
7 “Saturday, June 14, 1777,” Journals of the Continental Congress (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1907), VIII:464.

Fathers & Education

Let’s take a look at some of the men in America’s history–including our Founders, most of whom were fathers. Their writings reveal that they believed a knowledge of and reliance on the Scriptures was an important part of being a father.

In fact, a young Daniel Webster recounted a conversation he had with an elderly Thomas Jefferson on this point. Jefferson told him:

I have always said, and always will say, that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make better citizens, better fathers, and better husbands.

The Founders believed that it was their duty not only to rely on the Bible but also to teach it to their children. For example, John Adams (who spent a good portion of the War for Independence away from his family) outlined to his precious wife, Abigail, the education their children should receive:

The education of our children is never out of my mind. Train them to virtue. Habituate them to industry, activity and spirit. Make them consider every vice as shameful and unmanly. Fire them with ambition to be useful. Make them disdain to be destitute of any useful or ornamental knowledge or accomplishment. Fix their ambition upon great and solid objects, and their contempt upon little, frivolous and useless ones.

John Quincy Adams took the lessons he learned from his own parents to heart and later encouraged his own son to read the Bible for the wisdom and virtue it encourages:

I advise you, my son, in whatever you read, and most of all in reading the Bible, to remember that it is for the purpose of making you wiser and more virtuous. I have myself, for many years, made it a practice to read through the Bible once every year. I have always endeavored to read it with the same spirit and temper of mind, which I now recommend to you: that is, with the intention and desire that it may contribute to my advancement in wisdom and virtue.

And after Thomas Paine penned his Age of Reason attacking Christianity and the Bible, Founding Father Elias Boudinot wrote a book to refute Paine, dedicating that book to his daughter, Susan, telling her:

I was much mortified to find the whole force of this man’s vain genius pointed at the youth of America….This awful consequence created some alarm in my mind lest at any future day you, my beloved child, might take up this plausible address of infidelity….I have endeavored to…show his extreme ignorance of the Divine Scriptures…not knowing that “they are the power of God unto salvation, to everyone that believeth” [Romans 1:16].

Clearly, our Founders who were fathers considered the Bible to be indispensable for their own lives, and strongly inculcated its use in their children. This is an excellent lesson for us to pass on to our children.

Pastors Lead the Charge

March 17 is annually celebrated in Boston as “Evacuation Day,” commemorating the departure of the British from the city1 after an extended eleven month occupation2 at the start of the American War for Independence. That occupation lasted from April 19, 1775, through March 17, 1776, encompassing the Siege of Boston3 and including early notable events of the War, such as the Battles of Lexington and Concord,4 Bunker Hill,5 and George Washington taking command of the American army.6

The occupation started when British leader Thomas Gage led troops into Boston, and then dispatched hundreds to seize or destroy ammunition stored in Concord.7 Riders such as Paul Revere set out to warn local inhabitants,8 and also to alert John Hancock and Samuel Adams (who were under threat of death by the British9) of the approach of the British army.

Hancock and Adams were staying in the home of Lexington Pastor Jonas Clark.10 Pastor Clark and 77 militia from his church11 gathered to meet the approaching British–a skirmish easily won by the 800 British troops.12 (In the WallBuilders library is a sermon preached by Jonas Clark on the one-year anniversary of the Battle of Lexington.13)

After Lexington, the British pressed on to Concord, where they were met by Rev. William Emerson and some 400 Americans.14 After the British suffered casualties in that skirmish, they retreated to Boston,15 and all along the way, British forces were fired upon by American militias from the surrounding countryside, including those led by pastors such as Philips Payson and Benjamin Balch.16 (Many additional preachers also fought in other engagements throughout the War.17)

Evacuation Day is a reminder of the courage and backbone shown by the spiritual leaders of earlier generations–a spiritual leadership still badly needed today!

Endnotes

1 “March 17, 1901: Boston Celebrates First Evacuation Day,” Mass Moments, accessed January 17, 2024.
2 “Siege of Boston,” Massachusetts Historical Society, accessed January 17, 2024.
3 Richard Frothingham, History of the Siege of Boston, and of the Battles of Lexington and Concord, and Bunker Hill (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), 91-119.
4 “Lexington and Concord,” US History, accessed January 17, 2024.
5 Frothingham, History of the Siege of Boston (1851), 121-132.
6 “Washington takes command of Continental Army in 1775,” US Army, April 15, 2016.
7 Frothingham, History of the Siege of Boston (1851), 55.
8 “The Real Story of Paul Revere’s Ride,” The Paul Revere House, accessed January 17, 2024.
9 “Attempted Capture of John Hancock and Samuel Adams,” WallBuilders.
10 J. T. Headley, The Chaplains and Clergy of the Revolution (NY: Charles Scribner, 1864), 78.
11 Jonas Clark, “Sermon-Battle of Lexington-1776,” WallBuilders.
12 Benson J. Lossing, A History of the United States for Families and Libraries (NY: Mason Brothers, 1860), 232.
13 Jonas Clark, “Sermon-Battle of Lexington-1776,” WallBuilders.
14 Benson J. Lossing, A History of the United States, From the Discovery of the American Continent (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1864), VII:290, 299.
15 Lossing, History of the United States (1864), VII:303-306.
16 Headley, Chaplains and Clergy (1864), 60; Balch Leaflets (Salem, MA: Eben Putnam, 1896-1897), 28.
17 Daniel Dorchester, Christianity in the United States From the First Settlement Down to the Present Time (NY: Hunt & Eaton, 1889), 265.

Religious Messages from WWI

On April 6, 1917, the US entered World War I,1 providing much needed troops to a war effort that cost millions of lives across the world.2 In a speech calling for a declaration of war, President Woodrow Wilson used a phrase that would summarize America’s intent in becoming involved in this and future conflicts: “The world must be made safe for democracy.”3 Although America was officially involved in fighting for just over a year, there were still more than 53,000 American soldiers who lost their lives in that conflict.4 Let’s take time to remember these service members and the war they fought in.

Americans had initially preferred remaining neutral in what was seen as a European conflict but actions taken by Germany led to a shift. In May 1915, a German U-boat (submarine) sank a British ocean liner killing over 1,000 people including about 120 Americans.5 Then, in February 1917, a telegram was intercepted in which the Germans offered Mexico a return of territory lost to the US if Mexico would join the war.6 These actions raised outrage among the general public, making the declaration of war more acceptable when it was made.

As would also happen during WWII, war bonds were used as a way to raise money for the war effort.7 In our collection of original documents and artifacts, WallBuilders has war bond posters from both WWI and WWII that used religious messages to ensure support and raise money for those wars.

Also, throughout American history, Bibles have been distributed to soldiers going into war and sometimes these Bibles would include messages from leaders on the importance of Bible reading. For example, a letter from President Woodrow Wilson was used in a WWI era Bible (pictured here from a Bible in WallBuilders’ Collection):

The Message of President Wilson to Soldiers and Sailors, US Army and Navy, June 6, 1917. Sent Through the Maryland Bible Society.

This book speaks both the voice of God and the voice of humanity, for there is told in it the most convincing story of human experience that has ever been written, take it all in all, and those who head that story will know that strength and happiness and success are all summed up in the exhortation, “Fear God and keep his commandments.”

John Pershing was put in command of the American forces in WWI. His involvement in several victories in the later months of the war helped the Allies obtain victory. General Pershing returned to America a war hero and was promoted to General of the Armies in 1919.8 His letter printed in the front of a 1917 Bible provides a glimpse into his religious beliefs:

To The American Soldier:

Aroused against a nation waging war in violation of all Christian principles, our people are fighting in the cause of liberty.

Hardship will be your lot, but trust in God will give you comfort; temptation will befall you, but the teachings of our Saviour will give you strength.

Let your valor as a soldier and your conduct as a man be an inspiration to your comrades and an honor to your country.

Our history demonstrates that America accorded religion and morality a prominent place in military life — a belief that, sadly, is today being eroded.

Footnotes

1 “Echoes of the Great War,” Library of Congress, accessed April 2, 2025.
2 “How many people died during World War I?” February 13, 2025, Britannica.
3 Woodrow Wilson, “Joint Address to Congress Leading to a Declaration of War Against Germany,” April 2, 1917, National Archives.
4 American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics (Congressional Research Services: 2020), 2.
5 “RMS Lusitania: 18 Minutes That Shocked The World,” Imperial War Museum, accessed April 2, 2025.
6 “Zimmermann Telegram (1917),” National Archives.
8 “The Posters That Sold World War I to the American Public,” July 28, 2015, Smithsonian Magazine.
9 “John Pershing – World War I,” February 28, 2015, National Park Service.