The Lesser Known Boudinot

WallBuilders mission is “presenting America’s forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on our moral, religious, and constitutional heritage.” Two of our great heroes largely forgotten today include Dr. Benjamin Rush (signer of the Declaration, who John Adams considered as one of America’s three most notable Founders 1) and Elias Boudinot (pictured to the right; president of the Continental Congress and a framer of the Bill of Rights in the first federal Congress).

As an indication of the Christian connection between the two, we thought you might enjoy the content of a letter from Dr. Rush to Elisha Boudinot, brother of Elias. 2 This inspiring letter offers Elisha condolences on the loss of his wife, Catharine. It contains what can be considered as nothing less than strong evangelical and Biblical language from Dr. Rush.

Elisha was active in the patriot cause 3 and served as a Justice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. 4 He was anti-slavery 5 and also worked to help prepare men for the Gospel ministry. 6 His wife was active in helping the poor and needy in their community. 7

The couple was so beloved by their neighbors that when their house burned, the neighbors not only turned out en masse to rebuild it 8 but also established the city’s first fire department to prevent similar future losses. 9

Founding Fathers such as Benjamin Rush and the Boudinots help reaffirm that America was built on strong religious and moral foundations by leaders of committed Biblical faith.


Endnotes

1 John Sanderson, Biography of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence (Philadelphia: R. W. Pomeroy, 1823), IV:283; L. H. Butterfield, “The Reputation of Benjamin Rush,” Pennsylvania History, January 1950, XVII:1:9, John Adams to Richard Rush on May 5, 1813.
2 J.J. Boudinot, The Life Public Services, Addresses, and Letters of Elias Boudinot, LL.D., President of Continental Congress (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1896), I:32; Frank John Urquhart, A History of the City of Newark, New Jersey (New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Company, 1913), 2:603.
3 Rev. W. Wallace Atterbury, Elias Boudinot: Reminiscences of the American Revolution (Read Before the Hugenot Society, February 15, 1894), 38; David Lawrence Pierson, Narratives of Newark, (Newark: N.J.: Pierson Publishing Co, 1917), 190;  Urquhart, History of the City of Newark (1913), 2:604.
4 Edward Hagaman Hall, The Sons of the American Revolution (New York: New York State Society, 1894), 57.
5 Urquhart, History of the City of Newark (1913), 2:606.
6 Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of the United States (Philadelphia: William Bradford, 1822), 166-167.
7 Historic Newark: A Collection of Facts and Traditions (Newark, N.J.: Fidelity Union Trust Company, 1916), 24; Boudinot, Public Services…of Elias Boudinot (1896), I:39.
8 Historic Newark (1916), 24.
9 William H. Shaw, History of Essex and Hudson Counties, New Jersey (Philadelphia: Everts & Peck, 1884), 1:458.

The Barbary Powers Wars

What important American victory in the Barbary Powers Wars occurred on this date in 1801?

(*See below for the answer.)

The Barbary Powers Wars were the first wars officially declared against America following our victory in the War for Independence. 1 Muslim terrorists from five different Islamic nations (Turkey, Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli) were making indiscriminate attacks against the property and interests of what they claimed to be “Christian” nations (America, England, France, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, etc.). 2 These Muslim terrorists (called Barbary, that is, barbaric “pirates” by most Americans) attacked American civilian and commercial merchant ships wherever they found them, seizing the cargo and enslaving the crew. 3

In 1784, Congress dispatched three diplomats – John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson – to negotiate with these Muslim nations and end the unprovoked attacks. 4 They found this to be a difficult task, for the attacking of ships and the taking of Christians by Muslims had been a widespread problem for centuries. 5

The Muslims found they could finance their wars and terror operations by enslaving and then selling captured seamen. (The Muslims took 1.25 million captive slaves in that period. 6) Because this was such a widespread and recurring problem, other Christian nations formed standing organizations to raise money to purchase enslaved seamen. As Jefferson explained:

There is here an order of priests called the Mathurins, the object of whose institutions is the begging of alms for the redemption of captives. About eighteen months ago, they redeemed three hundred, which cost them about fifteen hundred livres [$1,500] apiece. They have agents residing in the Barbary States, who are constantly employed in searching and contracting for the captives of their nation, and they redeem at a lower price than any other people can. 7

Ransoming Americans was no less expensive, and therefore was a very profitable trade for the Muslim terrorists. 8 Additionally, the Muslim nations would sign treaties with the attacked nations, including America, providing that for an annual “tribute” (perhaps $1 million a year, along with the “gift” of several frigates), that they would perhaps refrain from further attacks. By 1795, such “peace” payments to Muslim terrorists comprised a full sixteen percent of the entire federal budget!  9

Among the many treaties signed with Muslim nations during this period was the famous 1797 treaty with Tripoli. It was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation into a “Holy War” 10 such as had existed between Christians and Muslims in the Middle Ages.

The Muslims considered that all Christian nations were like those of the Crusades, when Christians fought Muslims simply because they were Muslims. 11  However, America was definitely not like the European Christian nations from medieval times, for we did not kill Muslims, Jews, or any one else for their faith. In fact, many Founding Fathers talked about how different America as a Christian nation was from the European Christian nations; 12 and the American treaties, including the Treaty of Tripoli, made this very point.

Significantly, secularists regularly cite one clause from that treaty in devious attempts to make it appear that the Founding Fathers emphatically avowed that America was not a Christian nation. They thus quote from that treaty the line declaring “The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion . . . ” This declaration certainly seems to be straightforward – until you discover that the critics only used part of the quote. Notice what the full, unedited clause states:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims]. and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. 13 (emphasis added)

This clause from the Treaty of Tripoli simply affirms that America was not one of the European Christian nations with an inherent hostility toward Muslims, and that America had never been part of arbitrary wars against Muslims such as had characterized the Crusades. This clause definitely does not deny or undermine America’s strong Christian heritage – unless you wrongly place a period in the middle of the sentence, as secularist critics do.
When Thomas Jefferson became president in 1801, he decided that it was time to take military action to end the two-decades-old unprovoked Muslim terrorist attacks against Americans. 14 Using the brand new American Navy to transport the U. S. Marines overseas (President George Washington had called for the construction of a navy in 1795, and President John Adams had overseen its construction 15), General William Eaton took the American military and proceeded to the same region of the world where Americans are still being attacked today. He then led a successful five-year campaign to free captured Americans and crush Muslim terrorist forces. 16 Tripoli (now called Libya) finally capitulated and signed a treaty on America’s terms in 1805, thus ending their aggressions – at least for a while. 17

(By the way, it was from the Marine’s role in that first War on Terror from 1801-1805 that the U. S. Marines derive part of the opening line of their hymn: “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli . . .”)
Shortly after President James Madison took office, he became engulfed in the War of 1812. With America preoccupied in a second war against the British, Algerian Muslim terrorists again began attacking Americans. But upon concluding the war with the British, President James Madison dispatched the American military and warships against three Muslim nations: Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli. 18 America (with the assistance of Great Britain and the Netherlands) subdued those Muslim nations and brought them to the peace table, where they freed all the enslaved Christians. 19

*On this date in history, the U.S.S. Enterprise captured the Trioplitan ship known as the Tripoli. While the terrorists sustained heavy losses, the Americans did not lose a single man in the battle. 20


Endnotes

1 Thomas Clark, Naval History of the United States, from the Commencement of the Revolutionary War to the Present Time (Philadelphia: M. Stiles, 1814), 1:140; James H. Morgan, Register of the Military Order of Foreign wars of the United States (New York: The National Commandery, 1900), 11-19.
2 Richard O’Brian to Thomas Jefferson, June 8, 1786, Naval Documents Related  to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers, ed. Claude A. Swanson (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1939), 1:1-6; A General View of the Rise, Progress, and Brilliant Achievements of the American Navy Down to the Present Time (Brooklyn: 1828), 70-71; “Barbary Pirates,” The Encyclopedia Britannica, ed. Hugh Chisholm (New York: The Encyclopedia Britannica Company, 1910), 383.
3 Julian Hawthorne et. al., United States from the Discovery of the North American Continent up to the Present Time (New York: James Schouler, 1894), 3:17-20; Forward written by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, December 30, 1958, Naval Documents, ed. Swanson (1939), 1; Theodore Lyman, The Diplomacy of the United States (Boston: Wells and Lilly, 1828), 2:338-342.
4 Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, November 4, 1785, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Andrew A. Lipscomb (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), V:195; Garner W. Allen, Our Navy and the Barbary Corsairs (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1905) 28.
5 “Barbary Pirates,” The Encyclopedia Britannica, ed. Hugh Chisholm (New York: The Encyclopedia Britannica Company, 1910), 383.
6 Robert Davis, Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500-1800 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).
7 Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, January 11, 1787, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Andrew A. Lipscomb (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), VI:47-48.
8 No. 43: Prisoners at Algiers, American State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton), 1:100-101.
9 The federal budget was $6,115,000 in 1795; a payment of nearly $1 million was given that year to Algiers alone, not including what was given to the other Barbary Powers.  See US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States (White Plains, NY: Kraus International Publications, 1989), 1106; George Washington to the Secretary of the Treasury, May 29, 1794, The Writings of George Washington, ed. John C Fitzpatrick (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1940), 33:385.
10 See, for example, the 1786 Treaty with Morocco: Articles 10, 11, 17 and 24; the 1795 Treaty with Algiers: Article 17; the 1815 Treaty with Algiers: Article 13; the 1816 Treaty with Algiers: Articles 14 and 15; the 1796 Treaty with Tripoli: Article 11; the 1805 Treaty with Tripoli: Article 14; and the 1797 Treaty with Tunis: Forward.
11 Thomas Edward Watson, The Life and Times of Thomas Jefferson (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1903), 247-249.
12 See for example, John Jay, “Address to the Annual Meeting of the American Bible Society,” May 8, 1823, Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, ed. Henry Johnston (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1893), IV:491; John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at Their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), 17; John Adams in a speech to both  houses of Congress, November 23, 1797, The Works of John Adams, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1854), IX:121; Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), 339, “Advice to the Young”; Daniel Webster, Mr. Webster’s Speech in Defence of the Christian Ministry and In Favor of the Religious Instruction of the Young. Delivered in the Supreme Court of the United States, February 10, 1844, in the Case of Stephen Girard’s Will (Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 1844), 12-13.
13 Acts Passed at the First Session of the Fifth Congress of the United States of America (Philadelphia: William Ross, 1797), 43-44.
14 Thomas Jefferson, “Second Annual Message,” December 15, 1802, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington, D.C.: Taylor & Maury, 1854), 8:17; Thomas Jefferson, “Autobiography,” 1821, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Paul Leicester Ford (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1892), I:91-93; Elizabeth Huff, “The First Barbary War,” Monticello, accessed December 1, 2023.
15 “The Reestablishment of the Navy, 1787-1801,” Naval History Bibliography.
16  William Grimshaw, The History of the United States, From Their First Settlement as Colonies to the Cession of Florida, in Eighteen Hundred and Twenty-One, (Philadelphia: Benjamin Warner, 1821), 194-195; Charles Prentiss, The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton; Several Years an Officer in the United States’ Army, Consul at the Regency of Tunis on the Coast of Barbary, and Commander of the Christian and Other Forces That Marched from Egypt Through the Desert of Barca, in 1805, and Conquered the City of Derne, Which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between the United States and the Regency of Tripoli; Principally Collected from His Correspondence and Other Manuscripts (Brookfield: E. Merriam & Co., 1813).
17 “The Barbary Wars, 1801-1805,” National Museum of the US Navy, accessed October 7, 2025.
18 John Quincy Adams, The Lives of James Madison and James Monroe (Buffalo: Geo. H. Derby and Co., 1850), 93; “Barbary Wars, 1801-1805 and 1815-1816,” US Department of State: Office of the Historian, accessed October 7, 2025.
19  James Madison, “Seventh Annual Message,” December 5, 1815, The Writings of James Madison, ed. Gaillard Hunt (United States: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1908), VIII:33; Perceval Barton Lord, Algiers, with Notices of the Neighbouring States of Barbary, (London: Whittaker & Co., 1835), 50-60.
20 Garner W. Allen, Our Navy and the Barbary Corsairs (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1905), 96; Naval Documents, ed. Swanson (1939), 1:538-540.

Which President earned the nickname “Old Man Eloquent”?

If you answered John Quincy Adams (the earliest serving President to have a photograph taken of him), then you were right!

Born on July 11, 1767, to John Adams and Abigail Adams, 1 by the age of eight he had not only trained with the famous Massachusetts Minutemen 2 and watched the British attack Boston,3 but by the age of 11, he was serving as a secretary to his father, who was the U.S. diplomat to France; 4 at the age of 14, he was sent to be secretary and translator for Francis Dana, American diplomat in the Court of Queen Catherine the Great in Russia;5 and at the age of 15, he was an official secretary for the American delegation negotiating the final peace treaty to end the American War for Independence.6

This amazing youngster became a diplomat under President George Washington 7 (whom Washington described as “the most valuable public character we have abroad”), 8 and served in the same position under several other presidents. 9

He was also a U. S. Senator, a Secretary of State,10 was appointed to the U. S. Supreme Court (but declined the position), 11 and became the sixth President of the United States. 12

In fact, he was the only president in American history who served in the U. S. House of Representatives after finishing his term as president (he served for 17 years in that position!).13

Throughout his time in the House, he was known as the “Hell Hound of Abolition” for his relentless pursuit of that object, as well as “Old Man Eloquent” for his mastery of the spoken language 14 — not surprising since he had previously been a professor of oratory and rhetoric at Harvard. 15

But before serving in the House, while Ambassador to Russia under President James Madison in 1811, he wrote nine letters to his ten-year-old son, George Washington Adams (whom he had named after his friend and mentor, George Washington), instructing him on how to read through the Bible once each year. As he explained to his young son, his purpose for those letters was “the inculcation of a love and reverence for the Holy Scriptures, and a delight in their perusal and study.”16

In his first letter, he told young George:

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. 17

Shortly after John Quincy’s death on the floor of the House of Representatives in 1848, those nine letters were quickly printed as a book for all of America’s youth, 18 so that they, too, could learn how to read through the Bible once each year, and understand it. That work was so popular that it went through a number of reprints, and is still in print today (and it is worthwhile for all Americans to read today, regardless of their age).

Not only was John Quincy’s faith evident throughout his family letters but also in his published works — such as his poetry. Interestingly, Adams was one of only a handful of poet presidents, and his strong Biblical faith is repeatedly demonstrated in his poems. In fact, his 1848 work, Poems of Religion and Society includes poems on the Sabbath, the Goodness of God, and many more Christian topics.

Interestingly, when admirers — particularly young ones — wrote this famous American asking for his autograph, he would often sent them a piece of original poetry he had composed for them based on one of the Psalms from the Bible. In fact, WallBuilders recently posted one such handwritten Psalm transcribed by John Quincy Adams.

Adams, who spent more than six decades of his life in public service, was known as a man “devoted to serving rather than pleasing his countrymen” 19 – that is, he was driven by principle, not by what others thought, understanding that his eternal destiny was more important than his momentary popularity. He maintained this principled position, even when it meant confronting his own family. For example, as his father, John Adams, was growing old, and late in life began to depart from the Christian orthodoxy that had characterized his earlier years, questioning even the Divinity of Christ and a belief in the Trinity, John Quincy pointedly told his father:

My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God. 20

As we honor the birthday of one of America’s greatest statesmen, let us also rely on the same Hope in which he trusted and even model our life after John Quincy Adams’ personal life motto, described by nineteenth century historian Elbridge Brooks as:

Duty is ours, and the results are God’s 21


Endnotes

1 Francis S. Drake, Dictionary of American Biography (Boston: Houghton, Osgood & Company, 1879), p. 7, s.v. “John Quincy Adams.”See also,John Quincy Adams Biography,” National Park Service (accessed July 17, 2013).
2 John Quincy Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Comprising Portions of His Diary From 1795 to 1848, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1875), Vol. VII, p. 325.
3 John Quincy Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Comprising Portions of His Diary From 1795 to 1848, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1874), Vol. I, pp. 4-6.
4 William H. Seward, The Life and Public Services of John Quincy Adams, Sixth President of the United States, with the Eulogy Delivered Before the Legislature of New York (Auburn: Derby, Miller, and Company, 1849), pp. 30-32. See also, Sketch of the Life of John Quincy Adams; Taken from the Port Folio of April, 1819 (1824), p. 4.
5 John Quincy Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Comprising Portions of His Diary From 1795 to 1848, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1874), Vol. I, p. 12.
6 Memoirs of John Quincy Adams (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co, 1874), Vol. I, p. 13. See also, Biographies of the Secretaries of State: John Quincy Adams,” U.S. Department of State: Office of the Historian (accessed on July 15, 2013).
7Adams, John Quincy,” Biographical Directory of the United States Congress (accessed on July 11, 2013).
8 George Washington, Correspondence Between the Honorable John Adams, Late President of the United States and the Late Wm. Cunningham, Esq. (Boston: E.Q. Cunningham, 1823), pp. 37-38, To John Adams February 20, 1797.
9Adams, John Quincy,” Biographical Directory of the United States Congress (accessed on July 11, 2013).
10Adams, John Quincy,” Biographical Directory of the United States Congress (accessed on July 11, 2013).
11 Dictionary of American Biography, Allen Johnson, editor (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1928), Vol. I, p. 85.
12Adams, John Quincy,” Biographical Directory of the United States Congress (accessed on July 11, 2013).
13The Election of John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts,” United States House of Representatives: History, Art, & Archives (accessed July 17, 2013). See also,Adams, John Quincy,” Biographical Directory of the United States Congress (accessed on July 11, 2013).
14 Francis S. Drake, Dictionary of American Biography (Boston: Houghton, Osgood & Company, 1879), p. 8, s.v. “John Quincy Adams.”
15 Sketch of the Life of John Quincy Adams; Taken from the Port Folio of April, 1819 (1824), p. 10.
16 John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and its Teachings (Auburn, N.Y: Derby, Miller, & Co., 1848), pp. 6-7.
17 John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and its Teachings (Auburn, N.Y: Derby, Miller, & Co., 1848), pp. 10-11.
18John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and its Teachings (Auburn, N.Y: Derby, Miller, & Co., 1848), pp. 5-8.
19 John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and its Teachings (Auburn, N.Y: Derby, Miller, & Co., 1848), p. 6.
20 John Quincy Adams, The Writings of John Quincy Adams, Worthington Chauncey Ford, editor (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1916), Vol. VI, p. 135, Letter to John Adams, January 3, 1817.
21 Elbridge S. Brooks, Historic American: Sketches of the Lives and Characters of Certain Famous Americans Held Most in Reverence by the Boys and Girls of America, For Whom Their Stories Here Are Told (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell & Co. Publishers, 1899), pp. 208-209.

Black History Issue 1998

Honoring Godly Heroes

America’s Godly heritage has been under assault in recent years. Secularist spokesmen claim that America was created as a secular nation by secular individuals who intended that it always remain secular. These individuals understand that by destroying the knowledge of America’s religious heritage, it is easier to persuade subsequent generations to embrace secularism. Interestingly, this religious cleansing has no racial boundaries. An examination of the individuals often honored during February’s “Black History Month” (celebrated nationally since 1976) shows that the secularization of America’s history

Is directed against all Godly heroes, no matter their skin color. Therefore, to introduce Americans to little-known heroes, this WallBuilder Report will honor three famous Godly Black Americans all but ignored by today’s secularists: Benjamin Banneker, Phillis Wheatley, and Richard Allen.

Benjamin Banneker

Benjamin Banneker was born a free Black on a tobacco plantation near Baltimore in 1731. Although he received little formal education (his grandmother taught him to read), this was no handicap to a man with his work ethic and his intense desire to learn. In fact, his life was characterized by his passion for knowledge.

For example, in his early twenties, after studying the workings of a pocket watch, Banneker built a perfectly operating wooden clock that even struck on the hour! Although he loved to read, he was in his thirties before he was able to purchase his first book – a Bible (Banneker frequented the meetings of the Quakers throughout his life). By the time he was in his fifties, he had so completely mastered the science of astronomy through self-study that he was even able to point out errors in several noted scientific works of the day. And when he was in his sixties, because of his fame and reputation, he was picked as one of seven surveyors to lay out the District of Columbia – the new capitol city.

In the early 1790s, Banneker began to publish an almanac for Maryland and neighboring states. His work was in high demand because of his accurate predictions for sunsets, sunrises, eclipses, weather conditions, and even for his calculation of the recurrence of locust plagues in seventeen year cycles. At his death in 1806, he had actually lived eight years longer than he had calculated, and this is often referred to as the only time he made a mistake in his calculations! The knowledge he acquired by his study of the heavens earned him the title of “Star Gazer.”

Of all of Banneker’s writings, one of his most notable was a 1791 letter to Secretary-of-State Thomas Jefferson:

Sir, I am fully sensible of the greatness of the freedom I take with you on the present occasion; a liberty which seemed scarcely allowable when I reflect on that distinguished and dignifed station in which you stand, and the almost general prejudice which is so prevalent in the world against those of my complexion. . . .

I hope I may safely admit, in consequence of the report which has reached me, that you are a man far less inflexible in sentiments of this nature than many others; that you are measurably friendly and well-disposed towards us; and that you are willing to lend your aid and assistance for our relief. . . .

[Y]our sentiments are concurrent with mine, which are that one universal Father hath given being to us all; that He hath . . . made us all of one flesh . . . and that however variable we may be in society or religion, however diversified in situation or in color, we are all of the same family and stand in the same relation to Him. . . .

[I]t is the indispensable duty of those who . . . profess the obligations of Christianity, to extend their powers and influence to the relief of every part of the human race from whatever burden or oppression they may unjustly labor under. . . .

I freely and cheerfully acknowledge that I am of the African race, and in that color which is natural to them, of the deepest dye. . . .

[There] was a time when you clearly saw into the injustice of a state of slavery, and. . . . your abhorrence thereof was so excited that you publicly held forth this true and invaluable doctrine, which is worthy to be recorded and remembered in all succeeding ages: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” . . .

I . . . recommend to you and all others to wean yourselves from those narrow prejudices which you have imbibed with respect to [my brethren], and as Job proposed to his friends, “put your soul in their soul’s stead” [Job 16:4]; thus shall your hearts be enlarged with kindness and benevolence towards them. . . .

Your most obedient humble servant, Benjamin Banneker

Jefferson responded to Banneker, telling him that “Nobody wishes more than I do to seek such proofs as you exhibit – that nature has given to our Black brethren talents equal to those of the other colors of men.”

This wish by Jefferson became reality, for Benjamin Banneker – both during his life and after his death – was held forth as a shining example of the intellectual capacity and the moral uprightness of Blacks, something which was long denied by the pro-slavery advocates of that day.

Phillis Wheatley

Phillis Wheatley was born in Senegal, Africa, in 1753. She was kidnapped at the age of eight and sent on a slave ship to Boston. Purchased by a prosperous Boston tailor, John Wheatley, she was trained as a personal servant for John’s wife, Susannah.

Phillis was quick and perceptive, and Susannah and her daughter Mary were drawn in a special manner to Phillis. Susannah considered Phillis a daughter, and Mary treated her like a sister. Both tutored her in the
Scriptures and in morals, and within sixteen months Phillis had so mastered English that she was able to read the most difficult parts of the Bible with ease. Mary then taught Phillis astronomy, geography, ancient history, the Latin classics, and the English poets, all of which Phillis conquered with equal ease. Because of her aptitude for difficult knowledge and her ability as a brilliant conversationalist, Phillis was considered by the Bostonian intellectuals to be a child prodigy.

When she was only thirteen years old, Phillis wrote her first poetic verses; and then three years later, being an admirer of the celebrated Rev. George Whitefield, she authored a special poem about his life. This early interest in poetry continued for the rest of her life, and today Phillis is known as America’s first Black female poet.

In 1771, Phillis became a member of the famous Old South Church. It was later said that “her membership in Old South was an exception to the rule that slaves were not baptized into the church.”

In 1773, her health began to fail. A sea-voyage was recommended, and Mrs. Wheatley promptly saw to it that Phillis was manumitted (freed). Phillis traveled to England, where she was received by British royalty. While abroad, she published her first collection of poems, Poems on Various Subjects, Religious and Moral.

In 1775, while still abroad, and while the siege of Boston was underway in America, Phillis wrote a letter to the new Commander-in-Chief, General Washington, containing a special poem she had written for him:

His Excellency George Washington . . . Thee, first in place and honors, – we demand
The grace and glory of thy martial band Fam’d for thy valor, for thy virtues more, Here every tongue thy guardian aid implore! . . . Proceed, great chief, with virtue on thy side, Thy every action let the goddess guide. A crown, a mansion, and a throne that shine, With gold unfading, Washington, be thine. . . .

Washington was touched by the poem; and when Phillis returned to America, Washington invited her to his military camp at Cambridge to honor her before his staff.

Phillis had returned to America when she had learned of the declining health of Mrs. Wheatley, who died shortly after her return. Phillis remained close to the family. She continued her writings and purposed to bring out a second volume of poems to be dedicated to Benjamin Franklin. Misfortune, however, intervened.

In 1778, Phillis married John Peters, a free Black. Although he appeared promising (he was a writer and had studied for the law), his character was deeply flawed: he was slothful, did not provide for his new wife, and failed to give her the care that her delicate health required. He also demanded that she isolate herself from her former friends and even required that she cut off all contact with the Wheatleys. Peters finally deserted Phillis.

Under these circumstances, and only five years after her marriage, Phillis died in obscurity at the age of 30, alone and in poverty, buried in an unmarked grave. Of her three children, two died in infancy, and the third was buried alongside her.

Despite the hardships in her life, Phillis never complained. In fact, she found a silver lining – or rather a Divine one – even in her tragic life of slavery. In her poem, “On Being Brought from Africa to America,” she wrote:

‘Twas mercy brought me from my Pagan land Taught my benighted soul to understand
That there’s a God, that there’s a Savior too: Once I redemption neither sought nor knew. Some view our fable race with scornful eye, “Their color is a diabolic dye.” Remember, Christians, Negroes black as Cain, May be refin’d, and join th’ angelic train.

Phillis’ poetry was popular for generations after her death, and she was considered a heroine by those who fought to end slavery. She remains a shining example of a devout Christian, an accomplished poet, and a gracious and kind woman.

Richard Allen

Richard Allen was born as a slave to Benjamin Chew​ in Philadelphia in 1760. While still a youngster, he was sold to a farmer in Delaware. Allen was converted to Christianity by the preaching of the Methodists. His owner (known in Allen’s autobiography as “Stokeley”) was so impressed with Richard’s Godly lifestyle that he permitted the young Allen to conduct services in his home. In fact, Stokeley himself was converted during one of these services, after which he made it possible for Allen to purchase his freedom.

Allen traveled throughout eastern Pennsylvania and neighboring states, using every opportunity to preach the Gospel to both Whites and Blacks. At the meeting of the first general conference of the Methodist Church in Baltimore in 1784, Allen was accepted as a minister.

Allen began to preach regularly at the St. George Methodist Church in Philadelphia. He suggested that Blacks should have a separate place of worship apart from Whites; and although his suggestion was at first resisted, his forceful preaching attracted such a vast number of Blacks to the church that when objections were raised, Allen’s idea of a separate congregation was finally accepted.

In 1787, Allen led in the establishment of an organization known as the “Free African Society,” composed of both Black Methodists and Black Episcopalians. Black churches in New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland began to separate from traditional denominations to join this loose-knit society. In 1816, these independent churches merged to become the “Africa Methodist Episcopal Church” (the A. M. E. Church); Allen was chosen as its First bishop.

Allen ministered not only to the spiritual needs of his fellow man, but to his temporal needs as well. For example, when the yellow-fever epidemic ravaged Philadelphia in 1793 (killing over four thousand of the forty-thousand inhabitants), nearly all medical doctors fled the city to save their own lives. One of the few who remained was Dr. Benjamin Rush (signer of the Declaration). Richard Allen worked shoulder to shoulder as a medic with Dr. Rush throughout the danger to aid countless victims in whatever way he could.

In 1794, the year following the epidemic, Allen wrote a compelling work documenting his service during that tragedy: A Narrative of the Proceedings of the Black People During the Late Awful Calamity in Philadelphia. Allen’s humanitarian service ranks with the most heroic deeds of America’s history.

Allen urged others to humanitarian service whenever possible and in whatever cause. On one occasion, he charged his audience:

Consider, my brethren, that all we have and are is entrusted to us by Almighty God. . . . and to Him we must give an account at the great day of reckoning. . . . Our blessed Lord has not committed His goods to us as a dead stock, to be hoarded up, or to lie unprofitably in our own hands. He expects that we shall put them out to proper and beneficial uses, and raise them to an advanced value by doing good with them as often as we have opportunity.

Allen’s faith shone through in all of his accomplishments, and he openly proclaimed his gratefulness to God:

I believe it is my greatest honor and happiness to be Thy disciple; how miserable and blind are those that live without God in the world, who despise the light of Thy holy faith. Make me to part with all the enjoyments of life; nay, even life itself, rather than forfeit this jewel of great price.

When Allen died in 1831, it was said that the crowd which gathered to honor him “exceeded anything of the kind ever before witnessed in the country.” Richard Allen was described as “a man of deep piety, the strictest integrity, and indomitable perseverance; and his moral influence was unbounded.”

Summary

America’s Godly heritage encompasses heroes from many races – a fact both we and our children, regardless of our ethnic roots, must understand. The book of Revelation affirms this fact when it declares:

There was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people, and language, standing before the throne. . . . They cried out in a loud voice: “Salvation belongs to our God!” Revelation 7:9, 10

The universal truth of Psalm 144:15 has been proven by every historical age and should be remembered at all times – including Black History Month – that “Happy is that people whose God is the Lord!”

Summer 1998

Will We Go Forward or Go Back?

The primary purpose of The WallBuilder Report has been to educate and to inspire. Therefore, it is our practice to examine current issues through an historical lens, and to report from across the nation victories which typically do not receive much mainstream coverage.

We started this practice ten years ago when God providentially guided me into the series of research projects which eventually led to the formation of this ministry. During that start-up, I spent exhaustive time in the book of Nehemiah, seeing it as a Biblical plan for rebuilding a nation. Based on those studies, we not only chose the name “WallBuilders” from Nehemiah 2:17 but also discovered a principle in Nehemiah 2:18 which has since guided the content of this newsletter. In those two verses, Nehemiah pointed out areas where action was needed and called the people to rebuild; and he also reported to them “of the good hand of God.” This “good news” about what God was doing encouraged the people, and they rose to the challenge of rebuilding their nation. Based on what we saw in these verses, WallBuilders began to model Nehemiah’s practice.

The only trouble we have had with this policy of reporting what the “good hand of God” is doing across the country is that there have been far too many victories to be reported in each newsletter! The reports we receive from throughout the nation convince me that unquestionably we are winning far more battles than we are losing.

A Negative Trend

Despite this, I see a perplexing trend–an attitude, if you will–taking root among God’s people in America, and in many ways, it is a rerun of a story that occurred nearly four thousand years ago.

Throughout my Christian life, I have always been mystified by the attitudes and the behavior of those who were the beneficiaries of God’s amazing deliverance during the great Exodus. Recall? The Israelites were in slavery and bondage; God sent deliverance through Moses, Aaron, and a host of miracles; the people left their oppression behind and began new lives; their progress to the Promised Land was slower and more difficult then they expected; they turned on Moses and made him, rather than the Egyptians, the object of their wrath. You would think that being out from under bondage and oppression was something in which to rejoice; but no, they wanted to complain and quit.

It seems that this general scenario might now be occurring in America. Ten years ago, the pro-family Christian community, politically speaking, was in Egypt. Oppressed by a Congress whose policies were often hostile to the traditional family and to people of faith, we were losing battle after battle in the war to preserve our religious and moral principles. Then a dramatic change occurred.

In the 1994 election, Christian voter turnout reached its high point of recent years, and as a result, scores of aggressive pro-family and pro-faith Congressmen were added to Congress–leaders like Steve Largent (OK), Todd Tiahart (KS), David MacIntosh (IN), J.C. Watts (OK), Linda Smith (WA), Zach Wamp(TN), Dave Weldon (FL), Helen Chenoweth (ID), and numerous others.

Then, as a result of the 1996 elections, the number of “good guys” in the Senate began to climb through the addition of pro-faith and pro-family Senators like Sam Brownback (KS), Tim Hutchinson (AR), Jeff Sessions (AL), and others. In addition, more pro-family members were added to the House, including Jim Ryun (KS), Joe Pitts (PA), Bob Adderhold (AL), etc. The changes during these two election cycles did, in fact, deliver America from the oppressive stranglehold which the Congress had held over the family.

Good Progress

It is true that we are not yet in the “Promised Land” in the sense that many of the policies that pro-family Christians desire have not yet occurred. In fact, some of the Congressional leadership have promised measures and failed to deliver. Nevertheless, we apparently are out of “Egypt,” and notwithstanding the harsh criticism leveled against Congress by many within our own ranks, several major victories have occurred in the past four years.

Recall that six years ago, Congress did not have the pro-life numbers to confront the issue of partial-birth abortions (a practice occurring for years), yet in the past four years, Congress has debated and twice banned the procedure.

Although President Clinton vetoed each ban, the House overrode his veto on both occasions; the override fell short only in the Senate. Isn’t this a clear improvement over where we were six years ago when we could not even debate the issue?

Additionally, Congress has passed numerous other pro-life measures, including, for the first time during President Clinton’s tenure, a ban on all abortions on U.S. military bases.

On the educational front, even though federal programs like Goals 2000 and School-to-Work have not been eliminated (due in large part to President Clinton’s lobbying efforts),the funding for those programs has been dramatically cut. In fact, in the last four years the House Education Committee has successfully eliminated105 of the 260 federal programs it oversees. Six years ago, this, too, was impossible.

Similarly, six years ago, we could not successfully challenge many homosexual issues, yet today a ban on recognizing same-sex marriages has been passed at the federal level. Also, the House (although not the Senate) halted all funding for the National Endowment for the Arts–something else which was absolutely unthinkable six years ago. The list of our victories, while only modest in some areas, continues to grow.

Taking the Offensive

Notice, too, that our battles are now offensive rather than defensive. That is, six years ago virtually all of our time was spent repelling the attacks of terrible measures like HR 6 (which would have placed private and home schools under the same federal regulations as public schools) and the lifting of the ban on gays in the military. Similarly, we were fighting off the policies of Roberta Achtenberg (an assistant-secretary of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) which would have imposed civil penalties on those who might share their faith in the public workplace.

Today, however, the battles are no longer primarily over which policies we should fight but rather over which of our measures should go forward. For example, the House Judiciary Committee passed and the House voted on a Constitutional Amendment designed to restore school prayer and to protect religious liberties. Although it did not receive the necessary two-thirds vote for passage, nevertheless, it is the furthest that this religious liberty issue has advanced in the House in thirty-six years!

In fact, a genuine spiritual change has occurred in the Congress, evidenced by the fact that ten years ago only 20 Congressmen were involved in weekly prayer meetings and Bible studies. Today, there are over 120. And in recent weeks, I have personally stood in the halls of the U.S. Capitol with some of these Godly Congressmen, singing hymns and offering prayers.

Unquestionably, we are better off today than we were six years ago.

No Time to Quit

Although we are further along than we have been in decades, I cannot recall a period of time in which I have heard so much complaining by Christians, nor seen so many who are so frustrated and discouraged. They seem determined to quit and go back.

Perhaps the problem is that many are judging progress against the promises of some Congressional leaders rather than against where we were six years ago.

Or perhaps it is simply a matter of impatience–that they want to enter the Promised Land sooner. If that is the case, it is wise to recall God’s clear pronouncement:

I will not drive your enemies out in one year. . . . Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you are increased and can inherit the land. Exodus [user_id]23:29-30

The Lord your God will drive your enemies out little by little; you may not consume them all at once. Deuteronomy 7:22

People always want change to happen faster than God seems to permit.

Returning to the Exodus analogy, recall that although Moses was the one chosen for the initial deliverance, he was not the one who led them into the Promised Land. Similarly, even though the current Congressional leaders were instrumental in the transition from generally hostile to generally family-friendly policies, they may not be the ones to complete the journey.

And just as the people forgot Moses’ accomplishments and began to attack and malign him, many Christians now consider the current Congress their enemy and, by the tens of thousands, are abandoning the difficult journey. Here we are on the verge of victory, within sight of the Promised Land, and–explain this–Christian voter turnout has begun to fall dramatically! That fall first evidenced itself in the 1996 elections (following eight consecutive years of increased Christian voter turnout) and has continued to plummet throughout this year’s primaries.

Who can seriously believe that abandonment will accelerate our journey? Instead of shaking our fists in frustration at the Congress in general, we should focus our energies on sending home Congressmen who oppose faith and family and replace them with pro-family, pro-faith leaders!

Are we really going to give back the last ten years of progress? I certainly hope not.

If you are one of those who is discouraged, don’t quit now. Place your faith in God, not in the Congress, or even in the American voters –and especially not in the current opinion polls. Galatians 6:9 promises that we will eventually win–if we don’t give up. So hang in there!

Don’t let future generations point to us as the American version of the Biblical story of the Exodus. As the Rev. Matthias Burnet warned nearly two hundred years ago, “Let not your children have reason to curse you for prostrating those institutions and giving up those rights which your fathers delivered unto you.”

Remembering the Fourth of July

This Fourth of July America celebrates its 222nd birthday! The Fourth of July is one of our most celebrated holidays, and has been for nearly two centuries–a fact confirmed by a very elderly John Quincy Adams in a speech he delivered on the 4th of July in 1837–America’s 61st birthday.

John Quincy Adams properly reminded the crowd that one of the most important elements of the American movement for independence had been its spiritual underpinnings. He asked:

Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, our most joyous and most venerated festival occurs on this day? And why is it that . . . thousands and tens of thousands among us . . . year after year . . . celebrat[e] the birthday of the nation? Is it not that . . . the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?

The fact that there was a spiritual emphasis at the birth of the nation was confirmed by numerous others. For example, Benjamin Kent, in a letter to Samuel Adams, declared: “It is God’s doing!”

So clearly did John Adams see God’s hand in America’s independence, he even believed that to help America achieve her independence was the single reason God had created him. As he told his wife, Abigail: “The Colonies must be declared free and independent States. . . . When these things shall be once well finished, or in a way of being so, I shall think that I have answered the end of my creation.”

In a similar tone, John Page (later a Virginia Governor) told Thomas Jefferson, “I am highly pleased with your Declaration God preserve the United States! We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong [Ecclesiastes 9:11]. Do you not think an Angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?”

Yet, declaring independence was only the beginning; much sacrifice, patience, and reliance on God would still be required. As signer of the Declaration Abraham Clark explained: “This seems now to be[gin] a trying season; but that indulgent Father who hath hitherto preserved us will, I trust, appear for our help, and prevent our being crushed; if otherwise, His will be done.”

Our Founders knew that without Gods help–or, as they announced in the Declaration itself–”a firm reliance on Divine Providence”–they would never achieve their objective.

While we celebrate our liberties this year, let us not forget that those liberties came only through great personal sacrifice: nine of the fifty-six signers of the Declaration died during the War; and five were captured by the British and tortured before their death; twelve had their homes destroyed by British troops; and three lost their sons to the enemy. Such sacrifices remind us that liberty is never free–every generation must defend it anew.

The possibility that we might forget the sacrifices necessary to preserve liberty was something which troubled our Founders. This was made clear in a letter from Dr. Benjamin Rush to John Adams after witnessing the celebration surrounding America’s 35th birthday in 1811. Dr. Rush told Adams:

The 4th of July has been celebrated in Philadelphia in the manner I expected. The military men, and particularly one of them, ran away with all the glory of the day. But scarcely a word was said of the solicitude and labors and fears and sorrows and sleepless nights of the men who projected, proposed, defended, and subscribed [signed] the Declaration of Independence. Do you recollect your memorable speech upon the day on which the vote was taken? Do you re collect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the House when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress [John Hancock] to subscribe what was believed by many at that time to be our own death warrants? The silence and the gloom of the morning were interrupted, I well recollect, only for a moment by Colonel Harrison of Virginia [a large and powerful man], who said to Mr. Gerry [a frail and tiny man] at the table [just before he signed the Declaration]: I shall have a great advantage over you, Mr. Gerry, when we are all hung for what we are now doing. From the size and weight of my body I shall die in a few minutes; but from the lightness of your body, you will dance in the air an hour or two before you are dead!” This speech procured a transient smile, but it was soon succeeded by the solemnity with which the whole business was conducted.

While we should remember the sacrifices, more importantly we should remember the proper manner to celebrate the 4th of July. What is the proper manner? The answer was given in a letter that John Adams wrote Abigail on the day they approved the Declaration. He forecast: “I am apt to believe that [this day] will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the ‘Day of Deliverance’ by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty!”

Celebrate the Fourth of July with fireworks and festivities and parades–but also celebrate it by setting aside a time to thank God for His numerous blessings upon our country.

Fall 1998

Thanksgiving in America

This month, America will continue a tradition begun centuries ago: the celebration of a Day of Thanksgiving. The origin of this tradition is commonly attributed to the Pilgrims in 1621, even though some Thanksgiving services did occur elsewhere in America as early as 1607. While Thanksgiving celebrations became common in New England, they did not begin to spread southward until the American Revolution, when Congress issued eight separate national Thanksgiving Proclamations.

Then in 1789, following a proclamation issued by President George Washington, America celebrated its first Day of Thanksgiving to God under its new Constitution. That same year, the Protestant Episcopal Church, of which President Washington was a member, announced that the first Thursday in November would become its regular day for giving thanks, “unless another day be appointed by the civil authorities.” Yet, despite these early national proclamations, official Thanksgiving observances usually occurred only at the State level.

Much of the credit for the adoption of an annual national Thanksgiving Day may be attributed to Mrs. Sarah Joseph Hale, the editor of Godey’s Lady’s Book. For thirty years, she promoted the idea of a national Thanksgiving Day, contacting President after President until President Abraham Lincoln responded in 1863 by setting aside the last Thursday of November as a national Day of Thanksgiving. Over the next seventy-five years, Presidents followed Lincoln’s precedent, annually declaring a national Thanksgiving Day. Then, in 1941, Congress permanently established the
fourth Thursday of each November as a national holiday.

Lincoln’s original 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation came–spiritually speaking–at a pivotal point in his life. During the first week of July of that year, the Battle of Gettysburg occurred, resulting in the loss of some 60,000 American lives. Four months later in November, Lincoln delivered his famous “Gettysburg Address.” It was while Lincoln was walking among the thousands of graves there at Gettysburg that he committed his life to Christ. As he explained to a friend:

When I left Springfield [to assume the Presidency] I asked the people to pray for me. I was not a Christian. When I buried my son, the severest trial of my life, I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg and saw the graves of thousands of our soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ.

Following is the 1863 Lincoln Thanksgiving Proclamation–celebrated shortly after Lincoln committed his life to Christ and celebrated while America was still in the midst of its Civil War. It was this proclamation which eventually led to the establishment of our national Thanksgiving holiday.

Proclamation of Thanksgiving by the President of the United States of America

The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful years and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the Source from which they come, others have been added which are of so extraordinary a nature that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of almighty God

In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign states to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere, except in the theater of military conflict, while that theater has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.

Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense have not arrested the plow, the shuttle, or the ship; the ax has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than theretofore.

Population has steadily increased notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege, and the battlefield, and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it, as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity, and union.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

 

Abraham Lincoln

 

A Biblical and Historical Perspective on the Clinton Scandal

The President, by his own admission, has violated several of the most basic laws undergirding both society and religion: the Ten Commandments. Specifically, the President willfully broke the 7th command (to maintain the sanctity of sex within marriage), the 10th command (forbidding coveting another person), and the 9th command (prohibiting perjury).

Such blatant violations of the Ten Commandments are no small matter. To reject the Ten Commandments is to disdain those laws which were described by John Quincy Adams as the “laws essential to the existence of men in society,” by John Adams as the “inviolable precepts in every society” that make it “civilized and free,” and by John Witherspoon as “the sum of the moral law.”

There can be nothing said in defense of the President. What he has done is wrong. Nevertheless, in an attempt to evade the consequences, the strategy pursued by the supporters and counselors of the President has been twofold: (1) to ask forgiveness and show public contrition, and (2) to degrade the culture by claiming that others also do what the President did–that it’s only sex–a private matter.

While seeking forgiveness is commendable, particularly if it is sincere, it never has, and never should, excuse someone from the consequences of his behavior. In fact, 1 Samuel 15:9-31 presents a striking parallel to the current situation. In that account, Saul, the national leader, committed a transgression. When Samuel uncovered and exposed the unrighteous act, Saul offered an apology, declaring, “I have sinned. . . . Now, I beg you, please forgive my sin.” Nevertheless, God had Samuel inform Saul that because of his behavior, “The Lord has rejected you as leader.” (See the account of a similar but separate incident in 1 Samuel 13:8-14.) Similar lessons may be learned through the stories of Esau, David, Hezekiah, Uzziah, Gehazi, and others. While each committed a wrong and later regretted his behavior, each still had to face the consequences of his own wrong behavior. In short, “I’m sorry” is insufficient to prevent the consequences of a leader’s willful, serious, and immoral misbehavior.

And the “everybody else is doing it” defense is wrong for at least two reasons. First, the Bible forcefully declares, on numerous occasions, that each person must face the consequences of and be responsible for his own actions—regardless of what “everybody” else does. (See, for example, Jeremiah 31:27-30). Second, to claim that such behavior is widespread and common undermines the mores of our society. In fact, the proper response should be to condemn the act rather than attempt excuse or justify the act. As explained by John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence:

[H]e is the best friend to American liberty who . . . sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind.

Under this standard, if the President’s supporters truly cared about America, rather than excusing immoral behavior, even if done “privately,” they would be condemning it. Unfortunately, the President’s defenders have done just the opposite, conveying to the public a perception that those who practice marital fidelity are the minority. That Americans actually perceive this to be the moral condition of America is illustrated by a poll earlier released by Family Circle magazine. The results of that survey, questioning respondents on the Ten Commandments, confirmed an interesting image of misperceptions.

For example, while only fourteen percent of the respondents had actually engaged in extramarital relations, amazingly, forty-five percent reported their belief that extramarital relations were common. Why would respondents believe that extramarital relations among that group occurred at a rate nearly three times higher than it actually did? Because they have been consistently pummeled–as a defense by those who engage in extramarital affairs–with the charge that such affairs are commonplace.

Not only do the efforts of the President’s supporters weaken the moral standards, they actually perpetuate historical revisionism. That is, in an attempt to excuse the President’s immoral behavior, his defenders are asserting that President George Washington also engaged in immoral and illicit sexual relations–a charge that is historically false. (To see a full rebuttal of the accusation, refer to chapter 16 in my book, Original Intent.)

A further point of defense raised by the President’s supporters is that this was a private matter and would an average citizen want an investigator looking into his life as the President’s has been? The fact of the matter is that the President is not an average citizen, and both the Bible and American history set a more rigorous standard for a leader. For example, James 3:1 warns:

Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

Similarly high standards for leaders are set forth in passages like Titus 1:6-9, 1 Timothy 3:1-12, Exodus 18:21-22, etc. Those standards specifically address moral and private conduct and also direct that a leader’s life should be held forth as a positive example for others to follow (see, for example, 1 Cor. 11:1). It is understandable that a leader is held to a higher standard than others because he possesses more power and has more opportunity to influence–for good or for bad–many more millions of lives than does the average citizen.

Our Founding Fathers understood this need for a higher moral standard in our leaders, and they specifically advocated investigating the private moral life of a leader. The Biblical reason underlying their logic is found in Luke 6:43-44 and Matthew 7:16-20, in which Jesus reminds us:

Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. . . . Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Very simply, if a tree has bad roots, it will produce bad fruits. Consequently, the “roots” of a public officer are important, for one who produces bad fruit in private life cannot keep from eventually producing it in public life.

Understanding this, Founding Father Elias Boudinot, a President of the Continental Congress, reminded us to “be religiously careful in our choice of all public officers . . . and judge of the tree by its fruits.” Other American statesmen made equally succinct declarations. For example:

He who is void of attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard of his country. There is seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his country who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections. . . . [P]rivate and public vices are in reality . . . connected. . . . Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of unexceptionable characters. The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men. Samuel Adams

 

Righteousness alone can exalt [America] as a nation. . . . [R]emember this! And in thy sphere practice virtue thyself, and encourage it in others. . . . [T]he great pillars of all government . . . [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible. Patrick Henry

 

As governments are made and moved by men, so by them they are ruined too. . . . Let men be good and the governplainfs22 ment cannot be bad. . . . But if men be bad, the government be never good. William Penn

 

[I]f we . . . trifle with the injunctions of morality . . . no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us. . . . [No] government [can] be secure which is not supported by moral habits. Daniel Webster

 

In selecting men for office . . . look to his character. . . . [I]f the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. . . . When a citizen gives his [vote] to a man of known immorality . . . he betrays the interest of his country. Noah Webster

 

Those who wish well to the State ought to choose to places of trust men of inward principle, justified by exemplary [lifestyle]. Is it reasonable to expect wisdom from the ignorant? fidelity from the profligate? assiduity and application to public business from men of a dissipated life? . . . Those, therefore, who pay no regard to religion and sobriety in the persons whom they [elect] are guilty of the greatest absurdity and will soon pay dear for their folly. John Witherspoon

 

While it is too late for us as voters to apply these lessons to our current President, it is not too late for us to apply these lessons to the present election. Remember to vote–and to vote for God-fearing and moral individuals. As the Bible reminds us in Proverbs 29:2: “When the righteous rule, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.”

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

In the midst of the debate surrounding a potential presidential impeachment, the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” has become a focal point. This phrase is found in Article II, Section 4, Par. 1, of the Constitution, and sets forth the reasons for the removal of a President:

The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Supporters of the President argue that what has been uncovered–thus far–does not amount to “high crimes and misdemeanors” like “treason [and] bribery.” While they admit the President’s actions to be disgusting and reprehensible, they claim that nevertheless they are not sufficiently serious felonies so as to constitute impeachable offenses.

Those who offer this argument are guilty of two errors: (1) they are ignorant of (or ignore) the clear declarations both of our Founding Fathers who authored this clause and of those who for a century-and-a-half afterwards enforced this clause, and (2) they group words together in the clause which should be kept separate that is, they talk of “high crimes and misdemeanors” as if they are they same thing; they are not.

The clause should be read “high crimes” and “misdemeanors”–two separate categories. No one can logically argue that a “high crime” is the same as a “misdemeanor.” What the Founding Fathers did in this clause was to offer a broad scope of impeachable offenses ranging from serious felonies (high crimes) to much lesser categories of misbehavior (misdemeanors).

This is further confirmed by the two specific examples the Founders included in the Constitution: treason and bribery. Treason was a serious capital offense, resulting in execution, while bribery–even though it was considered a moral wrong–was not yet a statutory crime when the Constitution was adopted! Clearly, then, what the Constitution specifies is a wide range of impeachable offenses, from high crimes (such as treason) to misdemeanors (such as bribery–not then illegal).

The definitions of “misdemeanor” confirmed this. For example, Alexander Hamilton and Justice Joseph Story (placed on the Supreme Court by President James Madison) defined a “misdemeanor” as political “malconduct,” and Noah Webster (responsible for the copyright and patent protection clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution) defined “misdemeanor” as “ill behavior, evil conduct, fault, or mismanagement.” Professor John Randolph Tucker (a U.S. Congressman, constitutional law professor, and early president of the American Bar Association) explained in his 1891 Commentaries on the Constitution that “misdemeanor” was “a synonym for misbehavior” and that “[t]he words ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ cannot be confined to crimes created and defined by a statute of the United States.”

Realizing, then, that the constitutional scope of impeachable offenses ranged from serious felonies down to misbehavior and evil conduct, Joseph Story, in his classic 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution, declared:

The offences to which the power of impeachment has been and is ordinarily applied as a remedy are. . . . what are aptly termed political offences, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interest.

And Professor John Randolph Tucker, in the 1891 Commentaries mentioned earlier, declared:

The process of impeachment is a political proceeding, against the accused as an officer of the government, to protect the government from the present or future incumbency of a man whose conduct has proved him unworthy to fill it. . . . The impeachment power was intended to cleanse the government from the presence of worthless and faithless individuals.

That this had been the intent of the Founding Fathers was irrefutable. For example, James Iredell (an original Supreme Court Justice appointed by President George Washington) succinctly declared:

Every government requires [impeachment]. Every man ought to be amenable for his conduct. . . . It will be not only the means of punishing misconduct but it will prevent misconduct. A man in public office who knows that there is no tribunal to punish him may be ready to deviate from his duty; but if he knows there is a tribunal for that purpose, although he may be a man of no principle, the very terror of punishment will perhaps deter him.

Therefore, in the current raging debate over what constitutes an impeachable offense, do not be misled by those who would define “high crimes” and “misdemeanors” as being the same, and then who raise the bar for impeachment so high that it protects an individual from being accountable for his conduct.

Meet a Friend

Once again, it is a pleasure to highlight an organization that is having a profound impact on our society. The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools is getting the Bible back into public schools nationwide. Founded in 1994 by Elizabeth Ridenour, this organization helps public schools set up elective Bible courses by first educating them to the fact that the courses are completely constitutional and then by providing the curriculum for the courses, with the Bible itself being the primary textbook.

According to the NCBCPS, the ultimate goals of these courses, in part, are to “equip the student with
a fundamental understanding of the influence of the Bible on history, law, American community life, and culture; give insight into the world views of America’sfounding fathers and to understand the Biblical influences on their views on human rights; . . . [and] familiarize the student with the Bible so that he or she becomes skillful in its use, such as finding references easily.” Currently, fifty-seven districts in twenty-six States have started teaching the Bible as an elective in public schools.

Late Summer 1998

A “Do-Nothing Congress”? Says Who?

America is unquestionably engaged in a culture war. On one side are Christians and other devout people of faith who embrace traditional and Christian family values, and on the other side are the secularists, humanists, separationists, and others who want a society free from Christian influence or traditions. The battlegrounds for the culture war are the primary power centers of the pulpit, education, government, and media. How are we doing in each?

Generally, the pulpit is still strongly supportive of Christian values in public; while occasionally silent, only rarely is it antagonistic. Despite positive gains in recent years, by and large the education establishment remains generally hostile to Christian values. In government, the Executive and the Judicial branches demonstrate a clear hostility while the Legislative branch is becoming an ally. And although the media is beginning to improve (as evidenced by the explosion of conservative talk-radio), the major outlets continue to be hostile. Yet, despite the fact that three of the four power centers currently reject Christian values, the overwhelming majority of Americans embrace those values, as confirmed by polls on belief in God, church attendance, support for school prayer, opposition to sodomy, support of traditional marriage, etc.

Therefore, since those parties advancing anti-Christian values are actually in the minority, to gain public support, they must do everything they can to portray themselves as the majority, pursuing reasonable and rational goals. Thus, they publicize their own victories (which means highlighting our defeats) while minimizing word of their defeats (by suppressing the reports of our victories).

An excellent example of this tactic is the media’s current characterization that we have a “do-nothing Congress.” This charge means either that (1) Congress actually has done nothing (at least according to the media’s agenda) or (2) Congress has furthered the Christian values agenda, and thus every effort must be made to halt this progress. Both suppositions are correct, especially the second one. As proof, consider the following facts:

Protecting Human Life

  • Congress expanded the Hyde Amendment ban on taxpayer-financed abortions in federal health programs to also include managed-care arrangements, Medicaid, Title X family planning assistance, Title XX social services Block Grants to States, and the Children’s Health-Insurance Block-Grant Program (Public Law 105-33).
  • Congress restored the ban–which President Clinton had lifted–on taxpayer-financed abortions in U.S. military facilities (Public Law 104-106), on abortion coverage in the federal employees health benefits program (Public Law 104-52), on taxpayer-financed abortions in the District of Columbia (Public Law 104-134), and on taxpayer-financed abortions in federal prisons (Public Law 104-134).
  • Congress permanently prohibited the American Council of Graduate Medical Education from forcing medical schools to require the performance of abortions (Public Law 104-134).
  • Congress also banned abortion litigation by the Legal Services Corporation (a government funded legal service), federal funding for assisted suicide and euthanasia (Public Law 105-12), and taxpayer-funded human embryo research (Public Law 104-134).
  • Congress has twice banned the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortions, and has fallen short of the two-thirds vote necessary to override President Clinton’s veto by only three votes in the Senate.

Promoting Marriage and the Family

  • Congress passed the “Defense of Marriage Act” which (1) federally defines “marriage” as “the union of one man and one woman as man and wife” for purposes of all federal benefits, and (2) allows each State (rather than unelected judges) to define marriage according to their traditions and values (Public Law 104-199).
  • Congress enacted several strong pro-marriage provisions as part of welfare reform, including a bonus system to reward States which reduce out-of-wedlock birth rates without increasing abortions (Public Law 104-193).
  • Congress enacted a permanent $500 per-child tax credit (Public Law 105-34) and passed homemaker IRAs so that work-at-home spouses could set aside up to $2,000 a year in a tax-deferred retirement savings (Public Law 104-188).
  • Congress made major reforms in adoption policies, including enacting (1) a $5,000 tax credit for adoption expenses, (2) a $6,000 tax credit for hard-to-place special-needs children, (3) a ban on “race matching” by adoption agencies so minority children can be placed in any loving family (Public Law 104-188), and (4) an accelerated procedure for moving abused and neglected children from foster homes into adoptive homes (Public Law 105-89).

Religious Liberties

  • Congress has advanced a number of religious liberty bills, including the first ever vote on a School Prayer Amendment by both the Judiciary Committee and the whole House, a bill to penalize those countries who participate in or condone the persecution of Christians and other people of faith (e.g., China, Sudan, Pakistan, Laos, etc.), a bill to protect the public display of the Ten Commandments, and a number of other positive bills. While not all of these bills were signed into law by the President, nevertheless, this is the best session the Congress has had on the issue of religious liberty in recent memory.
  • Congress passed a bill to allow faith-based charities to participate in delivering welfare benefits (Public Law 104-193).

Education

  • Of the 260 federal education programs overseen by the House Education Committee, 105 of the programs have been eliminated.
  • Congress passed a permanent ban on funding for Clinton’s federal testing scheme (the foundation for his plan for a national curriculum).
  • Congress killed a proposed new tax on education benefits for the children of school faculty members–a tax specifically targeted at teachers in religious schools (this was a big win for private religious schools).
  • Congress enacted educational IRAs to cover expenses for public, private, and home schools, and passed a school-choice voucher bill for students in Washington, D. C., (both bills were vetoed by the President).

Morality

  • Congress banned the funding of obscene art (Public Law 104-134), the distribution of indecent or patently offensive material to minors over the Internet (Public Law 104-104), the sale of pornography at military facilities (Public Law 104-106), and taxpayer-funded needle-exchange programs.
  • Congress strengthened child pornography laws (Public Law 104-71).
  • Congress funded $50 million dollars for abstinence-education programs (Public Law 104-193).
  • Congress moved against the gambling industry, appointing pro-family hero Kay James as the Chairman of the National Gambling Impact Commission to investigate and report on the effects of gambling (Public Law 104-169).

Other Issues

Also, Congress has pursued a number of measures to reverse judicial activism and to limit judicial intrusiveness and micromanagement. Additionally, Congress prohibited the United Nations command of U. S. troops, but that bill–like so many other good bills–was vetoed by the President.

Upcoming Votes

There are still a number of important votes scheduled for the final weeks of this Congress, including:

  • A ban (for the third time) on partial-birth abortions.
  • A ban on transporting minors across State lines in order to evade parental-consent or parental-notification abortion restrictions.
  • A ban on discrimination against homeschoolers and Christian schoolers in college admissions.
  • A Constitutional Amendment to prohibit the desecration of the flag.

Obviously, Congress has done much to advance Christian and traditional family values, and just as obviously, most citizens have not heard of these victories. Instead, they have been told that we elected a “do-nothing Congress.”

To understand the reason for this fallacious charge, recall how this Congress came to be. Between 1988 and 1994, the numbers of evangelical Christian voters rapidly increased. Those Evangelical voters were largely responsible for the infamous “Voter Revolution” of 1994 followed by the 1996 Senate elections. Those two elections swept scores of conservative Christians into Congress and thus changed not only the composition but also the agenda of the Congress. The secularists understand that they are in serious trouble if Christians return to the polls in 1998. And what better way to keep Christians home in this year’s elections than by telling them that all their hard work of recent years was a complete waste of time–that all it produced was a “do-nothing Congress.”

Unfortunately, many Christians have believed this propaganda. But the truth is that we are making a difference–our efforts are having an effect! Don’t be talked out of your vote in November! Remember the advice of two ministers of the Gospel, James A. Garfield and Charles Finney. Finney–a leader in America’s Second Great Awakening–reminded the Christians of his day that:

The Church must take right ground in regard to politics. . . . The time has come that Christians must vote for honest men and take consistent ground in politics. . . . God cannot sustain this free and blessed country which we love and pray for unless the Church will take right ground. Politics are a part of a religion in such a country as this, and Christians must do their duty to the country as a part of their duty to God. . . . [God] will bless or curse this nation according to the course they [Christians] take [in politics].

Then, fifty years later, James A. Garfield, our 20th President, reminded the Christians in his day:

Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. . . . If the next centennial does not find us a great nation . . . it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.

The message of the last two centuries still resounds for us today. We must “take right ground in regard to politics” and “aid in controlling the political forces” by being active in this year’s elections.

One of the tools which can help motivate those around you to be involved is our award-winning video “Keys to Good Government.” I encourage you to get a copy of this video and show it to you family, friends, church, and others within your sphere of influence. Our duty is not only to vote, but to vote for the right type of leaders. As Proverbs 29:2 reminds us, “When the righteous rule, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.” This video will help motivate citizens to vote–and to vote according to Biblical principles.

Summer 2005

We have closed yet another school year – America’s 363rd since the passage of its first public education law. Many changes in education have occurred over the past four centuries; this report will focus on the current state of education in America.

Americans & Education

Americans cherish education. Jesus said: “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matthew 6:21). We spend over $470 billion each year on education; therefore, judging by the amount of “treasure” we invest in education, it must be dear to our hearts. Sadly, however, current statistics demonstrate that Americans are not getting a good return on their investment.
American students now regularly finish at the bottom in international competitions in math and science. Recent international testing found that American elementary students performed above average, junior high students at average, and high school students below average. This sequence of results prompted one observer to remark: “The longer US students stay in school, the less they seem to know.”

America’s education system has become so substandard that it actually prevents many students from entering post-graduate work. As national columnist Thomas Sowell confirms: “For years, most of the PhDs awarded by American universities in mathematics and engineering have gone to foreigners. We have the finest graduate schools in the world – so fine that our own American students have trouble getting admitted in fields that require highly trained minds.”

Despite the fact that America far outspends other nations on education, our students are outperformed by students from Poland, the Slovak Republic, Czechoslovakia, Iceland, China, Taiwan, Canada, Korea, Wales, and many other nations. America currently has one of the poorest outcomes per education dollar spent among all industrial nations.

The performance of American education is now so poor that the US Department of Education has concluded:

The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a People. . . . If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves.

What has caused the current problems with American education? Three significant factors will be examined in this report: (1) the current philosophy of education; (2) curricular content; and (3) teacher competency.

(Addressing this third category may offend some, but as Jesus noted in Luke 6:40: “Every student, when he is fully trained, will be like his teacher.” It is therefore appropriate to examine whether academic scores are falling because students are becoming like their teachers.)

Changing Philosophy of Education

Unbeknown to most Americans, in the last few years the philosophy of education has been radically transformed in basic subjects such as reading, grammar, and math.

Math

In recent months, a controversy has emerged in Massachusetts; many shocked parents have become aware that teaching math is no longer the top priority for math teachers. Written priority #1 in the new standards for math class is to teach “respect for human differences” and “live out the system-wide core value of ‘respect for human differences’ by demonstrating anti-racist/anti-bias behaviors.” Written priority #2 is “problem solving and representation – students will build new mathematical knowledge as they use a variety of techniques to investigate and represent solutions to problems.”

The primary purpose of math no longer is the teaching of math skills (i.e., learning to use fractions and integers, or doing multiplication and division); it is now viewpoint inculcation. When challenged as to the source of this new philosophy, school officials pointed to the “Principles and Standards for School Mathematics” from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM).

A stark example of this new math philosophy is exhibited in the recent textbook that some have dubbed “rain-forest algebra.” In that 800+ page text, not a single question on math was asked until page 107. The first 107 pages were dedicated to coverage of Maya Angelou poetry, competitive chili cook-offs, the Dogon tribe of West Africa, etc. In fact, the questions in that math book included: “What role should zoos play in today’s society?”; “What other kinds of pollution besides air pollution might threaten our planet?”; and “The topic for the essay this year is ‘Why should we save an endangered species?’”

A US Senator correctly summarized the effect of such texts: “This new mush-mush math will never produce quality engineers or mathematicians who can compete for jobs in the global market place. In Palo Alto, California, public school math students plummeted from the 86th percentile to the 56th in the first year of new math teaching. This awful textbook obviously fails to do in 812 pages what comparable Japanese textbooks do so well in 200. The average standardized math score in Japan is 80; in the United States it is 52.”

Grammar

Just as the national council of math teachers has changed its emphasis, so, too, has the National Council of English Teachers. Claiming that providing grammar instruction, and teaching fundamental skills such as diagramming sentences, only bores students and turns them off to writing, such training was dropped several years ago. The result? A recent national study revealed that a meager one-fourth of students can now write at a proficient level – and only 1 percent can write at an advanced level.

Reading

In reading, national educational groups and teaching professionals demanded that phonics be dropped and whole-language reading be adopted instead. Scores plummeted; in fact, they tumbled so far that the California Board of Education eventually took what one national newspaper described as “the drastic step” of re-adopting phonics – of going back to what had worked for generations. Reading scores have since shown some recovery, but millions of students have incurred lasting academic handicaps in the meantime.

Encouraging Achievement

The new philosophy of education also opposes any competition that recognizes student achievement. As a result, many schools no longer post honor rolls or exemplary work on bulletin boards. Also disappearing from local schools are publicly graded events such as spelling bees as well as other academic competitions. As one elementary principal explains: “I discourage competitive games at school. They just don’t fit my worldview of what a school should be.”

Many traditional educational practices no longer fit the new “worldview of what a school should be” – including homework. Education specialists amazingly claim that doing away with homework will “give kids ownership over their education.”

The use of red ink also does not fit the new educational worldview; and in schools from New York to Alaska, red ink is now on the educational blacklist. Explains a Massachusetts teacher: “If you see a whole paper of red, it looks pretty frightening. Purple stands out, but it doesn’t look as scary as red.” A Florida teacher agreed: “I do not use red; red has a negative connotation, and we want to promote self-confidence. I like purple. I use purple a lot.” Color consultants concur: “Red is a bit over-the-top in its aggression.”

Of course, that is just the opinion of teachers and educational specialists; then there is the opinion of a student who voiced the common sense that the experts seem to lack: “I hate red. But because I hate it, I want to work harder to make sure there isn’t any red on my papers.”

School Discipline

Under the new educational worldview, students with the worst behavioral problems are protected from any accountability so long as they also have certain academic so-called weaknesses. For example, a Virginia student brought a loaded gun to school – and bragged about it – but went unpunished because he had been diagnosed with a “weakness in written language skills.” Similarly, a Georgia student repeatedly urinated on his classmates, but because of a similar “diagnosis,” he could not be punished. In Pennsylvania, a student set fire to a school cafeteria; upon being disciplined, he filed and won a federal lawsuit against the school for violating his rights. And in Oklahoma, a public school suspended nearly all of the sixth-grade class for disruptions and quasi-riots. The principal ruefully estimated that teachers now “spend 85 percent of their time reprimanding students.”

Since schools cannot punish the real offenders, they apparently go after whomever they can punish. For example, a 13- year old was recently ordered suspended for 10 days from a Florida school for committing a Level 4 offense – the most serious level. The offense? He “assaulted” and threatened others with a “weapon” (he shot a rubber band). In another school, two kindergartners were sent home for “assault” with “weapons” (they had pointed their fingers at each other and said “bang!”).

Viewpoint Indoctrination

While core academics, discipline, and red ink do not fit the new “worldview of what a school should be,” viewpoint indoctrination does. For example, the largest teacher’s group in America (the National Education Association) aggressively promotes what it calls “diversity education”; it has been relatively successful in passing state laws mandating such teaching at all grade levels.

In compliance with such a law, schools in one state held a “Week of Diversity” in which outside speakers made 82 presentations to students. Of the 82 presentations, 14 were pro-homosexual; 11 were pro-left, urging support for communist Cuba, guerilla forces in Columbia, etc.; 17 promoted animal rights, vegetarianism, and radical environmentalism; and 5 were anti-law enforcement. A week of academic instruction was sacrificed in order to indoctrinate specific viewpoints.

Another clear indication of viewpoint indoctrination was evident in the NEA lesson-plan distributed nationally to teachers following the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The lesson taught that no group was responsible for the attacks and that instead, teachers should discuss “historical instances of American intolerance” in order to avoid “repeating terrible mistakes.” Unfortunately, the new educational “diversity” regularly expresses itself in anti-Americanism.

Apparently, many professional educators now want to be known more for introducing something “new” or “innovative” than for the success of the students they teach. Consequently, academics take a backseat as students become classroom guinea pigs for a new generation of educrats. Peter Murphy, a New York educational consultant, properly asks: “How many more years of declining scores will it take for the school committee and state officials to put a stop to this educational malpractice on schoolchildren?”

Evangelists for a New Worldview

Who has been behind these radical changes? A new breed of professional educators – working through two primary vehicles: teachers’ colleges, and teachers’ unions.

Concerning the former, a professor writing in the Texas Education Review charges: “Schools of education have been transformed into agencies of social change with mandates to achieve equality at all costs. Colleges of education no longer believe that knowledge should be the center of the educational enterprise. Colleges of education do not serve the interests of children or parents. Instead, they serve the interests of an educational bureaucracy by pushing the growth of the profession, protecting it from competition, and discouraging outside scrutiny.”

Anyone who doubts the accuracy of these charges need only review the resolutions passed at the annual NEA conventions. Those resolutions routinely avoid academic issues and instead advocate the teaching of social positions that most Americans oppose. For example, at recent conventions, NEA educators have passed resolutions calling for schools to encourage:

• Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people
• Globalism and nuclear disarmament
• The United Nations and the International Court of Justice
• School-based health clinics that promote abortion
• National healthcare, population control, and Earth Day
• Multi-culturalism and diversity education
• Pre-K-12 AIDS programs (yes, pre-K:
AIDS education for three and four-year-olds!)

While the NEA supports these issues, it also opposes many, including:

• Competency testing of teachers
• Standardized testing to evaluate students, teachers, or schools
• Educational choice or competition in education
• Homeschooling
• “Homophobia” (the belief that homosexuality is wrong or that marriage should
be between a man and a woman)
• A moment of silence to open the school day

Where is the emphasis on academics? Conspicuously absent. As one national columnist queried: “Since the National Education Association describes itself as ‘America’s largest organization committed to advancing the cause of public education,’ is it not fair to ask why it spends so much of its energy on political issues having little to do with education?” That point was not lost on all NEA delegates (some teachers do oppose the current direction of the NEA, but they are in a clear minority); in fact, one such delegate – after seeing the resolutions passed at the convention – lamented: “We’re the National Education Association, not the National Everything Association.”

Results of this Philosophy

The academic weaknesses of this new educational worldview are statistically measurable in a number of curricular areas.

Civics & Citizenship

According to current studies, after twelve years of school, only a meager 26 percent of students have enough preparation in civics to make informed choices at the polls. Imagine! American education currently is producing only one in four students capable of informed voting!

Furthermore, only 9 percent can name two ways that society benefits from the active participation of its citizens. And while 80 percent of students can name the winner of “American Idol,” only half know the political affiliation of their own state governor; and less than 10 percent can name both of their US Senators. Our educational system simply no longer produces civically prepared, well-informed citizens.

Geography

Thirty-four percent of students know that the island on the “Survivor” television program was in the South Pacific, but only 30 percent can find New Jersey on a United States map; 50 percent of students cannot find New York and 30 percent cannot locate the Pacific Ocean. And although Americans have been involved in a lengthy war in Iraq, only 13 percent of students can find Iraq on a map.

Reading & Math

By the fourth grade, only 30 percent of students are competent in reading and math; the number is much lower by the eighth-grade level; and by the end of high school, less than one fourth of college-bound students have the basic academic knowledge necessary to succeed in college (one can imagine how much worse it is for non-college-bound students).

History

Only one in ten high school seniors is proficient in American history. Why? Because the new educational worldview emphasizes behavior rather than knowledge. Consequently, the recent history standards proposed by the State of New Jersey excluded the Pilgrims and the Mayflower, and George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson. This trend has been growing for a decade, and a number of states now teach what is called “The Twentieth Century Model” under which high school students are taught only 20th century history. According to one astute educational observer, in American schools “history is not dumbed down, but erased.”

Consequently, 70 percent of fourth-graders thought that Illinois, Texas, and California were part of the original 13 colonies; and 60 percent had no idea why the Pilgrims came to America. And when students were asked to identify “Memorial Day,” the most common answer was, “The day when the pools open.” Recent testimony before a congressional hearing correctly concluded: “We are raising a generation of people who are historically illiterate.”

Ignoring the Obvious

The above academic results have been revealed primarily through independent surveys of students rather than through academic testing conducted by educators. Why? Recall the position of the teachers’ unions? “The [NEA] opposes the use of standardized tests when . . . results are used to compare students, teachers, programs, schools, communities, and states.”

Professional educators oppose testing and argue that it is not an accurate measure of what students really know. Of course, they offer no other proposal for measuring student knowledge; they just don’t like testing that exposes academic weaknesses, and thus could lead to teacher accountability.

Despite the opposition of educators to testing, legislators are beginning to demand it – but they are not liking what they find. For example, in Virginia, students were required to pass a state exam, but when 93 percent of students failed the test, the requirement was dropped.

In other states where legislators require testing, educators find ways to evade the purpose of the tests by simply lowering the bar. For example, in Florida, 13,000 high school seniors failed to pass the state exit test. (Originally many more had failed, but the passing grade was lowered to only 40 percent to reduce the number of failures to just 13,000!) Similarly, so many students were having difficulty passing the state’s required history test that the passing score was lowered to a mere 23 out of 100 – that is, students can get three out of four history answers wrong and still pass the test!

So what do educators propose as a solution for these high failure rates? According to national columnist Thomas Sowell: “The National Education Association – the biggest teachers’ union in the country – is urging that an extra year be added to high school for those students who fail to meet the standards for graduation. In other words, when educators fail to educate for 12 years, the 13th year will be the charm.” Too many students now spend their educational career in what one commentator described as “legally enforced incarceration in government buildings that are euphemistically called schools.”

Many of the good public school educators have come to recognize that public schools are no place to educate their own children. In fact, public school teachers are twice as likely as other parents to place their own children in private schools – including 44 percent of public school teachers in Philadelphia, 41 percent in Cincinnati, 39 percent in Chicago, etc. Why do so many public school teachers place their own children in private schools? A common answer given by these educators is: “Private and religious schools impose greater discipline, achieve higher academic achievement, and offer overall a better atmosphere.”

A Call for Results – and an Unexpected Response

Educators unreasonably assert that the current problems in education can be fixed only through more money and higher teacher salaries. Most citizens see a different problem; as Star Parker of the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education pointedly notes: “Businesses that face competition deliver more and more for less and less. Monopolies deliver less and less for more and more. What else can we expect from the NEA and government school monopoly than claims that spending is the alleged answer for everything?”

The public is starting to deafen to the incessant and unceasing clamor for more money and is instead beginning to demand more bang for the buck. As a result, laws are now being crafted at the state and federal levels that attach school funding to academic performance but because teachers’ jobs may now depend on how well they teach as measured by objective testing scores, some schools and teachers are taking unorthodox steps to ensure that scores remain high: they have resorted to cheating.

For example, on the accountability test in Texas, organized teacher-led cheating was uncovered. What initially alerted investigators to the cheating? An elementary school in Dallas in which students had previously ranked in the bottom 4th percentile in one year, suddenly finished as the second best school in the state the next year. Similar teacher-led cheating has been exposed in Nevada, Mississippi, Massachusetts, Ohio, New York, Michigan, Connecticut, Kentucky, South Carolina, Arizona, and elsewhere. In the classic “end justifies the means” mentality, teachers from the new educational worldview are simply cheating to help bolster testing scores and preserve their jobs.

One testing expert correctly notes: “When you have a system where test scores have real impact on teacher’s lives, you’re more likely to see teachers willing to cheat.” And because the problem of teacher-led cheating is growing rather than shrinking, a whole new industry has sprung up to provide monitoring of
teachers as they administer tests. Perhaps a reporter from the Indianapolis Star best summarized this new trend when he said: “I hope people are aware of the irony of the situation that America now faces. We are talking about how to keep teachers from cheating.”

Teacher Competency

Because the current rash of testing has revealed deep academic weaknesses in students, attention properly has been focused on teachers: why can’t teachers produce students with a grasp of academic basics? There may be many answers, but statistics irrefutably document that one of the causes is a widespread epidemic of academically incompetent teachers.

The federal government’s own National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports that college education majors have the lowest Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores of any undergraduate major. And the results of the standardized entry exam for students seeking post-graduate degrees reveals that education majors have the second-lowest scores of all majors. And if an education major decides to enter law, the LSAT (the Law School Admission Test) shows that education majors rank at the bottom – 26th out of 29 majors. This is not to suggest that all teachers lack basic academic knowledge; but the fact is undeniable that their profession ranks as one of the lowest in academic competency.

Sadly, once these low-performing education majors become teachers, states demand even less from them. For example, of the 29 states that test teachers, only one requires math teachers to attain the national average in math to be able to teach math; and no state currently requires a teacher to reach the national average in reading in order to teach reading. In many states, a teacher can score in the bottom quarter in math and reading and still be rated competent to teach those subjects. In the current system, it is relatively easy for underperforming teachers to be certified.

Once certified, many states require teachers to participate in some form of continuing education to stay certified. The concept is reasonable on paper, yet teachers in Illinois get professional development credits for taking Tai Chi classes, learning to give massages, and for gambling at racetracks. For gambling at racetracks? Reporters who investigated that class reported: “The afternoon of gambling was part of a two day, 15-credit hour class called ‘Probabilities in Gaming.’ The teachers learned how to read the racing guide and calculate the payout. Before placing their bets, they discussed betting odds and how to pick a winner, such as considering the age of the horse and the days since his last race. . . . The professor who taught this course claimed that a day at the race track gets teachers excited about math.”

Regrettably, when groups clamor for “certified” teachers, today the phrase has become relatively meaningless. In fact, home-schooled students average 30 to 37 academic points higher than their counterparts in public schools on the same academic tests, even though less than 14 percent of homeschool “teachers” (i.e., moms) are certified. Similar results are seen in private schools, where the majority of teachers are not certified yet produce academic results well above their counterparts in public schools. Public school certification is no longer any assurance of quality.

Teachers Oppose Accountability

Not only are teachers’ scores collectively among the lowest of all groups in the nation, but teachers’ groups stridently resist efforts to raise the bar. For example, in Massachusetts, suit has been filed against the testing of math teachers, claiming that such testing is “unfair, illegal and discriminatory.” As national commentator Thomas Sowell points out, teachers appear to be saying, “We know our algebra and geometry so well that we don’t want anybody testing us to find out. . . . What makes this huffy response especially ironic is that over half the applicants for teaching jobs in Massachusetts a couple of years ago failed a very simple test. Here is a chance for Massachusetts educators to vindicate themselves and prove their critics wrong. Yet somehow they are passing up this golden opportunity.”

Similarly, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports that in Philadelphia, “half of the district’s 690 middle school teachers who took exams in math, English, social studies and science in September and November failed.” Notice: half of the currently-certified teachers failed the relatively easy state teaching test but are still teaching in the classroom! Why have so few heard about this? Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell explains, “releasing the data could subject teachers to humiliation.” Great! – permanently impair students rather than embarrass incompetent teachers!

This “circle the wagons” mentality to defend failure is predictable, though illogical. Chester Finn of the Fordham Foundation seemed to express the thoughts of most rational Americans when he stated: “Pressure to perform is not a bad thing. Educators have been spared it for so long that they’ve forgotten that it’s part of life in almost every other line of work. I mean, bus drivers are under pressure not to crash their buses. Prison guards are under pressure not to let their prisoners escape. Doctors are under pressure not to let their patients die. Lawyers are under pressure to win their lawsuits. Everybody is under pressure
in their job. Educators have had this curious sort of charmed life in which results don’t matter. This is just nuts.”

Dismissing Incompetent Teachers

So why not just get rid of incompetent teachers? Because under the current tenure rules, getting rid of just one teacher can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses and years of time. For example, it took three years to get rid of a teacher who engaged in brawls with students, was unable to control her classrooms, and who changed her name to “God”; it took four years to get rid of a teacher who refused to follow a lesson plan and who swore at her students; it took five years to get rid of a teacher who showed first-graders a R-rated movie; and it took eight years and $300,000 to get rid of a teacher who refused to answer students’ questions in class.

In Los Angeles, it is so difficult to get rid of incompetent teachers that in that district of 35,000 teachers, over the span of a decade the district was able to get rid of only one incompetent teacher. And of the 300,000 teachers in California, only 227 were dismissed over that same decade – only one-tenth of one percent were dismissed as incompetent, despite the fact that national studies find as high as 18 percent of current teachers are incompetent. One school official lamented, “It takes longer to fire a teacher than to convict a murderer.” A state legislator agreed: “Unless you’re molesting children or robbing banks, you can’t be fired.”

The story is the same in state after state – all because of tenure. (Currently, all states provide, and about 80 percent of teachers have been awarded, tenure.) A Florida group properly notes that tenure “creates an environment where there is simply no incentive to be a good teacher. . . . Serving time is what is rewarded, not teaching excellence.” A California school board member agrees: “Good teachers do not need tenure. Poor or incompetent teachers use it to protect their jobs.”

So why do educational unions fight so hard for teacher tenure, and then fight so hard to keep incompetent teachers from being dismissed? As one Kansas legislator explained: “Unions fight for poor-performing teachers because then the schools hire more remedial teachers. More teachers equals more money for the union. . . . They want as many teachers as possible making as much money as possible. . . . It means more teachers, more pay, more money for the union.”

Summary

The successful philosophy of education that characterized America for centuries clearly has undergone a radical revolution in recent years. Many are unaware of the changes, and others are simply complacent about them. Yet, every citizen should be concerned and informed about the condition of education. As educator Noah Webster long ago warned:

The education of youth should be watched with the most scrupulous attention. . . . [I]t is much easier to introduce and establish an effectual system . . . than to correct by penal statutes the ill effects of a bad system. . . . The education of youth . . . lays the foundations on which both law and gospel rest for success.

It is our responsibility as citizens not only to protect the proven educational philosophy that made and has kept America great but also to do everything that we can to transmit a successful educational philosophy to future generations, just as our forebears did throughout the first four centuries of American education.

A Solution

What is the solution for many of the education problems that America now faces? Much of the answer may be found in a new DVD we have just introduced on the national market: Four Centuries of American Education. (This new work was entered into national competitions with works from groups such as CBS, HBO, Paramount, Fox, etc., and won the top award in its class!)

Four Centuries of American Education examines education both past and present. It presents not only many of America’s greatest textbooks but also its greatest educators from Benjamin Rush and William McGuffey to Emma Willard and Booker T. Washington. It documents what long made America a world leader in education, what caused the change, and what can be done to re-attain genuine educational achievement.

Four Centuries of American Education is an excellent tool for educating others about our educational system and is appropriate for use at home or school, or in churches or civic clubs. The remarkable information in this work will both challenge and inspire you.

Black History Issue 2005

African American History Month provides an excellent opportunity for WallBuilders to accomplish its mission of “presenting America’s forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on our moral, religious, and constitutional heritage.”

In this year’s issue, WallBuilders will highlight three notable (but often forgotten) ministers who were active before and during the national revival known as the Second Great Awakening (1795- 1845). These black ministers labored alongside white Christians and preached to both white and black congregations.

This should not seem unusual, however, for truly mature followers of Christ in all eras have long recognized that there are not several races but only two: the believer and the nonbeliever (Galatians 3:28 & Colossians 3:11). The stories of these three ministers are inspiring and are characterized by sacrifice and Christian courage.

African American poet James Weldon Johnson (1871-1938) properly said of these ministers:

The old-time Negro preacher has not yet been given the niche in which he properly belongs. . . . It was through him that the people of diverse languages and customs, who were brought here from diverse parts of Africa and thrown into slavery, were given their first sense of unity and solidarity. He was the first shepherd of the bewildered flock. His power for good or ill was very great. It was the old-time preacher who for generations was the mainspring of hope and inspiration for the Negro in America.

The Rev. Andrew Bryan 1737-1812

Andrew Bryan was born in slavery and grew up as a slave on a plantation in South Carolina. In 1782, Andrew and his wife Hannah became Christians under the preaching of the Rev. George Liele (1752 – 1828), an African American born into slavery who ministered the Gospel to other slaves. (Liele was the first African American ordained as a Baptist preacher.) Only nine months after his conversion, Andrew – still a slave – was preaching to both black and white congregations. He evangelized slaves on neighboring plantations and erected a crude wooden church; his congregation grew rapidly, attended by both blacks and whites. On January 20, 1788, Bryan was ordained as a Baptist minister.
As a result of the rapid growth of his church, persecution was initiated by nearby slave owners who feared a revolt if slaves heard the message of freedom in the Gospel. Hundreds of converted slaves not only were denied water baptism by their masters but also were forbidden to attend Bryan’s services. Many who did attend were flogged and severely punished, and even Andrew was whipped, beaten, and imprisoned (much like Paul and Silas in Acts 16:19-25), and his church was seized. (Andrew’s master, who supported his ministry, helped arrange his release from jail.)

Was Andrew bitter at this unjust treatment? Not at all. Instead, just as Jesus had instructed in Matthew 5, Andrew exulted in his persecution, proclaiming that “he rejoiced not only to be whipped but would freely suffer death for the cause of Jesus Christ;” he also prayed for the men who had persecuted him. This Christ-like behavior in Andrew won the respect of many observers.

Upon the death of his “master” in 1790, Andrew purchased his freedom and that of his wife. In 1794, several influential whites helped him raise the money to purchase property upon which to build a new church – the Bryan Street African Baptist Church (the first black Baptist church in America). Andrew then purchased a lot near the church upon which to build his home.

Within six years, the church had grown to almost 700 members (a large church at any time, it definitely was a mega-church in that era). In 1800, the church was reorganized as the First African Baptist Church of Savannah, and one of its ministries was a black Sabbath school – the first in the city. However, because Andrew’s goal was not simply to have a large congregation and an impressive church, in 1802 he deliberately split the congregation and planted a new church: the Second African Baptist Church of Savannah (its pastor, Henry Francis, started a school in the church to educate black children). The church growth continued, and in 1803 Andrew split the church again, forming the Third African Baptist Church of Savannah. As these churches grew, their congregations pioneered churches in other parts of the State.

At that time in America’s history, Georgia was one of the most stridently pro-slavery states in America. Thomas Jefferson (who in 1783 proposed the first antislavery law in America) noted that it was the influence of Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina that kept the national anti-slavery law from passing in Congress. Georgia had even been unable to provide its share of soldiers for the American
Revolution because its citizens feared that if they left their plantations to fight for American independence, their slaves would escape. Clearly, slavery was strongly embraced in Georgia, so Andrew labored in a region of the country in which ministry by – or to – African Americans was exceptionally difficult.

Nevertheless, upon Andrew’s death in 1812, the Savannah Baptist Association (comprised of the white Baptists of the city), praised Bryan’s work, proclaiming:

The Association is sensibly affected by the death of the Rev. Andrew Bryan, a man of color, and pastor of the First Colored Church in Savannah. This son of Africa, after suffering inexpressible persecutions in the cause of his divine Master, was at length permitted to discharge the duties of the ministry among his colored friends in peace and quiet, hundreds of whom, through his instrumentality, were brought to knowledge of the truth as “it is in Jesus.”

The ministry of Andrew Bryan brought thousands in Georgia to a personal relationship with God through Christ.

The Rev. “Black Harry” Hoosier (or Hosier) 1750-1810

Harry Hoosier was born a slave in North Carolina, but toward the end of the American Revolution he obtained his freedom, converted to Methodism, and became a preacher. In 1781, he delivered a sermon in Virginia entitled “The Barren Fig Tree” – the first recorded Methodist sermon by an African American. Despite the fact that Hoosier was illiterate, he became famous as a traveling evangelist and was considered one of the most popular preachers of his era. In fact, after hearing Harry preach in and around Philadelphia, Dr. Benjamin Rush (1745-1813), a signer of the Declaration of Independence and an evangelical Christian, declared that accounting for his illiteracy, Hoosier was “the greatest orator in America.”

Early in his ministry, Harry became a close associate of Bishop Francis Asbury (1745- 1816), the “Founding Father of the American Methodist Church.”

(In 1771, Asbury – an Englishman – heard an appeal from John Wesley for preachers to go to America to “spread the Word.” Asbury responded, and during the next four decades he preached almost 20,000 sermons and rode over a quarter of a million miles across America – on horseback! When Asbury first arrived, there were only 550 Methodists in America, but by the time of his death in 1816, there were 250,000 – and 700 ordained Methodist ministers. In 1924 when a statue of Bishop Asbury was erected in Washington, DC, President Calvin Coolidge declared of Asbury that “He is entitled to rank as one of the builders of our nation.”)

Hoosier and Bishop Asbury traveled and preached together, but Bishop Asbury (who drew huge crowds) remarked that Harry drew even larger crowds than he did! In fact, the Rev. Henry Boehm (1775-1875) reported: “Harry. . . . was so illiterate he could not read a word [but h]e would repeat the hymn as if reading it, and quote his text with great accuracy. His voice was musical, and his tongue as the pen of a ready writer. He was unboundedly popular, and many would rather hear him than the bishops.” Harry also traveled and preached with other popular bishops of that era, including the Rev. Richard Whatcoat (1736- 1806), the Rev. Freeborn Garretson (1752-1827), and the Rev. Thomas Coke (1747-1814). The Rev. Coke said of Asbury that, “I really believe he is one of the best preachers in the world. There is such an amazing power that attends his preaching . . . and he is one of the humblest creatures I ever saw.”

Hoosier ministered widely along the American frontier and is described by historians as “a renowned camp meeting exhorter, the most widely known black preacher of his time, and arguably the greatest circuit rider of his day.” However, he was unpopular in the South for two reasons: first, frontier Methodists such as Hoosier tended to lean Arminian in their theology, contrasted with the denominations of the South that were largely Calvinistic (e.g., Presbyterians, Reformed, Episcopalians,
Baptists, etc. – yes, the Baptists of that day were largely Calvinistic!); second, Methodists were outspoken against slavery whereas the majority of the South supported slavery. Therefore, southern groups such as the Virginia Baptists came to use the term “Hoosiers” as an insulting term of derision that they applied to Methodists like Black Harry Hoosier, meaning that they were anti-slavery in belief and Arminian in theology.

Fisk University history professor William Piersen believes that this is the source of the term “Hoosier” that was applied to the inhabitants of Indiana. Piersen explains, “Such an etymology would offer Indiana a plausible and worthy first Hoosier – ‘Black Harry’ Hoosier – the greatest preacher of his day, a man who rejected slavery and stood up for morality and the common man.”

Noted African American historian Carter Woodson reported the words of early Methodist historian John Ledman in describing the closing chapter of Harry Hoosier’s life:

After he had moved on the tide of popularity for a number of years . . . he fell by wine – one of the strong enemies of both ministers and people. And now, alas! this popular preacher was a drunken ragpicker in the streets of Philadelphia. But we will not leave him here. One evening, Harry . . . determined to remain there until his backslidings were healed. Under a tree he wrestled with God in prayer. Sometime that night, God restored to him the joys of his salvation [Psalm 51:12]. . . . About the year 1810, Harry finished his course. . . . An unusually large number of people, both white and colored, followed his body to its last resting place, in a free burying ground in Kensington [near Philadelphia].

The Rev. Harry Hoosier was used by God to draw thousands of Americans to Christ during the early decades of the Second Great Awakening.

The Rev. John Marrant 1755-1791

John Marrant was born in New York in 1755. His father died early in John’s life; and in 1766 when John was eleven, his mother sent him to Charleston, South Carolina, to live with an older sister and learn a trade. After arriving in Charleston, John had a change of plans; as he explained: “I had passed by a school and heard music and dancing, which took my fancy very much; and I felt a strong inclination
to learn the music. I went home and informed my sister that I would rather learn music than go to a trade.” John therefore undertook the study of music and became skilled with both the violin and the French horn. According to John, within two years (while he was only thirteen years of age): “I was invited to all the balls and assemblies that were held in the town, and met with general applause of the inhabitants. I was a stranger to want, being supplied with as much money as I had any occasion for.”

On his way to play at one of those musical events, John and a friend passed a crowded meetinghouse. John noticed that the large crowd was gathered around “a crazy man halloing there.” The “crazy man” was the Rev. George Whitefield, and the assembly was one of many religious meetings that occurred during the First Great Awakening – a national spiritual revival that lasted from 1730-1770.

(The Rev. George Whitefield (1714-1770) has been called the greatest evangelist of all time. Born in England, he became a missionary to America, making seven separate trips and spending nine years preaching across the country. It is estimated that he preached to nearly ten million individuals in his lifetime, with crowds of 20,000 being common and reaching as high as 100,000 (of course, there was
no sound amplification then, and it was reported that Whitefield’s natural voice could be heard up to one mile away, thus easily accommodating such crowds). Whitefield preached some 18,000 sermons in his life – an average of 500 a year, and 10 each week. Often, up to 500 hearers at a time would fall to the ground and lie prostrate under the power of his sermons.)

John’s friend who was accompanying him, wanting to disrupt Whitefield’s event, dared John to take his French horn and “blow [it] among them.” Marrant accepted the challenge; raising the horn to his lips and preparing to blow, Whitefield suddenly looked directly at John, pointed his finger at him, and announced, “Prepare to meet thy God, O Israel!” Marrant immediately fell prostrate as though struck down (c.f., John 18:6 & Revelation 1:17), remaining motionless for almost half an hour. When John recovered, Whitefield ministered to the young boy and spent time with him. On the third day, Marrant committed his life to Christ and dedicated himself to Gospel ministry. (Marrant’s conversion occurred on Whitefield’s final missionary journey to America.)

An overjoyed Marrant returned to his family to share his newfound experience with them, but they rejected him. Like Moses of old (Exodus 2:15), John fled to the wilderness. There he met a Cherokee warrior and they spent ten weeks together, hunting and becoming fast friends. When they eventually returned to the Indian’s camp, Marrant was made a prisoner (the Cherokees at this time were often at war with the settlers; it was clear to the Cherokees that the black Marrant was not an Indian, so he therefore was an enemy settler).

When the Cherokee chieftain threatened John with death, John addressed the Cherokees in their own language and shared with them the Gospel of Christ. According to Marrant, “The king [the chief ] himself was awakened, and the others set at [spiritual] liberty. A great change took place among the people; the King’s house became God’s house; the soldiers were ordered away; and the poor condemned prisoner [Marrant] had perfect liberty and was treated like a prince. Now the Lord made all my enemies become my great friends.” Thus being released from his captivity, the chief granted Marrant permission to evangelize among the Cherokee – which he did for the next nine weeks, also evangelizing among the
Muskogees. As noted by African American historian Arthur Schomburg (1874-1938), Marrant was: “A Negro in America [like] the Jesuits of old, who spread the seed of Christianity among the American Indians before the birth of the American Republic.”

Following his success with his missionary endeavors, Marrant returned to his family; but they again rejected him because they now considered him too much of an Indian. Ironically, throughout his life Marrant was often faced with rejection which he overcame on each occasion: first, his family rejected his calling toward the Gospel ministry (yet he persevered and entered anyway); next, the Cherokees rejected him because he was a settler (again he overcame and evangelized among them); then, when he returned to his family, they rejected him as being too much of “a savage” in “the Indian style” (once more he persisted until he broke through the rejection and was finally reunited with his family).

Following these evangelistic efforts, Marrant agreed to work as a carpenter on a plantation near Charleston; and while working there, he evangelized among the slaves. As he explained, “During this time, I saw my call to the ministry fuller and clearer – had a feeling of concern for the salvation of my countrymen.” Sadly, however, when the mistress of the plantation found the slaves at prayer, she alerted her husband, who rounded up a posse and raided the prayer meeting. According to Marrant, “As the poor creatures came out, they caught them and tied them together with cords till the next morning, when all they caught – men, women, and children – were stripped naked and tied (their feet to a stake, their hands to the arm of a tree) and so severely flogged that the blood ran from their backs and sides to the floor, to make them promise they would leave off praying.”

All of this activity occurred before the American Revolution; and when the Revolution did commence, Marrant was impressed by the British into the navy. Following the war, he settled in England, and on May 15, 1785, was ordained as a Christian minister by the Calvinistic Methodists, a group started by George Whitefield. (Whitefield and the Wesleys worked together in forming the Methodist church, but the Wesleys became more Arminian in theology whereas Whitefield remained more Calvinistic and thus headed the Calvinistic Methodists.) Marrant continued his ministry efforts, preaching in England, then Canada, and then back in the United States. While in America, he became ill, and being in poor health, he desired to return to England to see his friends there. He died shortly thereafter at the age of thirty-six. Despite the apparent shortness of his life, Marrant nevertheless accomplished much, and was among the first African Americans to evangelize successfully among the American Indians.

Summary

These three famous ministers (the Rev. Andrew Bryan, the Rev. Harry Hoosier, and the Rev. John Marrant) were all well-known and even nationally known ministers in their day; all were extremely effective; all contributed greatly to the growth of American Christianity in particular and America in general. These three are just a few examples of the forgotten heroes and history that WallBuilders is proud to reintroduce to this generation of Americans!

Black History Issue 2004

Black Patriots of the American Revolution

Americans have lost much of their knowledge of basic historical facts, particularly those relating to the American Revolution. In fact, a recent survey of high-performing college seniors found that more thought that Ulysses S. Grant (a Civil War general in the 1860s) commanded the troops at Yorktown than George Washington (who actually did lead those troops in the 1780s). Since advanced college seniors cannot identify the commander-in-chief of the American Revolution, it is not surprising that today’s Americans know even less about the thousands of African Americans who fought during the Revolution, or that they participated in every major battle of the War.

Although this part of our history is unfamiliar today, it was known in previous generations because of the writings of black historians such as William Nell, an award winning young scholar in Boston during the 1830s. He studied law and became the first black American to hold a post in the federal government. In 1852, he authored Services of Colored Americans in the Wars of 1776 and 1812, and three years later, he penned The Colored Patriots of the American Revolution.

This issue is dedicated to a recovery of the knowledge of our black patriot heroes to whom today’s Americans of all colors owe a debt of gratitude.

James Armistead (Lafayette) (1760-1832)
James Armistead was one of the most important American spies during the Revolution. As a slave in Virginia, he witnessed much of the War; and following the British siege of Richmond in 1781, he asked his master, William Armistead, for permission to serve in the cause of American independence with General Marquis de Lafayette, a young Frenchman who came to fight with the Americans. His master agreed, and Lafayette accepted his services. Lafayette dispatched Armistead to the camp of the patriot-turned-traitor, Benedict Arnold (then a British general), to pose as an escaped slave looking for work. Arnold accepted Armistead and allowed him to work in the camp, thus placing him around other British generals, including British commander-in-chief Lord Cornwallis. Armistead obtained much vital information about British plans and troop movements, which he daily sent to General Lafayette. Ironically, Lord Cornwallis so trusted Armistead that he even asked him to become a British spy to watch the Americans. Armistead agreed and thus became a double-spy, feeding accurate information to the Americans and inaccurate information to the British.

Upon learning that the British fleet was moving Cornwallis and his troops to Yorktown, Armistead quickly relayed that information to Lafayette and Washington, who gathered the American forces at Yorktown. After the British troops had landed and the British fleet had unsuspectingly departed from Chesapeake Bay, the Americans engaged the British while the French fleet blockaded the Bay to keep the British navy from returning. The Battle of Yorktown ensued, and the British – without their navy to provide reinforcements or supplies and with no way to retreat off the peninsula on which they were trapped – finally surrendered. Armistead’s crucial information had helped bring a victorious end to the American Revolution.

Following the War, Armistead returned to slavery on his master’s plantation. Three years later, in 1784, General Lafayette returned to America for a visit and met with his friend, Armistead. Lafayette penned a certificate to Virginia leaders praising the work and important contributions of Armistead. Armistead then petitioned the legislature for his freedom, which was granted on New Year’s Day, 1787. (In his latter years, Armistead also received a retirement pension from the State for his military services.) Following his emancipation, Armistead adopted the name Lafayette and thereafter called himself James Lafayette. He remained in the State as a farmer.

General Lafayette became an ardent foe of slavery both in America and in Europe, and it is believed that it was his association with James Armistead that helped clarify his views on slavery, leading him to begin his strong public crusade against that evil.

In 1824, General Lafayette made his final visit to America; his tour across the nation was greeted by crowds of thousands in city after city. When touring Richmond, the General recognized in the crowd his black comrade from four decades earlier (now an old man) and called him out by name and embraced him – the last time the two patriot friends were to meet.

Jordan Freeman (? – 1781);
Lambo (Lambert) Latham (? – 1781)

In 1781, both black and white soldiers fought side by side at the Battle of Groton Heights, Connecticut. The American force of only 84 men, led by Lt. Col. William Ledyard, was attempting to defend the town of New London from a large invading force led by American traitor-turned-British General Benedict Arnold.

After suffering heavy casualties against the overwhelming British numbers, Col. Ledyard and his remaining troops retreated to tiny Fort Griswold, equipped with only a few small cannons. The Americans eventually ran out of ammunition; and when the British charged the fort, the Americans used their rifles as clubs, fighting back the British with only bayonets and pikes. The British began scaling
the walls of the fort; upon reaching the top, the British officer leading the attack – Major Montgomery – was speared and killed by black patriot Jordan Freeman. The British rushed over the walls and quickly overran the fort, overpowering the few remaining Americans.

A British officer then asked the American prisoners, “Who commanded the fort?” Colonel Ledyard replied, “I did once. You do now,” and handed his sword to the British officer, as was customary with a surrender. The British officer then took Ledyard’s own sword and thrust it through Ledyard’s body all the way to the hilt.

That act was witnessed by all the remaining Americans, including black patriot Lambert Latham. (When the flagpole of the fort had earlier been shot down by the British during the battle, Lambert grabbed the American flag and held it high until he was captured.) Latham had stood silently with the other American prisoners, but upon witnessing the coldblooded murder of his commander, Nell records what next occurred: “Lambert . . . retaliated upon the [British] officer by thrusting his bayonet through his body. Lambert, in return, received from the enemy thirty-three bayonet wounds, and thus fell, nobly avenging the death of his commander.”

The British – angered by the loss of so many of their soldiers at the hands of so few Americans – promptly slaughtered all the remaining Americans left in the fort, including Jordan Freeman.

Interestingly, Freeman had been a slave of Col. Ledyard, the commander of the fort, but had been freed by him. As a free man, Freeman had remained in the area and married. When the region came under attack from the British, Freeman chose to stay and fight for America side by side with the man who had once been his owner.

Today, at the site of old Fort Griswold is a plaque showing the moment in which Jordan Freeman killed the attacking British officer. There is also a huge monument standing there; the names of Jordan Freeman and Lambert Latham appear on that monument, along with the other American soldiers who gave their lives defending American liberty in that battle.

Peter Salem (1750-1816)
Peter Salem was a member of the famous Massachusetts Minutemen and was involved in a number of important battles, including the battles of Bunker Hill, Concord, and Saratoga (the first American victory of the Revolution). However, it was in the Battle of Bunker Hill on June 17, 1775, that he gained notoriety.

After the battles of Lexington and Concord, American troops from Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island assembled at Boston to confront the 5,000 British troops stationed there. The outmanned American forces engaged the British outside the city. The Americans were winning the conflict until they began running out of ammunition. With the Americans near defeat, British commander Major John Pitcairn (who had earlier led the British forces against the Americans at Lexington) mounted the hill and shouted, “The day is ours!” whereupon Salem promptly shot him, sending the British troops into confusion and allowing the Americans to escape safely. Peter Salem was honored before General Washington for his soldierly act.

Salem became a member of the Fifth Massachusetts Regiment and served throughout the rest of the Revolution – a total of seven years of military service in behalf of his country, a length of time achieved by few other soldiers in the Revolution. Salem had entered the Revolution as a slave but finished it as a free man, marrying in 1783, at the conclusion of the Revolution.

A stone monument was erected to Peter Salem at Framingham, Massachusetts, in 1882; and Salem is pictured in the famous painting of John Trumbull titled, “The Death of General Warren at the Battle of Bunker Hill.”

Prince Whipple (c. 1756 – c. 1797)
Prince Whipple had been part of a wealthy (perhaps even a royal) African family. When he was ten, he was sent by his family to America for an education; but while on the voyage, he was shanghaied by the ship’s treacherous captain and sold into slavery in Baltimore. He was bought by New Hampshire ship captain William Whipple, a famous leader in that State.

William Nell, in his 1852 The Colored Patriots of the American Revolution, tells the early story of Prince in America:

As was customary, Prince took the surname of his owner, William Whipple, who would later represent New Hampshire by signing the Declaration of Independence. . . . When William Whipple joined the revolution as a captain, Prince accompanied him and was in attendance to General Washington on Christmas night 1776 for the legendary and arduous crossing of the Delaware. The surprise attack following the crossing was a badly needed victory for America and for Washington’s sagging military reputation. In 1777, [William Whipple was] promoted to Brigadier General and [was] ordered to drive British General Burgoyne out of Vermont.

An 1824 work provides details of what occurred after General Whipple’s promotion:

On [his] way to the army, he told his servant [Prince] that if they should be called into action, he expected that he would behave like a man of courage and fight bravely for his country. Prince replied, “Sir, I have no inducement to fight, but if I had my liberty, I would endeavor to defend it to the last drop of my blood.” The general manumitted [freed] him on the spot.

Prince Whipple did enter the service of America as a soldier during the Revolution and is often identified in a number of early paintings of the War, including that of General Washington after crossing the Delaware. In fact, many identify Prince Whipple as the man on the oar in the front of the boat in the famous crossing of the Delaware picture painted in 1851. Although Whipple did not actually cross the Delaware with Washington in the manner depicted, he was representative of the thousands of black patriots who did fight for American independence – and of the many African Americans who did cross the Delaware with Washington.

Prince Whipple fought in the Battle of Saratoga in 1777 and the Battle of Rhode Island in 1778. He directly attended General Washington and the general staff throughout the Revolution, serving as a soldier and aide at the highest levels.

Lemuel Haynes (1753-1833)
Lemuel Haynes was abandoned by his parents when he was five months old. He was taken in and apprenticed by the David Rose family. According to Haynes: “He [David Rose] was a man of singular piety. I was taught the principles of religion. His wife . . . treated me as though I was her own child.”

Haynes was given the opportunity for education – something rare for African Americans in that day. Haynes explained: “I had the advantage of attending a common school equal with the other children. I was early taught to read.” He also educated himself at night by reading in front of a fireplace. He developed a lifelong love for the Bible and theology, and even as a youth he frequently held services and preached sermons at the town parish. He also memorized massive and lengthy portions of the Bible.

In 1774 when he turned 21 and had finished his tradesman apprenticeship, he enlisted as a Minuteman in the local Connecticut militia. While he was not part of the Battle of Lexington, he did write a lengthy ballad-sermon about that famous battle. However, a week following that battle, Haynes and the Connecticut troops were part of the siege of Boston. Haynes was also part of the military expedition against Fort Ticonderoga, made legendary by Ethan Allen and the famous Green Mountain Boys. Haynes became an ardent admirer of George Washington and remained so throughout his life. In fact, Haynes regularly preached sermons on Washington’s birthday and was an active member of the Washington Benevolent Society.

After the Revolution, Haynes continued his studies in Latin, Greek, and theology and became the first African American to be ordained by a mainstream Christian denomination (the Congregationalists, in 1785), to pastor a white congregation (a congregation in Connecticut), and to be awarded an honorary Master’s Degree (by Middlebury College in 1804). Over his life, Haynes pastored several churches in Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New York (often white churches), published a number of sermons, and was a confidant and counselor to the presidents of both Yale and Harvard.

Lemuel Haynes died at the age of eighty, having written the epitaph for his tombstone: “Here lies the dust of a poor helldeserving sinner, who ventured into eternity trusting wholly on the merits of Christ for salvation. In the full belief of the great doctrines he preached while on earth, he invites his children, and all who read this, to trust their eternal interest on the same foundation.”

Black Commandos
In December 1776, the secondin- command of the American Army, General Charles Lee, was taken prisoner by the British. In order for the Americans to effect his release through a prisoner exchange, a British general of the same rank was needed. A bold plan was therefore undertaken by Lt. Col. William Barton. He would slip past British forces at Newport, Rhode Island, enter the heart of the British camp, capture British General Richard Prescott in his quarters, and return him to the American side before the British learned of the raid.

Col. Barton hand-selected about forty elite soldiers, both black and white. He gathered the group, explained to them his plan, warned them of the risk, and asked for volunteers. All chose to be part of the daring operation.

Waiting until the middle of the night, the group loaded into small boats, and with muffled oars, rowed silently past General Prescott’s warships and guard boats anchored in the harbor. Landing near the general’s headquarters, the Americans quickly overpowered the guards and surrounded the house of the sleeping general. They entered his house and, standing outside his locked door, they had only to break down the door and quickly grab Prescott before he realized what had occurred.

At that moment, one of the black commandos, Prince Sisson – a powerful man – stepped forward and charged the door, using his own head as a battering ram; on the second try, the locked door gave way and Prince entered the quarters and seized the surprised general. They safely returned with Prescott to the American lines where he was subsequently exchanged for the second-in-command of the American Army, General Charles Lee. The daring act of Sisson is still celebrated to this day.

Rhode Island Fighters
The First Rhode Island was a regiment of 125 black patriots – both slave and free – commanded by Colonel Christopher Greene. That regiment, created during the infamous winter at Valley Forge, became noted for its bravery and courage, receiving its first baptism by fire during the Battle of Newport in 1778.

When reinforcements failed to arrive during that battle, the Americans were forced to retreat in the face of heavy British attacks, especially from the dreaded Hessian mercenaries. The First Rhode Island thrust themselves between the retreating Americans and the advancing Hessians and repulsed the British forces three separate times, inflicting heavy casualties on the mercenaries. (Following the battle, the Hessian commander asked to be transferred to a different location for fear that his remaining soldiers might shoot him because of the fearful losses which had been inflicted on them, and the deaths of so many of their comrades.)

In 1781 during the Battle of Croton River, Colonel Greene – commander of the regiment – was cut down by the British. William Nell, in his 1855 The Colored Patriots of the American Revolution, described what next occurred:

“Colonel Greene, the commander of the regiment, was cut down and mortally wounded: but the sabres of the enemy only reached him through the bodies of his faithful guard of blacks, who hovered over him, and every one of whom was killed.”

While Colonel Greene’s squad was killed, others of the Rhode Island First survived and served the remainder of the War. A battle-hardened and loyal unit, they were with George Washington when he accepted the surrender of Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown to end the Revolution.

Conclusion
Numerous other black patriots distinguished themselves during the American Revolution, including James Forten, Peter Poor, Cuff Smith, Cesar and Festus Prince, and thousands of others. It is appropriate that during African American history month, we should remember these great black patriots who contributed so much to the establishment of America as the foremost nation of the world.