Sermon – Election – 1823, Massachusetts


Nathaniel Thayer (1769-1840) graduated from Harvard in 1789. He was a pastor in Wilkeshare, PA and in Lancaster, MA (1795-1840). The following election sermon was preached by Thayer in Massachusetts on May 28, 1823.


sermon-election-1823-massachusetts

A

DISCOURSE,

PRONOUNCED BEFORE

HIS EXCELLENCY JOHN BROOKS, ESQ.

GOVERNOR,

HIS HONOR WILLIAM PHILLIPS, ESQ.

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR,

THE HONORABLE COUNCIL,

AND THE TWO HOUSES, COMPOSING THE

LEGISLATURE OF MASSACHUSETTS,

ON THE

ANNIVERSARY ELECTION,

MAY 28, 1823.

By Nathaniel Thayer, D. D.
MINISTER OF LANCASTER.

 

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.
IN SENATE, MAY 29, 1823.

Ordered, That the Hon. Messrs. Adams, Gardner, and Tufts, be a Committee to wait upon the Rev. Nathaniel Thayer, D. D. and in the name of the Senate, to thank him for the Sermon, by him delivered before His Excellency the Governor, His Honor the Lieutenant Governor, the Honorable Council, and both branches of the Legislature; and to request a copy thereof for the press.

Attest,
PAUL WILLARD, Clerk.

 

DISCOURSE.
DEUTERONOMY…CHAP. XXVI., VERSE XIX.
And to make thee high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, and in the name, and in honor; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the Lord thy God, as he hath spoken.

It is appropriate duty of an assembly of Christian patriots, to meditate the condition and destiny of their country. They will anxiously inquire after the means, which will extend and perpetuate its honor, peace, prosperity, and happiness. From a variety of sources they may derive aid in this review. They will weigh the probable result of the form of civil government, which is adopted. They will consider the natural tendency of the degree of encouragement given to learning. Their hope will be measured by the evidence which exists of the faithful application of a correct system of morals and religion. They will be assisted in forming a judgment by the veneration which is paid to Christian ordinances. They will take into the account the character of the rulers, the course of their policy, the manners of the great, the general taste and habits of society. They will not overlook the estimate which is declared of the sacrifices and services of the founders, friends, and defenders of their nation. They will survey the history of other countries and kingdoms, and from the causes which led to their rise or decline, prosperity or adversity, will learn the reasonable grounds of expectation. They will especially consult the sacred records. From the principles there published, the conditions of national glory or debasement there revealed, they may come to a safe conclusion.

Every community may collect lessons of instruction, encouragement, and warning from the divine communications to ancient Israel. It will be found without variation, that when a purpose is affirmed, promise made, or threatening pronounced, the accomplishment is to depend on an important condition. This condition is at the direction and control of the individuals or people, who are addressed. The instance before us is an illustration. If the Israelites should “perform their solemn vows on the day, that they avouched the Lord to be their God, should walk in his ways, keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and should hearken unto his voice,” which would be in the most comprehensive sense to gain and support the character of a holy people, they might then rely on the promise, that they should be “high above all nations, in praise, and in the name, and in honor.”

Many causes combine to raise the hope, that America is destined by providence to distinction. One of the first efforts of patriotism will be, to ascertain and urge the adoption of a course, which will lead to the highest national honor and happiness.

The attention of this respected auditory is invited to a reference to facts in the situation and prospects of our country, which encourage the expectation, that it may hold a pre-eminent rank amongst civilized and Christian nations; and to a rehearsal of the means, which in the nature of things and by the appointment of heaven, are essential to the attainment of it.

In the history of communities is found a reason for the opinion, that the character and prospects of a people depend in a degree on climate and local situation. The salubrity [fitness] and uniformity of a temperate zone have proved favorable to physical strength and intellectual vigour. Inhabitants of countries, thus located, are happily formed to endure labor; engage in enterprise; secure a reputable subsistence; and perform the responsible duties of social and civil life. When surveying our scenery, our attention is arrested by a wonderful exhibition of river, lakes, and mountains. At these, the partiality of the native citizen leads him to gaze as designed by Him, “who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, meted out heaven with the span, comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance,” as indications of the uncommon grandeur of his country. He will also find much to raise his attachment to it in its remoteness from powerful nations, who, if they have the desire, can with difficulty exert the means for retarding its elevation. There is also some merciful provision, if it be duly regarded, against the rise of envying, jealousies, and evil surmisings in the inhabitants of this favored land. Each section of the territory has some distinguishing excellence. It has either an atmosphere, which is a pledge of general health; a soil, suited to the luxuriant growth of some valuable articles of subsistence, convenience, or comfort; special advantages for the amassing of wealth by agriculture, manufactures, or commerce; liberal provision for extending to the members of every class the benefits of knowledge; or circumstances, which have excited ardour in the investigation of Christian truth and support of religious institutions. We may without reservation and with patriotic pride, adopt the sentiment of a writer, who has with elegance recorded the scenes most interesting to this nation. It is a wonderful fact, that a people inhabiting such an extent of territory, of such a diversity of views and principles in politics and religion, combining so many separate and apparently discordant and jarring interests; and at the same time exhibiting “fewer diversities of character, language, habits, and interests than any empire of similar extent in the world; all this accumulation of happiness and strength would have seemed only a splendid vision, beyond the conception of prophecy.

The natural equality of this people is a source of their most sure and rapid advancement. It is not the design, nor would it be for the growth and prosperity of our republic, to present any insuperable obstacle to the existence of outward, intellectual, or moral distinctions. The great value of these is, that they are not hereditary; that they proceed from the assiduous application of talents, and that in their acquirement are developed all the energies of the human character. So long as the political principles, by which we are professedly guided, remain uncorrupt and in active force, merit and service will form the only title to exaltation and honor. We shall look upon the badge of office as a splendid phantom, if it be gained by hollow professions, a morbid state of the public feeling, and the abandonment of principles, which the experience of ages has proved the only adequate source of individual or general prosperity.

A vast variety of causes operates to the introduction of inequalities in condition and character. Natural talents, education, associations, examples, seasons for exertion, motives to excellence do each conspire to form the difference. Let it be the desire and aim of every lover of his country, to disseminate and preserve in entire activity and influence the principle, that civil distinction shall in no case be the purchase of caprice, honorable descent, party views, local considerations, sinister or ambitious designs. Let it be an avowed maxim, coextensive with our limits and existence as a people, and boldly propagated wherever a correct term of promotion or claim to public confidence may with propriety be urged, that “able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness, shall only be exalted to any office of emolument, honor, or trust.”

Territorial extent, and the opportunity it gives for all talents to be put in successful requisition, is another fact promising distinction to this nation. Enterprise is often checked, and talents are paralyzed by the intimation and belief, that the field for exertion is limited, that the professions and various employments are so crowded with labourers, that such as are now in preparation for service have little prospect of success. Centuries will probably elapse, before this may be urged to excuse the suspension of a spirit of adventure, or extinguish the hope of finding a field for honorable activity. Let it not be said, because that speck of the country with which we are conversant is occupied, that there is no remaining scene for diligence and usefulness. Shall the Divine cherish the narrow belief, that he cannot to spiritual advantage scatter the incorruptible seed; the Physician, that he will have no opportunity for skillfully arresting the progress of disease; the Lawyer, that he cannot aid in the distributions of law and justice; the Mechanic, that he is unable to subsist by his handiwork; the Citizen, that he can accomplish no object of personal or public utility, but in the centre of a thickly inhabited village, or amidst the refinements and luxuries of a populous city? May the patriotic sentiment find many advocates, that it is greater evidence of original and strong powers, to subdue the untrodden forest, than to till the cultivated field. May the Christian belief be diffused, that he is a fairer candidate for the honors of this world, and the glories of immortality, who shall be a humble instrument of causing the moral wilderness to blossom, than he, who shall contentedly remain an inefficient and dronish incumbent on cultivated society. May it in no instance operate as a hindrance to the growth of this nation, that parental weakness and partiality, or local attachments and prejudices have stifled in our young men a spirit of emigration. May they go, and evince the benefits of their early education, by establishing for the basis of domestic happiness and civil prosperity the principles and institutions, which have hitherto been the honor and security of this people.

All the remaining facts in the situation and prospects of this nation, which are necessary to confirm the hope of pre-eminence, may be comprised in some remarks on the peculiar character of our civil and religious institutions.

The former had their origin under more favorable auspices than those of any other country. There have been governments called free besides our own. Too often were they the fruits of usurpation and conquest, and in them liberty existed only in name. Of no other may it with equal justice be said, that the government is the result of the cool, deliberative wisdom of the native inhabitants, uncontrolled by foreign influence, and oppression at home. In men of superficial judgment, or constitutional despondency, the gloomy and extravagant predictions of the frailty of our political fabric, and the short life of our republic, may be reconciled with the purest patriotism. ON the page of history they have read an unbroken narrative of the premature birth, ephemeral and monstrous growth, convulsive throes, anticipated and awful dissolution of ancient republics. Hence they have hastily concluded, that in no state of things, or period of the world could a collection of moral beings be found, capable of a protracted enjoyment of liberty. They have slightly surveyed and misjudged the broad foundation on which our government rests. The thought has escaped them, that the two massive pillars, learning and religion, which are equal to the support of a civil structure of any dimensions, were raised and consecrated on the first possession of the soil. They have forgotten too, that the original architects were not under the control of inordinate ambition, selfish and mercenary views; not the builders of an edifice, which should simply provide a shelter for themselves and the men of their own generation, but which should be a safe and commodious habitation for their successors of the most distant times. Hurried in forming a judgment by ill-boding apprehensions, they have likewise overlooked, that these were men religiously educated, resolved to jeopardize everything else, that they might remain in quiet possession of liberty of conscience.

No period can be set to the durability of this confederated republic, if the design of the original projection be not perverted. In the establishment of schools and seminaries of learning, and in the erection of temples, the most effectual means were devised for attaching permanency to our civil privileges. While these fountains of knowledge are liberally supplied, these temples saved from destruction, and furnished with a learned and faithful ministry, we have little to fear from the encroachments of despotism. A well informed and religious people are in no danger of losing their liberties.

Still more may be said of our religious institutions, should they retain their primeval character. It is an unprecedented and singular fact in the history of nations, that the first settlers of this had for a paramount motive of their adventure, in search after a resting place, the enjoyment of religious liberty. When about to form a community, they justly believed that a nation without religion could have only a limited existence, and must be in degradation and disgrace. But little inferior to this degradation did they consider the state of the inhabitants of a country, who professed and supported religion, but had in operation means to keep the understanding and conscience in fetters. In accordance with the enthusiasm for religious freedom shown by our ancestors, their descendants, when framing constitutions of government, rested the responsibility of interpreting scripture, and of electing forms of worship, with the subjects.

No enlightened and upright statesman has dared to defend the licentious opinion, that the body politic would be in a healthful and vigorous state, if the right of choosing a mode of worship were treated with general indifference. We do not plead for anything resembling a national religious establishment. Forms of worship and systems of faith, supported and embraced by us, cannot be of a truly Christian character, or accord with the liberty of inquiry and choice, supposed and ensured by the Great Teacher from heaven, but when they are the result of a candid and independent investigation of revealed truth, and are adopted with the deliberate and settled conviction, that they correspond to the general spirit of his Gospel.

We can with difficulty make an exaggerated representation of the value of religious institutions, in their effect on the state and character of communities. Let it be tested by a small corporation. The habitual attendance on the duties of the Sabbath, has a benign influence on the domestic state, social intercourse, ordinary transactions, general manners. It tends to allay the turbulence of passion, liberalize the feelings and sentiments, restrain corrupt propensities, give a regular and moral direction to the whole conduct.

Imagine Christian ordinances to have universal patronage, and you will find a diminution of crimes, a gradual but incessant elevation of the moral taste, an industrious and upright use of all the means of outward prosperity. Should this nation be thus distinguished, you may expect that it will be high above all nations in praise, and in name, and in honor.

The things, to which we have referred, all tend to national dignity. From them has come the unexampled rise, the present standing, and whatever is admirable or exhilarating in the prospects of this community. Apart from the public opinion and course, they have not in themselves the power of preservation and progress. There are means, which are essential evidence of the nurturing care of the possessors of these advantages, and without a continual application of them we shall not advance, but be retrograde. In their moral state, neither individuals nor nations can remain stationary.

What are these means?

1. A correct and ardent love of country.

The sentiment is collected from reason, receives an affecting illustration in the example of the Redeemer, and is involved in the obligation to universal benevolence, which is an irreversible law of his religion, that this love of country is an essential principle of virtue, and is connected with all which is elevating and ennobling in the human character. It needs much to chasten, guide, and carry it to perfection. Patriotism, which is wild, boisterous, regardless of means to express itself, undirected by a knowledge of the tendency and history of nations and men, unsanctified by piety, is always suspicious, and frequently the source of mischievous operation. It subordinates concern for country to the accomplishment of purposes of ambition. It exhausts itself in high sounding protestations. It patronizes the pernicious theory, that a man may attain to eminence as a patriot, who has no liberality of feeling, no disposition to sacrifice personal convenience, interest, or happiness for the common good, and no veneration for religion, which shall prompt to vigorous and unwearied exertions for its support. This can with no shadow of reason be called Christian patriotism.

Is it to propose a visionary project, and which is unworthy the attention of a free people, that there be added to our means of education more systematic and pointed instructions relating to this virtue? Could ordinary teachers, or instructors of any class, be more usefully employed, than by exciting in the young a fervid attachment to the land of their fathers’ sepulchers; instilling as some of the first and best lessons, that the origin, growth, institutions, interests, character, and prospects of their country should often be contemplated, and never but with profound veneration? Might we not without giving rise to a dangerous pride, and without encouraging a supercilious contempt of the people of any nation, or age, frequently refer to the facilities at our command for obtaining a livelihood; attaining to distinction; accumulating wealth; acquiring knowledge; and laying up in store a good foundation for the generations, who shall live when we are sleeping in the dust? Might we not in special give birth to a glowing, inextinguishable, operative attachment to their country, should we dilate upon the Christian opportunities here enjoyed; the love of truth which is promoted; the spirit of free inquiry which has gone forth; the universal toleration of opinions and worship, which form a precious part of our liberties? If some of the first lessons which are given be of this character, it cannot be delusive expectation that a spark of patriotism will be enkindled in the youthful breast, which “no waters can quench, or floods drown.” It must then be, that the children, who are yet to be born, will have for their guides and protectors a race of men, who have the enlarged and philanthropic views, which give the surest promise of a steady advancement of their country toward perfection.

2. Liberal care and solicitude for the education and employment of the rising generation.

The opinion is not novel, but as ancient as the existence of civil government, and of republicanism in particular, that families are nurseries of the Commonwealth; children and youths the future pillars and guardians; that the dispositions, views, and habits which are cherished in the domestic circle from the husband and parent; mark the magistrate; characterize the civil ruler; shape the citizen. Nor has any sure expedient been yet devised, as a substitute for the first rudiments of learning, or the more advanced lessons. The most romantic and licentious have not found any plausible qualification for an actor on the public stage; nothing which could make him a safe depository of the great interests of society; nothing which could render him a faithful protector of its liberties, or an impartial and wise dispenser of justice, short of early, scientific, and moral instruction. Take knowledge from a republic, and you remove the corner stone. Cease to dispense and instill moral and Christian maxims into the youthful mind, and you leave the state without the prospect of trusty guides, and the certain and easy prey of every wanton assailant. It would be no miracle, but according to the course of things, and it would be a natural addition to the swoln catalogue of fallen states, if America, stripped of the means of learning and moral improvement, should furnish a triumph to some daring usurper, or a throne to some relentless despot. Keep alive the spirit of literary emulation, which pervades our land, and place your children in the way of knowing their relation to a moral Governor and Judge, and we may in vain attempt to set bounds to the rising glory and happiness of our country.

Every parent or guardian of a liberal mind will be as solicitous to form in his children a habit of industry, and to train them to some reputable employment, as that they should be scholars. Would it not establish free states upon a more firm and immovable basis, if the Athenian regulation should be rigidly enforced? It was there a standing law, that the son was exonerated from the support of his father, if he had neglected to initiate him into some regular and lucrative trade. Look upon him as a dangerous member of society, who shall advance the sentiment, that virtuous industry is at any time degrading. Let the youths who are coming upon the stage, and have not in view a learned profession, aim to be well skilled in some mechanic art, or devoted to a gainful and laborious enterprise. If by personal diligence or a prosperous event, they are raised above the necessity of manual labor, they need not fear, that their capacity for usefulness in any condition, will be reviewed by them with regret or mortification. No. They have the most solid cause of self respect, because they have done something to make industry reputable, and to gain for this people, on account of their skill and diligence, a name and a praise amongst all nations.

3. A vigilant and faithful regard to civil rights.

It is not difficult to know what these rights are, the value to be set on them, and the extent to which they are to be defended, if we form correct ideas of republican liberty. It is a liberty to pursue any course of thought, judgment, action, whether relating to our persons, property, performance of relative or civil duties, which is approved by nature and reason, and can be reconciled with the regulations and laws, which as a people we have voluntarily adopted for our guidance and restraint. We cannot but notice and admire the correspondence of a liberty of this character to that by which Christ hath made us free. He has guaranteed to all moral beings the liberty to think, judge, and act in the view of motives, within the limits prescribed by the law of nature and reason, and which by his gospel, containing a perfect republication of that law, is sanctioned.

There are civil rights, which are by all admitted. Such are the right of coming to a decision in our mind, and decorously expressing this, on the reasonableness and constitutionality of laws, the character and measures of rulers. We have also a right lawfully to resist assaults of our person, encroachments upon our property, an unauthorized invasion of any of our liberties, whether this come from persons in elevated stations, or in retirement. We have moreover the right of electing rulers. An awful responsibility rests upon subjects duly to exercise and guard these civil rights. IN the former cases they are at all hazards to maintain their liberty within the bounds of righteousness and law. In the choice of rulers they are to exercise judgment, unbiased by sinister, party, or local considerations, with a sacred regard to the qualifications and claims of the candidates for promotion, to the general good, and in strict submission to the scriptural character given of those, who are worthy of being clothed with authority. Neglect these things, undervalue these civil rights, and you may consider this state of torpor, this predisposition to moral blindness, as the sure precursor of your own disgrace, and the downfall of your country. Respect those rights. Use with caution but intrepidity this liberty. Guard against licentiousness. After a full investigation of the talents, the moral qualities, the political knowledge, the evidences of public spirit, and religion, in such as are offered for your suffrages, aid only in the appointment of the faithful of the land. Do thus, and you will be the nursing fathers of this nation. You may consider as certain its continued progress toward the perfection of civil glory.

4. Acting from concern for posterity.

Each age has an influence upon the external state, literary improvements, moral and religious character of such as shall succeed. A habit of imitation, a reverence for what is customary and ancient, and the idea that a principle, a mode of life, a regulation, an institution are transmitted under sanction of the attachment and value of a venerated progenitor will make them precious in the eyes of the descendant. He will cling to each and all of them as to the image of a much loved, respected, and departed friend.

In a qualified sense both virtue and vice continue in the world by descent. “The iniquities of the fathers will be visited upon the children unto the third and fourth generation;” will from one of the causes above recited or their joint operation have a control over their state and moral standing. Without any limitations of the number of generations, or the period of their existence, will the descendants of those, who have been and done good, derive essential benefits from the liberality and intrinsic excellence of a worthy ancestry.

The present age may not, with the profusion of means, have done all, which was practicable for their own good, and for the improvement and well being of after generations. To their honor be it publicly proclaimed, they have done much. Charities have been wisely applied to relieve the sufferer, reanimate the apparently dead, restore the insane, ameliorate the state of the indigent, and extend the advantages of science. These will be perpetual monuments of the liberality and Christian proficiency of our times. Nor will it cease to be remembered in commendation of this generation, that it has given birth to the mighty enterprise of terminating wars, spreading far and wide the blessings of the gospel, and sending “the word of life” without mutilation, or “words which man’s wisdom teacheth,” to those, who are perishing for lack of knowledge. Show yourselves worthy of being the children or cotemporaries of such men, by a solicitude to cherish and disseminate this heaven-born spirit, to patronize and recommend these measures. You are scattering seed, which will yield a rich harvest in distant ages. You are at work for the reputation and happiness of those, who shall then live. Your magnanimity and disinterestedness will inspirit the generations, which are yet to be born, to go, think, and do likewise. You may indulge a prophetic spirit, and announce to a listening world, that yours will be the land, which God hath chosen, and in which he will condescend to dwell.

Finally. A practical dependence on moral and religious principles, as they are enforced y Christianity.

We cannot but indulge the hope, that the idea, that nations can exist without the active prevalence of correct views of morality and religion, is exploded. We do hope for the honor of the present and of coming periods, that the individuals or people will not again be known, so bereft of reason and judgment, devoid of decency, regardless of character, blunted in moral sense, unworthy of life or its blessings, as to defend the preposterous idea, that any community can exist in dignity, prosperity, or safety without a sense of God, his government, and providence.

Is it to be licentious in charity to believe, that this address is made to an assembly, who, without exception, are ready to admit, that in the Gospel of Jesus alone is embodied such a system of morals and religion, as accords with the best wishes of man, approves itself to the enlightened understanding and judgment, is suited to exalt and make happy individuals and nations? If any have the boldness to deny this, let them be told, that they are indulging an opinion, and uttering language, which are rejected by common sense, are in open resistance to nature and reason, contradicted by the experience of the vile and unbelieving, subversive of all which is great and good in the world, and full of danger to themselves in every stage of their existence. Go then to the work, to which Christianity calls you. Abandon every corrupt propensity and sin. Independently oppose all excess and luxury. Be the friends of charity, truth, and rectitude. Exemplify “whatsoever things are true, honest, pure, lovely, praiseworthy, and of good report.” Have the faith in the Son of God, which is the surest principle of purity, and which shall incite you to the observance of all his ordinances and laws. Be examples of habitual piety. You may then believe, that whatever you have imagined or been taught of the future greatness, glory, prosperity, or blessedness of your country, will be accomplished. You or your children will be the witnesses of a fulfillment of the purposes and promise of God, in that he hath made you high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honor; and this because you are a holy people unto the Lord your God, as he hath spoken.

Americans! This is the renown, to which your country by natural and adventitious advantages seems to be destined, and these are the means of attainment and security. A deliberate observer cannot reflect upon the course of his nation from comparative insignificance to distinction; from poverty to wealth; from weakness to power; from oppression to liberty; without holding in high veneration the honored instruments of these changes. Men of every succeeding age will celebrate the adventurous spirit, fortitude, wisdom, disinterestedness, and piety of our ancestors. None will have the hardihood to deny, that the latest generations will reap the benefit of their patriotic feelings, liberal provisions, and prospective aims.

We review the revolutionary struggle as an eventful epoch in our national history. The actors in that scene and their achievements cannot fail to be prominent articles in the annals of America. We should commit an act of the grossest injustice, and be unworthy of our blessings, did we not identify with the history of Washington, and his military and civil associates, much which is excellent and stable in our government; useful and permanent in our institutions; animating and estimable in our prospects.

The associations of the present hour awaken in our mind the days and scenes, with which our destinies as a people are intimately united. Called to take a respectful leave of our Chief Magistrate, he will permit us to remind him of the privilege of having lived in the most perilous times, shared the affection and confidence of the political deliverer of this nation, and aided him and other worthies, in founding, rearing in full proportions, and embellishing the Temple of Liberty. We ascribe praise to the giver of all good dispositions, that His Excellency, on retiring from public life, can bear testimony in honor of his countrymen, that ingratitude, which is the common legacy of Republics, forms no part of his reward. He may feel assured, that “our tongue will cleave to the roof of our mouth,” before we shall cease to recount his sacrifices and efforts for the common good, and the solicitude he has evinced for the ark of God. It is with joy and gratitude that we express our belief, that this administration will have a conspicuous place on the page of history. It will be held up as a model for the rulers of all free people, for success in allaying the rancor of party; for the principle which has been in exercise, to reward merit without regard to political distinctions, and for the lustre it has shed upon our Commonwealth. We offer a devout prayer, that His Excellency may live, to witness the continued purity and prosperity of our institutions, and to support them by his example. On the day, which God hath appointed, may the Lord, the righteous Judge, bestow upon him a crown of righteousness.

It will be gratefully remembered, that His Honor the Lieutenant Governor cheerfully obeyed the call of patriotism, and devoted the most valuable years of his life to the public interest. It is to us a cause of consolation, that in retiring from political life he has not separated himself from duties and objects, essentially important to the welfare and happiness of the world. Now that the repose of nations is again disturbed, and the people, who delight in war, ostentatiously boast of their preparations for the work of human destruction, we felicitate ourselves, and the cause of peace, and Christianity, on finding him at the head of a band of Peacemakers. We congratulate them on the unexampled diffusion of their principles. It is a favorable symptom of the moral state of the world, that nations signalized by ambition and martial prowess, esteem it honorable to learn of them the art of causing wars to cease from the ends of the earth. May they have good success in the prosecution of their work. We supplicate for their President, and all who co-operate with him, the highest of blessings and titles, even that they may be called “the Children of God.”

The Honorable Council, the Senate, and the House of Representatives will accept our congratulations on the tranquil and prosperous state of our country. They will appreciate the privilege and honor of being raised to office at a period, in which our humane, scientific, and civil establishments are in the height of their growth and vigour. Their duty chiefly consists in protecting, and carrying to perfection schemes of elevation and affluence, projected by their distinguished predecessors. The rulers of a free government cannot be unapprised of their moral and religious obligations. The state of order, and the general virtue, which it is expected will be produced under the reign of despotism, by compulsion and force, they may hope will be effected in a greater degree by instruction and their own example.

As many of the enterprising in this community are investing their property in manufacturing interests, as the most probable means of accumulation, and they are receiving the highest patronage, one request may be preferred to our Civil Fathers. If it be possible by early legislative provision, or by other means, which your wisdom shall suggest, we offer an earnest petition, that the class of labourers may be saved from the degradation of mind and character, which we deplore in those who are thus occupied in the elder world.

Imperishable fame redounds to the memory of preceding Legislators for their assiduity and vigilance in the promotion of useful knowledge. We commit to the keeping of their successors our Schools and Seminaries of learning, in the hope that they have an unshaken faith in the doctrine, that knowledge and virtue are the only safeguards of republicanism. We have a full persuasion, that while the seats in our halls of legislation are retained by the lovers of learning, and religious liberty, and by those, who venerate an Institution, which under God is a great source of our respectability and happiness, the University in this vicinity will be the object of their watchful and paternal care.

May we also from political as well as Christian motives bespeak your sympathy as citizens, and disciples of Jesus, in behalf of our Corporations, which by reason of indigence or divisions are without stated religious instruction and the ordinances. This appeal is made with the greater assurance, as the station you occupy is proof of the general confidence in your rectitude and public spirit. It is likewise believed, that much good might be produced by your example. Use your influence then in securing for your destitute brethren the means of religious knowledge. Keep them from being witnesses of a spirit of proselytism in any of its excesses. Provide for them such plain, reasonable, practical instructions as were dispensed by the Saviour, and his immediate disciples. Seed, which is thus sown, with the blessing of heaven, will spring up and bear fruit, “some thirty fold, some sixty fold, some an hundred fold.” You may hope to convert what are known to be abodes of anarchy, vice, and impiety, into scenes of Christian purity and order. You may hope in the best possible way to add strength and stability to our Republic; to convert those, who are now the servants of corruption, to the regularity and usefulness of good citizens; to “the stature of perfect men in Christ Jesus, and to the liberty of the Sons of God.”

With a reference to the retributions of eternity may you execute your labours for the suppression of vice, encouragement of virtue, preservation of order, and security of the common welfare. May you attain to the dignity and reward of good and faithful servants.

Christian Ministers! The enlightened and patriotic have been ready to acknowledge your agency in advancing the civil interests, independence, and moral distinction of this community. They rely on the religion you preach, with its momentous sanctions, and the ordinances you administer, to multiply the refinements of domestic and social life; impose restraints on the inclination to libertinism and excess; strengthen the arm of the magistrate; establish in the ordinary intercourse of men a love of charity, truth, justice, and right; eradicate all in their speculations or practice, which savours of superstition; give fervency and elevation to piety; minister consolation in affliction, sickness, and death; and to keep alive a sense of accountability at the tribunal of heaven.

An order of men, whose personal influence is owned, whose office is respected, whose work is admitted to involve the best interests of time and immortality, will suffer the word of exhortation, that they in nothing fail to sustain their appropriate character. Brethren! Ye are called unto liberty. It is your privilege to live where there are no hierarchal establishments. It is your happiness to have fallen upon times, too enlightened, to tolerate or fear the general triumph of a lust of spiritual domination. Let it be your great solicitude to give no just occasion for a prejudice against your profession. How can we better fulfill our commission, than by repressing in ourselves, and aiming to overcome in others, everything which is allied to religious indifference, illiberality, or censoriousness, and by showing that we have “put on the meekness and gentleness of Christ?” How can we reflect higher honor on our office and religion, than by bending all our energies to the discovery of truth; and by uniting in an earnest and well directed effort to advance the kingdom, which consisteth in righteousness, peace, and joy? How can we do more to make our nation high above all nations in praise, and in name, and in honor, than by dispensing such lessons, as shall persuade our fellow Christians to “deny all ungodliness, and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously, and godly in the world?” How may we give more full effect to the Gospel, than by displaying the evidence of integrity and charity in our temper, preaching, and life, which must and will result from a cordial belief, that “one is our Master, even Christ, and all we are brethren?”

Each inhabitant of this land has a reputation and interest, which must rise or sink with the character, condition, and prospects of his country. To none but the stranger to genuine patriotism will it be a matter of indifference, whether the scene of his nativity shall be in honor or disgrace. Let it therefore be admitted by every citizen as an obligation, which he cannot alienate, to stand as a sentinel to guard the public welfare. Whatever may be his rank or station, he may by his principles and habits contribute to establish, or sully his country’s fame. Who does not admire to gaze in imagination on the glory and grandeur to which his nation may attain! Who is not prepared to give wings to his fancy, that he may survey the millions of people in distant times, who shall ascribe the existence of their privileges, and the sum of their safety and joy, to the liberality and foresight of the present and preceding ages!

Be as virtuous and pious as the land you inhabit is excellent, and you may hope to transmit this inestimable inheritance for the possession and enjoyment of future generations. They will rise up and call you blessed, who aided in forming and giving permanency to their institutions, and in devising so many of the means of their improvement and happiness.

 


Endnotes

1. Tudor’s Life of J. Otis.

2. Priestly’s Lectures on History.

Sermon – Election – 1823, Connecticut


Nathaniel Taylor (1786-1858) graduated from Yale in 1807. He was pastor of the First Congregational church of New Haven from 1812 until 1822, when he was appointed Professor of Didactic Theology at Yale. This election sermon was preached by Rev. Taylor in Hartford, CT on May 7, 1823.


A

SERMON,

ADDRESSED TO THE LEGISLATURE

OF THE STATE OF

CONNECTICUT,

AT THE

ANNUAL ELECTION

IN

HARTFORD,

MAY 7, 1823.

BY NATHANIEL W. TAYLOR,
PROFESSOR OF DIDACTIC THEOLOGY IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
ATTACHED TO YALE COLLEGE.

HARTFORD:
PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE LEGISLATURE.
Charles Babcock, Printer.

1823.

 

At a General Assembly of the State of Connecticut, holden at Hartford, in said State, on the first Wednesday of May, A. D. 1823.

RESOLVED BY THIS ASSEMBLY, That the Hon. William Moseley and Cornelius Tuthill, Esq. be a Committee to present the thanks of this Assembly to the Rev. NATHANIEL W. TAYLOR, for the Sermon delivered by him before the Assembly, at the opening of the Session, and to request a copy thereof, that it may be printed.

A true Copy of Record,
Examined by
THOMAS DAY, Secretary.
 

SERMON.
ISAIAH LIX. 14.

“And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off; for
Truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.”

WITH the exception of a few political visionaries, the world has concurred in the opinion, that mankind must be governed. Man finds so many opportunities and inducements to injure others for his own benefit, he is so destitute of any principle within him to rise up for their defence, that if there were no influence from without, to overawe him into a respect for their rights, like a beast of prey, he would be ever ready to destroy.

Conspicuous as are the wisdom and goodness of God in upholding human society, without the prevalence of the benevolent affections, even his mercy has provided no relief from the ravages of overt injustice. The moment that mutual injury begins, the moment that mutual animosity controls the social intercourse of a community, all its bands are broken. Even a company of highwaymen must abstain from robbing and murdering one another, or abandon their association. Justice then, as opposed to overt acts of injustice, is the main pillar of human society. Take this away and the whole edifice crumbles into ruins.

Hence the grand object for which civil government is required, and at which it aims, is to enforce the observance of justice.

The text refers us to a period in the history of Israel, when this great design of civil government was wholly defeated. A total disregard of the rights of men, distrust and violence prevailed in their most appalling forms, and were felt in their most dreadful results. Of these calamities the text also assigns the cause: “For truth is fallen in the street—and equity cannot enter.” Truth, as it unfolds the rules and motives of moral action, was contemned and disregarded throughout the community. The sense of an ever-present Ruler and Judge, the restraints of laws enforced by sanctions drawn from eternity, had lost their power on the consciences and conduct of men. Of such a prostration of the standard of public morals, the consequence was natural. There was a disruption of social ties, and a lawless spirit, that let loose human selfishness to invade human peace and happiness, without check and without relief.

The text then will lead me to shew, that a corrupt public opinion, on the subject of morals, destroys the efficacy of civil government.

This will appear, if we consider

1. The inherent weakness of civil government—The efficacy of civil government, to secure the observance of its laws, must consist wholly in its rightful authority, and in its penal sanctions.

All authority in civil government must be founded in the right of the Ruler to claim the obedience of subjects; and all the influence of such authority must result from an acknowledged obligation on the part of the subject to submit to its demands. But a corrupt public opinion disclaims such obligation; and of course the validity of every claim for obedience on the ground of rightful authority. Shall the subject be told that protection and obedience are reciprocal duties? Shall he be told that he has entered into the social compact, and by virtual stipulation relinquished his natural right into the hands of the ruling power? Shall he be told of the public good and of the anarchy and the woes which result from trampling on the laws of the land? But what are duties, compacts, the public good, or the public ruin, to the man who disclaims all moral obligation? Civil laws, in such a case, are mere appeals to human selfishness in one form, to repress human selfishness in another, leaving man accountable simply to himself. The rightful authority of the Ruler, as “a minister of God for good,” being disclaimed, every man’s inclination is his law, his tribunal, and his judge.

Nor is the fact changed by the influence of penal sanctions. To man, viewed simply in relation to laws enforced by civil penalties, this world is the only place of retribution; and every question of obedience or disobedience is with him merely an arithmetical problem respecting the amount of his present personal advantage. Aside then from the success which attends the active invention and unwearied artifices of those who devise and pursue their own interest in defiance of human laws; aside from the confidence with which crime relies on concealment or escape; there is often an energy in human passion, which penalties, threatened by human power, cannot restrain. Bodily suffering is of light estimation, compared with the restlessness or anguish of ungratified desire. The death-song of the savage, which he sings when expiring under the hands of his tormentors, shows how the spirit within can sustain the pressure from without. But the spirit, tortured by its own fires, awakes to desperation. Obstruct the path of excited avarice or excited ambition, by toil, by suffering or even by torment, and the influence to check its career is as stubble before the spreading flame. Let then a corrupt public opinion detach from civil government its moral obligation, and leave it only the influence of penal sanctions, and let the prospect of wealth or fame open bright to their appropriate passions, and the deeds of the pirate and the hero tell us what men would do. How would terror and consternation seize every heart in a moment, did we know that there was nothing but the feeble arm of magistracy to protect us from the daggers of assassins.

2. The truth of our position is apparent from the direct influence of public opinion on civil government. Public opinion, in fact, governs the world. Its influence in elective governments, where all authority returns back into the hands of the people at frequent intervals, is absolutely paramount to every other.—That which forms the laws, is the opinion of the people, expressed by the voice of the people. It is through this influence that governments, and their specific regulations, are modified or wholly abandoned by revolution and change. That, on which the administration of a government depends, is the opinion of the people, expressed by the voice of the people. So much so, that any exceptions, to the decisive control of this authority, is a sure preliminary to changes that shall restore its supremacy. That, which determines the execution of the laws, is the opinion of the people expressed by the voice of the people; so much so, that a law which carries not with it the sanction of its own popularity, becomes extinct by repeal, or obsolete by desuetude. What then is civil government, with its laws and their sanctions, before the controlling power of public opinion? What are legislators, what are judges, what are executive officers? The mere vehicles of expressing public opinion; the instruments of the will of the people; the v0x populi forming its edicts and its laws, and carrying them into execution. Nor is this any perversion of republican institutions. It shows, however, the controlling principle of the whole machinery, the presiding genius of our whole political system. This, I say, is public opinion, and it should be so; it is essential to the very existence of that form of government which, under God, has so long blessed us. Still it is a fact, and a fact which may serve to show us where our strength lies, and whence, if at all, weakness and ruin will overtake us. Let public opinion, with all this omnipotence of control, become deeply corrupt, and still government, its laws, their framers, their executors, are all subservient to its dictates. What do laws against murder avail, under the frown of public opinion? Let the laws against dueling, in many parts of our own country, answer. What are laws against bodily torture, when the practice of it is countenanced by public opinion? Barbarities, which are enough to make our blood curdle, inflicted on many unhappy victims of slavery, furnish the answer. What are laws against drunkenness, when the popular voice forbids their execution? The woes and the groans of the land bring the reply to every ear. Now let public opinion advance in degeneracy, till it shall decree into its public enactments, the maxims of infidelity and atheism; let the living God be voted out of existence, and death, the door of eternal retribution, be transformed into the unbroken sleep of the grave; let evil be called good and good evil, darkness be put for light and light for darkness; and what would be your legislators, your judges, your witnesses, your executive officers? The mere panders and patrons of crime. What would be your subjects?—The mere perpetrators of crime. And how long before a tide of woes would overwhelm all that is fair and happy in the land? How long before an impatience under miseries, which humanity could not endure, would madden and convulse the nation, till every foundation of order, peace and happiness, would be subverted as by the shock of an earthquake.

3. A corrupt public opinion destroys all that subsidiary influence, on which the efficacy of civil laws chiefly depends. It is a fact, which admits of no denial, that not the love of God, not the disinterested love of our species, but selfishness, is the governing principle of the great bulk of mankind.

When we reflect on this fact, on the countless temptations to selfish gratification, and the facilities of attaining it by deceit and violence, and when at the same time, we look over the face of society, and witness the security with which man counts on his enjoyments, it is truly a cause of astonishment to see on what all this security depends. Human laws do indeed put their restraints on many crimes; they do promote many of the practical moralities of life; and thus exert an influence, without which, every vestige of social good would be swept away. But then how entirely dependent are these laws for their results on an influence not their own? How innumerable are the actions of men, over which they can exert no more influence, than we can extend to the elements of future storms when preparing for their desolations?

It is precisely in these circumstances that a sound public opinion holds a check on human selfishness, for which we might look in vain to the combined strength of nations. This it does, through the medium of custom and fashion, of a regard to moral character, and of conscience and the fear of God.

There is perhaps no kind of moral action to which custom and fashion cannot reconcile man, or which they cannot render even agreeable. Their power to divest bestiality itself of its offensiveness, and crime of its enormity, may be learned in the politest city of Europe. It is this influence which, even in this country, tolerates slavery with its tortures and its murders, among those who in other respects are humane and liberal. It is this which sustains in vogue, the honorable way of killing by single combat, and which often gives sanction and currency to practices in one age, which it interdicts with the deepest frown of abhorrence in another. In short, what custom and fashion require or justify is the way of the world; and they will retain the great mass of a community in the path which they prescribe, though it be the path of death.—In vain then is the voice of legislation lifted against the voice of fashion. What the latter demands or patronizes will infallibly compel legislative submission or legislative connivance.

Now it is public opinion which imparts this high and commanding supremacy to custom and fashion, and thus creates and sustains a standard of moral action which sets legislative power at defiance. Let then public opinion, through this medium, I do not say sanction the violation of civil statutes, but give currency merely to those vices, and proscribe merely those moralities which no human laws can reach; let all that strictness of morals, that regularity of conduct, and those proprieties and decencies of deportment, which prevail in a well ordered family, neighborhood, or larger community, become repulsively unfashionable; and how soon would distrust and suspicion sunder every tie of social life, and human selfishness awake in the forms of malice, revenge and cruelty, and be witnessed in all the horrors of its fierce and relentless struggles!

Another influence of public opinion, indispensable to the efficacy of civil laws, is a regard to moral character. Pride of character is the master passion of an unsanctified world. No man can endure the misery of being despised by all around him, with the consciousness that he deserves it. When he can no longer look society in the face, and when he feels himself to be case out of affection and fellowship with all, he retires to a solitude of still deeper wretchedness. There he feels those inward pangs from which no secrecy can protect, under which no hardihood of soul can sustain him; and which, like avenging furies, haunt his guilty spirit and drive him to desperation or distraction.

Here then is a mighty influence of counteraction on human selfishness; an influence to which, in this world, society owes most of its tranquility and enjoyment; an influence so powerful on the one hand, that were the standard of moral character to be raised so high, and to become so imperious in a community, s to banish every enemy of its peace into an exile of self-contempt, a solitude where he should be greeted neither by human sympathy, nor human affection, civil laws would be superseded, or required only as rules of counsel and direction; an influence so powerful on the other hand, that obedience to civil statutes which should involve in disgrace and infamy, no weight of penalty could enforce, for torment and death would be more welcome than the retribution of such obedience.

Now this regard to reputation, with all its power of control, is not so much the desire of meriting, as of actually obtaining public approbation. It makes all wish to be accounted fit for society; in none does it awaken the purpose of being really fit. It therefore secures simply that degree of moral virtue, and of exemption from crime, which constitute such fitness in the judgment of those who arbitrate the question. Of course in man, as a member of civil society, it is a desire and an aim exactly graduated by the standard of moral character which public opinion erects. Beyond the limit which public opinion prescribes as honorable, human selfishness will not go, in obedience to legislative requirement; within this limit it will advance to its object, regardless of legislative prohibition though its way be tracked with blood.

In vain then do we look to human laws, deriving no support from public opinion, to curb the fury of human passions. Let this single influence be unfelt, let public opinion cease to attach infamy to crime, and award only shame and contempt to the sanctity of virtue, let there be none anxious to maintain nor willing to make a single sacrifice to maintain an average moral character, and how common would licentious and barbarous deeds become? How would the quiet of mutual confidence be displaced by the excesses and alarms of unbridled ferocity? Human selfishness would become its own lawless avenger in the retaliation of wrongs, in violence and in massacre; and we should go into an assemblage of men as we should enter a den of lions.

Public opinion acts no less powerfully in securing to human laws their efficacy, through the medium of conscience and the fear of God. He who formed and protects us has provided, within our own bosoms, a check for that injustice which is beyond the restraining power of man. There is a voice within which gives to moral sanctions an efficacy more powerful than that of a thousand gibbets. In the presence of conscience, man is in the presence of God; and the same voice speaks to him, which speaks to angels and to arch-angels from the throne of the eternal. Through the same medium, rewards and punishments adjudged by omnipotence and operating at tall times and in all circumstances, bring their palpable and pressing power to bear on moral action. I need not say how entirely all this influence on the great mass of the community depends on the soundness of public opinion. It is public opinion, as it upholds the standard of duty and obligation, which gives to conscience all its power. Thus it exhibits the moral turpitude of crime to steady inspection, and by anticipation constrains the criminal to read in every eye that meets him, the reproach that echoes in his own heart. Were the light of moral truth, then, to be extinguished from the public mind; were a corrupt public opinion to dispense with the moral and religious instruction of children, with the institution of the Sabbath, with the revelation which God has made of himself, of his law, and of human destiny, with all the appointed vehicles of conveying moral truth to the mind; conscience would become extinct in the soul of man. And what, then, would be the power of human edicts? Let there be none sensible to the high and commanding authority of moral excellence; none who revolt at the turpitude of crime; let conscience, at no point on the descending scale of profligacy, utter an admonition or forebode approaching wrath; let the being of a God be excluded from human belief, and the mind robbed of all idea of his perfections and majesty; let every element of that character which exalts him on the riches of the universe, as its beneficent Parent, and gives him the throne as its Almighty Sovereign and Judge, be done away from human thought, and then measure the efficacy of civil statutes on the conduct of men. Follow that child, who grows up without these restraints, through his profanity and strifes, and pilfering and thefts; his forgeries, robberies and murders, till he terminates his career on the gallows, despising alike the hand of his executioner and the wrath of his God; and you have no overdrawn picture of what every member of the community would be, under a similar exemption. What, then, would be the fact, were these restraints not merely removed, but every child, from early infancy, initiated into all the arts and excesses of vice, and every step of his progress animated by the counsel and the example of ruffians, old in crime, till he should become as much a child of hell as themselves! Oh, what scenes of wretchedness and horror would spread every field of observation! How should we see human selfishness in all that malignity and death which give to hell itself its moral aspect and its eternal woes!

4. We appeal to facts. Did time permit, we might trace the truth before us in a comparison of one Christian country with another; we might refer to different parts of our own country; and to that period of its history when infidelity and its practical licentiousness threatened “to subvert foundations.” We might recur to the history of England in the different eras of its moral light and moral influence. We might recur to the state of the pagan nations of antiquity, and show that, false and corrupt as their moral systems were they inspired an elevation of feeling and character which gave to society all its value. Though such appeals might furnish a convicting, they would not furnish the fullest illustration of the point we aim to establish. If we would justly estimate the evil of a corrupt public opinion, we must recur, not to examples of its partial corruption; not to examples where the subversion of Christianity has been followed by the morals of enlightened heathenism, but by the desecration of all that is pure, and exalted, and holy in Christianity itself, without any substitute; where it leaves too much light for the superstitions of heathenism to restrain man, and where by way of reprisal for its past odious authority, it is put down under all the ignominy and hatred of detected imposture. Passing by, then, the sufferings which so long distressed the nations, when popery took away from men the word of life, and substituted the commandments of men for the commandments of God; and the scenes of horror and of woe that desolated the nations under the reign of Mahomedanism, we have a memorable example, never to be forgotten, witnessed in our own age. In one country, and that the seat of arts, of science and of refinement, the revelation of God underwent a total eclipse. On that theatre of darkness, infidelity and atheism performed their horrid tragedy. Convulsion succeeded convulsion; every mound of authority was thrown down, and the voice of law, and the pleas of anguish, were alike drowned in the fury of the tempest. It was not a war of common atrocity; not a war for liberty or conquest; but a war of extermination of all that blesses man in time, and brightens his prospects for eternity. Men stuck the dagger of their enmity not only into the bosoms, but into the souls of men, nor did they deem their triumph complete till they had demolished every altar where human guilt had wept, and human misery been comforted; yea, till God and his Son were exiled from human thought. Law, order, civilization, were overwhelmed, as by the sweep of a tornado. The fires of hell kindled on the devoted land; and while the smoke of its torment ascended up to Heaven, Europe with its thrones trembled to its centre. And when we remember how the dark cloud rose over us, and how it looked like the preparation for the final storm, it becomes us to be instructed.

The subject leads us to the following remarks:

1. There is no form of government better than our own for a virtuous community; and none worse for a vicious community. In a monarchy and an aristocracy, where subjects are held in awe by the terror of military establishments, there is an independent sovereignty, which can augment its power, and enforce submission. But in a republic, rulers are governed while they govern; and in a virtuous republic, the people govern themselves by the ennobling influence of moral principle. Does liberty then consist in exemption from the grasp of despotism, and in doing our own will in accordance with enlightened duty and moral obligation? If this be liberty, where can it be found in perfection, except in a virtuous republic? And what is social happiness? What but the operation and effects of moral principle, of the fear and the love of God, and of the love of man, producing the whole train of social virtues, with their benign results? A moral influence, as it operates only on the reason and the conscience, is of mighty efficacy; operating on the heart, it gives perfection to human character and human happiness. This is not a dream. There is a world where this influence pervades every heart, animates every action, and reigns in the diffusion of universal blessedness. The same influence would bless earth, as well as heaven. And so long as sense and reason are left us, we shall look to this influence to bless this state; and so long as it shall here be felt, earth shall furnish no spot to rival this goodly land in the moral character and social happiness of its inhabitants.

But what is a republic without this influence? The people have no monarch to fear but themselves; no lords to whom they are vassals; their lords are dependent on them. Unlike a monarchy, or an aristocracy, a republic has no power of coercion by which it can reach degradation of principle and character, and compel visible loyalty from a spirit of rebellion. The government is the will of the people, and where that will becomes corrupt, as the prostration of moral sentiment will make it, everything is left to the fury of human passions, unchecked by power, or by principle. At the moment of such deficiency, human selfishness is lawless, and, from its woes, despotism is a welcome refuge. So sure then as a general corruption of moral sentiment shall pervade this republic, those principles of human nature which, unchecked, will invade human peace and happiness, will be found in the full play of their deadliest energies, in these fields, and streets, and dwellings, where all is now peace and joy. Then, highly as we prize our political institutions, grateful as we ought to be to heaven for the blessings they impart, should welcome monarchy, aristocracy, despotism, anything but a corrupt republic.

2. The subject suggests several reasons why we have to expect the continued efficacy of our civil institutions. Probably no state or nation has existed, in which there has been a combination of circumstances so favorable to the moral character of its inhabitants, as in this state, and of course none so favorable to the efficacy of political institutions. Here none are compelled to crime by the desperate state of their circumstances. Their employment, as an agricultural people, while it gives dignity to character, precludes, by a powerful tendency, a taste for the pleasures of sensuality and the vices of idleness. The husbandman, by his very occupation, is every placed amid the wonders of an omnipresent God, and summoned to praise him as the Great Parent of existence, and of all that blesses it. We are placed at a distance, also, from the wars and revolutions and crimes of older countries. What a mighty drama has been acting on the theatre of Europe, for the last age, while we have stood as on a safe and lofty eminence, to survey its horrors and learn wisdom from its follies and its crimes! Our political institutions have also secured, in no common degree, the great ends of social union. We have had, indeed, our political conflicts with their sins and calamities, but they have been without blood. There is a moral sentiment pervading the community, which demands the execution of many of our wholesome laws. There is a dark frown of popular opinion to meet open crime, and awe the gross daring of licentiousness and impiety. The sanctuary of justice has not been violated by the approach of bribery and oppression; nor has atheism been heard in the hall of legislation, to decree, amid the plaudits of an infuriated populace, the fool’s wish, “no God,” into a civil enactment. Religious liberty is not yet in chains. We are all born to feel, that no power on earth has a right to interpose between our conscience and our God, and that the prerogative of forming religious opinions, with its solemn responsibilities, is our own; a prerogative highly auspicious to the cause of truth and virtue. With the conviction that ignorance will make the place of its dominion “the region and valley of the shadow of death,” we look with joy to the institution of our common schools, by which provision is made to carry the light of useful knowledge, like the light of heaven, into every dwelling; and with still more bland emotion we look to our seminary of science, as the sun of the whole system, from which emanates a most benign influence on every department of social life, while it extends the light of salvation, and carries on the high enterprise of redeeming grace, in this state, in the neighboring states, and throughout the nation.

The Christian ministry in this state is distinguished by purity of doctrine, and the success of its labors. Without allusion to sectarian peculiarities, for I can easily overlook these distinctions in the present estimate, the clergy of our country, generally, are unrivalled in those qualifications which give to Christianity its effects on the conscience and the hearts of men. It is here that a laborious ministry brings the religion of the gospel home to the bosoms and business of the people, and makes them feel that they have a personal concern with it. It is here, if anywhere, that the sacred page of God’s revelation is opened, to show man his character and his destiny; that Christianity makes known her laws and her precepts, and reveals the bright visions of her promises, and the deep terrors of her denunciations. It is here, that she gives all her solace to human sorrow, and all her joys to human hope; and it is in this land that we seem to hear the exclamation—“Behold how beautiful on the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, of good, that publisheth salvation, that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth.”

With that series of religious revivals which has blessed our country, in its power and extent, there is nothing to be compared, in any other portion of Christendom. While we can trace these footsteps of the Great Deliverer from sin; while his life-giving spirit departs not from us, this shall be the glory of all lands, and ours the privilege to blend the confidence of hope with the fervor of our petition—“Thy kingdom come, and thy will be done here as it is in heaven.”

Such are some of the principal causes of moral influence in this state, whose perpetuated operation will ensure the stability and the efficacy of our political institutions. So long as they exist, in their present state, the vital principle of our political existence will not be destroyed; it will still beat strong at the seat of life, for the requisite causes will exist to sustain a vigorous pulsation. We may indeed be agitated by political or religious commotions; ambition may project and execute and convulse; party conflicts may be even more violent than ever; error may spread its pestilential clouds and vapors; persecution may light its fires; foreign invasion may approach; the ark of God may be cast upon the floods; and the tempest may thicken and sweep around us—but Connecticut will be remembered by the Ruler of the storm, and in the hour of his mercy he will say to the winds, “cease,” and to the waves, “be still.”

3. Our subject suggests some of the principal sources of danger to our political prosperity. It is not believed that we have reached that prostration of moral sentiment, which resists the efficacy of all wholesome laws. The danger is that we shall reach it; and it is well to advert to the causes which may hurry us down this fearful declivity.

One principal source of danger is our party competitions. In this country we have, for many years, gone largely into the experiment of party conflicts. And who can assign limits to the ravages they had long since made, had a sound public opinion by shame and infamy, and moral sanctions, put no restraint on their feuds and their violence? Who has not seen their tendency, not only to proceed to every excess, which public sentiment would patronize or justify, but to corrupt that sentiment, and thus to remove every barrier to their own most baleful progress and calamities? Who has not seen enough to satisfy him, how easily the integrity of rulers, the majesty of law, and the sanctions of morality may be trodden in the dust before the march of party spirit?

Now we know that in a republic there are peculiar causes to augment the violence of contending parties. There are always enough to lead on the most desperate enterprises of ambition. There is a dependence of rulers on the people, which puts into the hand of the demagogue the most powerful engine of revolution, and which inspires a party with the consciousness of its own strength, and prompts its revenge and its excesses. There is in rulers a spirit of servile accommodation, which impairs the prerogative of government, and instead of maintaining the strait onward course of independent integrity, fearless of popularity or place, gives to “the voice of the constitutents,” the devotedness of an oracular annunciation; as if legislators had no further use, for either sense of honesty, than to ascertain and conform to the pleasure of those who give them their office. The extension, perhaps I ought to say the unavoidable extension, of the elective franchise, with the increasing unequal distribution of property, in this county with fearful probability, will one day operate in the violence and rage of party contests. A finer field is never opened for the career of unprincipled ambition, than when it can enlist its associates, and draw around it its dependants, and raise the outcries of faction, to redress the oppressions of the rich and the great. At the same time, no rights are dearer to most men than rights of property; there are none, the invasion of which is more sure to provoke resistance and conflict, or to awaken the most desperate struggles for their protection. Let then the state be convulsed, let party collisions become as violent and revengeful and excessive, as there are causes enough to make them, and how soon would every mound, reared by a sound public opinion on morals, be overflowed by the waves of popular fury! The men, on whom God should most visibly frown, would stand highest in popular estimation. From the hall of legislation, and the sanctuary of justice, would be heard the decrees of popular licentiousness. Crimes would be legalized by dignified example, by legislative license, and by judicial protection; and all the security, with which we now look at the joys of our pilgrimage, would be broken up, by the barbarities of anarchy, or the oppressions of despotism.

Another source of danger to our political welfare, is the declining estimate of the value of religious institutions. Long before the formation of our present Constitution, an increasingly low estimate of religious institutions was visible, in a considerable part of our population. Of this, a former law of the state, not the abolition of it, was, it is believed, a principal occasion. With the hostility which the law excited, was associated, to some extent, hostility to the object which it aimed to support. To this hostility, the repeal of the law, by gross perversion indeed, secured a triumph, and was considered, by many, not only as a release from the obligation to support religious institutions, but as a public sanction of the sentiment, that these institutions are unworthy of support. It thus gave to avarice the power, and to enmity to the gospel the gratification, of being avenged of their old enemies; and in many instances they have turned their backs on this only guardian of our political and social welfare. Neither the necessity of the change adverted to, nor the wisdom and the integrity of many who were active in producing it, is called in question. There were dangers and evils without the change, it is believed, greater than exist with it. All that is asserted is, that these perils have not wholly ceased. The danger is that future excesses will be the greater, as the consequence of former restraints; that this particular corruption of public opinion will increase, will withdraw patronage and support from religious institutions; reduce the “hire” of the laborers in God’s vineyard, and hold up the ministry of reconciliation as an object of suspicion and obloquy, till the message it brings from heaven will be despised and unheard; that custom and fashion will soon exempt a man from the disgrace which he merits for refusing pecuniary patronage to the institutions of divine mercy; that an indifference to the gospel, and an aversion to its grand peculiarities, will prevail, which will exchange it for damnable heresy; that those inadequate views of its benign efficacy upon the social state of man will obtain, which will consent to go without its weekly ministrations, and to leave posterity to grow up untouched and unblessed by its power; and that such contempt of the gospel, under the retributive providence of God, will exile that gospel from the land, bring on the community all the woes which mark its departure, in time, and lead away future generations from its great salvation, to the tribulation and the wrath of a ruined eternity.

Another source of danger is the difference of religious faith, and the sectarian zeal it awakens among different denominations of Christians. Contests, dictated simply by passion, are comparatively of feeble influence and of short duration. But those which are fortified, by the convictions of the judgment, are usually calamitous and lasting. Hence, religious differences are capable of exciting the passions of men, and perpetuating their animosities beyond any other cause. This has been well understood by the leaders in revolution, in every country. Never have they counted, with stronger confidence, on the adherence of their followers, than when they could enlist them through the medium of their religious partialities and zeal. It is in such contests, that animosities become the fiercest and the most relentless. Then, passion is sustained, in its utmost height, by the imagined rectitude of its cause, and from it, as the supposed cause of millions, even ferocity derives a steady impulse, to invigorate and sanctify all its movements. Then it is that the cause of truth and righteousness, which ought to be dearer to its professed votaries than every other, is abandoned for the cause of a sect; and the standard of moral action, the whole influence of religion in a community, is exposed to an effectual prostration. Then it is that infidelity and sectarian zeal, Herod and Pilate-like, find a common interest, and embark in a common cause; and the polluting union issues in death, to what is most beloved of God, and most desirable to man. In this country, the separation of Christians into distinct detachments, by its familiarity, loses much of its alarming aspect. We fondly hope that no apprehensions of evil, from this source, will be realized, but we cannot esteem them wholly groundless. While this separation exists to create uncharitable and exclusive spirit, while it converts every attempt to adjust external differences, into the occasion of exasperated feeling, and more distant alienation, the danger is, that the breach will continue to widen, that the cause of God will be relinquished for the cause of a sect, that professed love to God will be found in friendly concert and active co-operation, with infidelity and atheism; that a corruption of moral sentiment will pervade the community, to sanctify the excesses of passion in a cause deemed so holy; that jealousy of power on the one hand, and pretensions to it on the other; that superstition, in all its bigotry and impiety, in all its fury, will apply their combined energies to civil disunion, and civil conflict. Nor are there more fearful ingredients which an avenging God mingles in the cup of his indignation, when he would root up and destroy. Nor should it be forgotten that these very causes, which exist only in an incipient state with us, have, from similar beginnings, proceeded to these foreboded results; and that, by their help, even in this land, some future Cromwell may be seen.

“To wade through slaughter to a throne.”
The only other source of danger to our political and social welfare, which I shall mention, consists in the prevalence of open vice. As the population and wealth of a country increase, the means and the opportunities of vicious indulgence are greatly multiplied. The relative influence of the righteous and the wicked though the proportion in numbers remains the same, greatly changes. In a dense population, there is enough of the latter to retire from the influence of the former, into a separate association for mutual countenance and support. The effects of these and other causes are visible in the sensualities of luxury and the extravagances of pride, in the more frequent occurrence of the more desperate crimes of robbery, assassination, and plunder, in violations of the Sabbath, by business, amusement, and a diminished attendance on its worship, in falsehood and fraud, and pre-eminently in the crime of drunkenness. These sins subvert foundations. They not only indicate but form the standard of public morals, and this by a most powerful tendency to corrupt public sentiment. Familiarity with crimes impairs the sense of their enormity; reputation and character cease to operate as restraining motives, for disgrace and infamy lose their influence by division among the multitude; the public conscience is rendered callous by the impunity and prevalence of vice, and by the fond conceit, that what the world approve, God will. These tendencies are all visible among us in actual results. There is a toleration of vice, an unsuspecting freedom and openness in the commission of many crimes, which in other days were unknown, and which indicate a great change in the public sentiment and moral character of this community. Through the prevalence of vice, and the countenance given to it, our habits are changing, and we are in fact becoming another people. I shall not attempt exactly to measure the depth and force of this stream of moral corruption. Fearful as its progress is, it may perhaps now be arrested. But let it roll on unchecked another generation, and who shall say that its accumulated tide can be stayed from the most fearful desolations? Profanity, Sabbath breaking and drunkenness do not indeed directly invade the rights of men, but they bring in their train every crime that will do it. Let public sentiment be corrupt enough to tolerate these crimes, and it will soon detach from every other crime its infamy and its turpitude, and banish the fear of God from the human mind. The single sin of drunkenness may obtain a prevalence in a community, that will prostrate all moral influence, and paralyze all moral sensibility. It is the unfailing cause of moral debasement. It is this crime which, in the infinitude of its guilt and its woes, comprises every element of ruin, and provokes the deepest frown of Heaven’s vengeance. And to say nothing of other crimes, if we have already reached that prostration of moral sentiment and moral influence, which compels the sword of magistracy to sleep over this, if the men whose profession is to make drunkards, and to people Hell with the victims of their art, are kept, in countenance by public opinion, if the products of our fields, the very bread of human sustenance is reputably converted, almost without a metaphor, into “the fire and brimstone” of the pit, who will say that there is no cause for alarm?

Such are some of the dangers to which our political and social blessings are exposed. Some of the causes are inseparable from the nature of our government: all of them are in actual existence, and in actual operation. We may, indeed, flatter ourselves into security, with the dream, that something, we know not what; some redeeming spirit; some tutelary Genius, will protect and save us. No, my hearers, nothing but the spirit and genius of Christianity can save us. If we cannot uphold a moral influence, through the medium of moral sentiment, which shall be adequate to counteract these causes of ruin, then, as the ordinances of heaven go on to their appointed results, so will this republic descend, through convulsion and anarchy, to the vast cemetery of nations. All our dreams to the contrary will only hasten our descent to that fearful abyss.

4. Our subject calls on every friend of his country, to fulfill his part in upholding and augmenting a sound public opinion on the subject of morals. Among the most prominent and effectual means of this end, are the following:

In the character of subjects, the most important duties devolve upon us. The authority of God enjoins, that we “lead quiet and peaceable lives, in all godliness and honesty;”—that “every soul be subject unto the higher powers.” Whatever may be thought of the unqualified import of these injunctions, whatever may be said of the doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance, undeniably there are rights and privileges of freemen; undeniably, it may be their duty to bring their influence to affect the issue of party competitions; and to redress injustice and oppression on the part of government. But it is maintained, that in this state, with a government and a people like ours, no good, but immense evil, must result from perpetuated party conflicts. In such circumstances, a thousand fold more injury is done by one party campaign of a few years, than any administration of our government will go right. On the contrary, if anything can make that administration go wrong, it is the influence of party zeal. If anything tends to corruption among the people, and oppression on the part of rulers, it is party zeal. Whatever party, then, be dominant, and whatever be the means by which it acquired the ascendency, yet when it has acquired it, our highest security, in regard to the wisdom and the rectitude of its measures, lies in an enlightened sound popular opinion. To secure this influence, and to prevent the ravages of party spirit, it is indispensable that the contest be abandoned; and, instead of committing our interests to the heat, and revenge, and maddening zeal of party commotions, we must place our reliance on the steady, unimpassioned energy of enlightened virtue in the people. Let the one cease, and the other pervade the community, and we shall exchange the darkness and fury of the tempest, for the clear shining of the sun, and the mildness of the zephyr.

Laying aside, then, our party contests, together with their jealousies and suspicions, let our hearts unite in a common interest. Let us remember that submission to the powers that be, which are ordained of God, is a duty which can scarcely need qualification, in this community. Let it be remembered, that injustice and oppression, on the part of government, are seldom prevented, but often provoked, by party contests. Let the political oracle, who is loud in the cry for improvement and change, be counted as he is, a political maniac; and the party zealot be eyed and scorned as the enemy of his country.

In the character of Christians, we have solemn duties to perform, in regard to the peace and welfare of the state. We have already adverted to the dangers and the evils, in this respect, of sectarian zeal and sectarian conflicts, when connected with political contests. Such dangers and evils are not fictitious; and they summon Christians, of every denomination, under solemn responsibilities, to union.

Every denomination of Christians should depend, simply, for the maintenance of its numbers, and its influence, on the purity of its doctrines, the sanctity of its morals, and the zeal and labors of its ministry. It always has been, and it always will be, an ultimate curse, to any religious denomination, to strengthen and build up itself by political patronage. If Christians are to be less concerned, for the cause of God and of souls, than for the success of their religious party; if sect is to clash with sect; if to augment their secular influence, and to pervert it to build up their cause, they are to become political factions; and if the community are to witness only their mutual hostility and contests, the most fearful results may be foretold with the certainty of prophecy.—Nothing, nothing can atone for “the broken unity, the blighted peace, the tarnished beauty, the prostrate energy, and the humbled honor of the church of God.” Every barrier, between the church and the world, would be swept away; ignorance of God and of duty would thicken apace, and the broadest sunshine of the gospel be eclipsed by the spreading darkness. Moral influence, the only safeguard of social order and social happiness, would cease from the community; and when God should come to make inquisition for blood, the death of whole generations would be found at the door of this disgraceful, guilty strife among brethren.

Let Christians, then, bury in oblivion their sectarian contests, with all those animosities, jealousies, and suspicions, which mar their intercourse. Without a pretence of differing on essential truths, or that each sect has not every desirable means of promoting the cause of God, what can justify alienation, and mutual competitions? When, by union and concert, we might do so much to uphold and extend that influence which the wisdom of God has appointed to bless men, in time and eternity, what can justify us in wasting our strength in the work of proselytism, and for this purpose merging the Christian in the sectarian, and the sectarian in a political partisan? Ah! Brethren, we want more of the sacred fire that glowed in the breasts of the early Christians; more of the spirit of heaven; more fellowship with angels, with God and his Son, in the work of bringing men to repentance and to salvation. God calls his people to other service than mutual contention. While the enemy, rushing in like a flood on the one side, calls us to defend a common Christianity, the field, whitening to the harvest on the other, invites to its toils and its rewards. “The New Jerusalem is descending from God out of Heaven,” and we seem to hear “voices in heaven,” voices of acclaiming gladness, saying, “the kingdoms of this world are becoming the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ.” Let us, then, open our hearts to higher and nobler inspirations. Let us strike our hands in a covenant of love; let our hearts accord with the designs, and our efforts keep pace with the movement of God’s beneficence. Then shall the church of God be one, and secure, from the most profane, the acknowledgment of her divinity in the blessings she bestows on our land. Then, in firm encounter, her sons shall meet the legions of error and of death, and go on to new triumphs, till earth shall hear and welcome the salvation of God.

As members of the community, and especially as those who have authority and influence, we are called to counteract vice, and to uphold the institutions of religion. What might not be done by men of talents, and wealth and influence, to change the moral aspect of a whole State; and to cause it to assume, as it were, the face of another Eden? And why do they not do it? Because they want the heart.—I know that every plan of moral improvement is met by the paralyzing prediction, that nothing can be done. I know too, that there is a point of moral degeneracy from which a people will not choose to rise, and from which God will not choose to raise them. But heaven forbid that we should have reached this place of despair and woe. Nor do we believe, that there are no existing laws which can be executed, and especially that no laws can be formed, which can be executed, for the suppression of Sabbath breaking and drunkenness. Which is the town in this state, a majority of whose freemen, would not approve and support decisive measures for such a purpose? There is yet left a correctness of moral sentiment, which would uphold any legislature, who should strenuously bring the power of its provisions to bear on these evils. Nay, there are friends of good order and good government enough to create a sound public opinion, that shall secure an active co-operation with legislative efforts, which neither the sectarian, nor political partisan can withstand. Criminals, and the abettors of crime, are cowards. Conscience and God are both against them. And let the civil statute, and public opinion, be arrayed against them, and their defeat is certain. At any rate, let the experiment be tried; and let us have the appalling decision that nothing can be done, if at all, as the result of thorough experiment. Look at the ravages of the single crime of drunkenness, in families, in neighbourhoods—go to your poor-houses and prisons, and see the prostration of moral principle, what desolations of domestic peace, what crimes, and woes, and death, it spreads through the land! What a tax every sober and industrious member of the community has to pay for the support of this soul-destroying sin. More than nine tenths of the poor-tax of our country result from this single cause. Think of nearly fifty millions of dollars of annual expenditure in this nation, for strong drink. See how this crime associates with it every crime and every woe;-sabbath breaking, profanity, idleness, lying, fraud, the extinction of natural affection, theft and murder, and sorrows, griefs and broken hearts, ruined parents, and a ruined offspring. It is no exaggeration. Look, and you shall see the raging of a pestilence, before which the bloom of paradise would wither. And must we only sit still to contemplate its desolations? Shall sectarian and party zeal, to secure the auspicious patronage and support of drunkards, consent to defeat this cause of humanity? And every heart be cold, and every hand idle, as if panic struck by the fear of popular odium? Then, a few generations passed, and we are a ruined people. Liberty and religion will here mingle their tears of despair over all that man holds dear and God counts holy.—Oh, for some spirit of emancipation—that some Howard, or Clarkeson, or Wilberforce might rise up to set us free from this bondage, or to alleviate its horrors; embarking all his talents in the enterprise, and persevering in it, in defiance of every obstacle. Never was there a finer field for benevolence and philanthropy to shed abroad their blessings; never a cause, which might better draw around it adherents from the friends of humanity, and secure the active concert of every virtuous member of society. Would it not be well if any of the wretched victims of this vice could be reclaimed? Would it not be well if our sons and our daughters could be saved from entering the same path of woe? Would it not be well if every virtuous member of the community, every legislator, and every executive officer, and every parent, and every friend and brother could be enlisted in the cause, and if an influence of counsel, and warning, and example, of shame and infamy, and legislative provision, and of a sound public opinion could be made to reach every member of the rising generation, that should check the career of so many thousands whose steps take hold on hell? And would not the man, who should commence the work, and prosecute it with any measure of success, call forth the warmest tribute of gratitude from his country, and stand high in the approbation of his God?

Not less imperious is the duty of upholding the institutions of religion. Our argument, on this point, is not now drawn from the interests of eternity. It is simply an appeal to patriotism. If men had no souls; were there no judgment day; no preparation requisite for the immortal state; the well-being of society, in time, demands the support of Christian institutions. These are the institutions which divine wisdom and mercy have appointed to bless man on earth. Without them, the laws of civil government, salutary and indispensable as they may be, are but a cobweb provision. The great ends of government must fail in every nation, without national morality. This is well understood by the friends of revolution, in every Christian country. When they would corrupt, and overturn, and destroy, their first and most sanguinary measures have been directed against Christian ministers and Christian institutions. Change, innovation, revolution in a community, where religious institutions exert their proper influence, are hopeless.—These must first be brought into contempt, and when this is done, the work of ruin is complete. Even the wiser heathen knew this, and defended their religious rites with a spirit and a wisdom which disgrace many in this enlightened country. Let then the friends of their country, and of social happiness, be as wise as their enemies. Why should they not understand where their strength lies, and be as solicitous to preserve it, as the invaders of national happiness and prosperity are to destroy it? Why should not legislators, judges, magistrates of every description, with every friend of his country, uphold those institutions which are its strength and its glory? May not institutions, which the wisdom and goodness of God have appointed to bless man in time as well as in eternity, be upheld without intolerance and persecution? Are we thus prepared to libel their Author, and, for the sake of liberality and charity to men, are we to have no charity for the living God; and, to show that we have none, by laying aside his ordinances as useless? Shall clamors, about the rights of conscience, induce us to throw away Heaven’s richest legacy to earth? Shall the murderer plead the rights of conscience, for the privilege to kill, and the incendiary for the privilege to burn? Has any man rights of conscience which interfere with a nation’s happiness? Or is it yet to be made a question, whether Christianity be not a wretched imposture; whether it have a salutary influence on civil society? Have we, in this land, to hold this point as yet in debate? Can we decide that theft, and robbery, and murder are evils, and yet not decide whether the influence of the gospel of God be to bless or to curse those who feel it? Is it right to punish crimes which invade social peace? Does the public welfare demand it? And yet is it persecution so to bring the light and influence of moral truth to bear on the mind of man, as to prevent these crimes? But you will make men Christians. And what if we do? The sin is not unpardonable. Besides, is it not as truly an act of kindness to make men Christians, by the exhibition of duty and its sanctions, in the light of God’s truth, as it is to make men infidels and atheists, by means of falsehood and sin? But you’ll make sectarians. God forbid. We plead for no such influence. We only ask for those provisions of law, and that patronage from every member of the community, in behalf of a common Christianity, which are its due, as a nation’s strength and a nation’s glory. In this country, and pre-eminently in this state, the unity of our councils, the vigor of our government, our laws, our habits, have resulted from the moral influence of Christianity. Annihilate this influence, and you bid he soul depart, and prepare a grave for our liberties, our religion, our morals, and our happiness. And who would put his hand to this work? Who are the men that would empty our sanctuaries, and our pulpits; break down the Sabbath, and all the institutions of Christianity; and exclude its influence from their own minds, and the minds of their fellow beings? They are men who would extinguish the idea of Jehovah in the mind of man, as if that were the most painful to human contemplation, and the most destructive to human happiness! Great God! What deeds of horror have these men to perpetrate, that makes them thus dread thine inspection? Unhappy, wretched men! The presence that enraptures Heaven is their chiefest torture; nor can they find relief but in the persuasion that the world is forsaken of its God!—Are these men to be listened to! No—brethren, they are the enemies of God and man, and so ought they to be accounted.

Let us then remember that the safety and welfare of nations is not to be chiefly sought either in arts or in arms—and that the utmost barbarity may be united with the highest refinement. We may dream of a philosophical millennium, and banish the fear of God and dependence on his mercy; but he who ruleth among the nations has fixed the laws of national prosperity. By his resistless decree, no vigor of the body politic can long survive the decay of religious institutions. No wisdom or policy, that despises the power of his Gospel, can withstand that wrath of the Almighty by which he avenges his abused goodness. Let then every friend to his country do what he can to secure to Christian institutions their place and influence in that system of means which God has appointed to bless humanity in time. Let the being of God, as the ever present Ruler and final Judge of men, be recognized. Let the Saviour’s name be adored and trusted. Let “the teaching Priest” be heard in the sanctuary—Let the Sabbath be consecrated as the day of salvation. Let the family and the school be the nursery of youthful piety. Let the magistracy of our land, by a faithful execution of the laws, become a terror to evil doers, and the praise of them that do well. In a word, let all those institutions be upheld, by which God would bless, and we shall be blessed. Angels or embassies of love will still visit our land, and minister to the heirs of salvation. The spirit of grace will still breathe on the dry bones of the valley and quicken to immortal life. The Saviour will be satisfied with the trophies of his mercy. The sun of our nation’s prosperity will rapidly rise to its meridian, and the voice of a reigning God, command it to stand still in fullest splendors.

The application of our subject, to the civil authorities of our State now assembled, is obvious.

Respected Rulers, while the pulpit is not the place to discuss measures of state policy, nor to offer the incense of flattery to any one administration, or to regale the passions of any political party, I am happy in the conviction that I need not hesitate to employ it in speaking of some of your duties to “the blessed and only Potentate.” “The powers that be are ordained of God.” To you, then, under God, we look, in no small degree, for the perpetuity of our civil rights and social blessings; not only by the wisdom of your laws; not only by acts, to encourage the industry and commerce of our state; but by giving your countenance and patronage, your private example, your public influence, to uphold that standard of public morals which is the only pillar of society, the only safeguard of nations. High responsibilities pertain to your station. You live not, you act not, merely for yourselves. Your influence will outlive you; your virtues will survive these tabernacles of clay; your errors and vices will not go down with you to the tomb. They will alike reach future generations, and be felt in other worlds. On the one hand, by disregarding the means of national morality, by indifference or hostility to God’s appointed means of national happiness. You may become accessory to the profanation of the name and of the Sabbath of God; you may silence the embassy of his grace, and extinguish the light of salvation; you may even direct the midnight robber to his neighbor’s dwelling, and put the dagger into the assassin’s hand. On the contrary, by the contribution which your countenance and example as men; your acts and measures as rulers of the people, may tend to sustain Christian institutions, and to uphold a correct standard of morals; you may exert an influence that will descend to save and to bless, till the latter day of glory. Virtue and piety have a peculiar lustre to awe and to attract, when adorned with the rays of honor and authority. While, then, it is the desire of some to shine, and of some to govern, and of some to accumulate, be it yours to execute the high prerogative of ministers of God for good! The time is short–one 1 whose presence has often honored this anniversary, and who occupied a distinguished place in your councils, is no more. We lament the death of the able jurist, the upright counselor, and the wise and honorable magistrate. We revere his virtues, and would embalm his memory as a faithful servant of his God, and of his country. You, his associates in public life, and public responsibility, must soon follow him to his last account. And when the distinctions of earth shall pass away; when death shall take from rank its pageantry, and from royalty its crowns; what will then cheer the retrospect of time, and gladden the anticipations of eternity? Not to have heard the plaudits, and drawn the gaze of men; not to have been breathed on by the applauses of your fellow worms; but to have been actuated by that ennobling principle, which reason ratifies, and conscience approves; which God enjoins, and his spirit inspires—that of being and doing good. And then, too, how endeared will a seat in glory be, whence you shall look down on earth and see, as the effects of your instrumentality, the joys of social life, and preparation for eternal glories, perpetuated through future generations; how will it swell the joy of that world, to meet from this, through the ages to come, your brethren and kinsmen, according to the flesh, bringing their crowns of immortality, and laying them at your feet as an acknowledgment of your influence in imparting to them the bliss of such an inheritance!

 


1 Lieut. Governor Ingersoll.

The Sermon on the Mount Carl Bloch, 1890

Sermon – Election – 1822, Massachusetts


Daniel Huntington (1788-1858) graduated from Yale in 1807. He was pastor of a church in North Bridgewater, MA (1812-1832, 1841-1858). The following election sermon was preached by Huntington in Massachusetts on May 29, 1822.


sermon-election-1822-massachusetts

An intolerant Spirit, hostile to the interests of Society.

A

SERMON,

DELIVERED BEFORE

HIS EXCELLENCY JOHN BROOKS, ESQ.

GOVERNOR,

HIS HONOR WILLIAM PHILLIPS, ESQ.

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR,

THE HONORABLE COUNCIL,

AND THE TWO HOUSES COMPOSING THE

LEGISLATURE OF MASSACHUSETTS,

ON THE

ANNIVERSARY ELECTION,

MAY 29, 1822.

BY REV. D. HUNTINGTON.

 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
In House of Representatives, May 29, 1822,

ORDERED, That Messrs. Keyes, of Concord, Billings, of Boston, and Phelps, of Hadley, be a Committee to wait on the Rev. Dan Huntington, and return him the thanks of this House, for the Discourse delivered by him, before them, this day; and request a copy for the press.

Attest,
P. W. WARREN, Clerk.

 

SERMON.
ACTS….CHAPTER XVIII….VERSES XIV AND XV.
“If it were a matter of wrong, or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews! Reason would that I should bear with you: But if it be a question of words, and names, and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such matters.”

THESE are the words of Gallio, the deputy of Achaia, one of the old Grecian States, then a province of the Roman Empire. The Apostle Paul was now before him, in Corinth, the capital of the province, under an accusation brought against him by the Jews. He was charged with worshipping God contrary to the law. The charge was in connection with his having recently become a convert to the faith of the Gospel. From having been a proud persecuting Pharisee, he becomes an enlightened Christian. Commissioned from on high, he goes forth into the world, a preacher of righteousness. In the cities which he visits, to carry the glad tidings of the Gospel, he occasionally meets with the Jews, his “brethren and kinsmen, according to the flesh.” His conversion to Christianity, does not make him a stranger to them. He does not avoid their society, neither does he conceal his sentiments. Very frankly he expresses to them his convictions and his hopes. He appeals to his conduct, as the test of his sincerity. So far as they are disposed to accord to him the civilities of life, he accepts them. He takes up his residence with them: he labors with them, in his occupation: he goes with them “to the house of God in company,” occasionally addressing their assemblies, on the weighty subjects “pertaining to life and godliness.”

While he avails himself of their hospitality and their fellowship, however, he does not forfeit his independence as a man, nor does he forget his message as an Apostle. The theme of his preaching is “Jesus and the resurrection:” Jesus Christ, the Son of God; the hope of the sinner; in whom, as he often repeats, “we have redemption through his blood,” and the animating hope of “life everlasting.” His instructions “distil as the dew,” and drop as “the small rain upon the tender herb.” The desired effect is produced. Many of the Corinthians, both Jews and Greeks hearing, believe and are baptized. It is noticed by his former friends with a jealous alarm. Soon does he perceive among them, the consequences that too commonly follow disappointed ambition and wounded pride. Their indignation at length bursts forth, in acts of open violence. The banners of a religious warfare are unfurled. The usual engines of persecution are brought into operation. The Apostle is denounced. His name is cast out as evil. The doors of their synagogues are closed against him. The harshest epithets are applied. He is “a babler;” “a setter forth of strange God;” “a fellow that persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law.” Wherever he goes, he is met by the Jews, “stirring up the people against him.”

Not having been convinced, however, by their arguments, nor duped by their flatteries, he is not now to be awed by their menaces. Alluding to their conduct, afterwards, in his epistle, to the inhabitants of this very city, he says, “Wherein soever any is bold, I am bold also. Hare they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I. Are they ministers of Christ? I am more.” He ventures still to think for himself, and to teach as he believes.

Such being the nature of his crime, he is arraigned before the Proconsul of the province.

Gladly would he have availed himself of such an opportunity, at once for attesting to his innocence of the charge brought against him; and for exhibiting to those around him, as he had before done, in similar instances, the consolations of the religion of Christ.

But when now about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, “If it were a matter of wrong, or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you: but if it be a question of words, and of names, and of your law, look ye to it, for I will be no judge of such matters. And he drave them from the judgment seat.”

The story is instructive, showing us that there is a disposition in men, to control the opinions of their fellow men:

The means used to accomplish the object:

And that such a disposition, wherever it exists, is not only hateful in itself, but hostile to the interests of social happiness.

It deserves attention, as one of the opening acts of a scene, in which, for ages, the human character has been unfolding, in events disastrous to society beyond description, and which, we trust in God, is now drawing to a close. Happy shall I think myself, if anything may be said on this occasion, to hasten a consummation so desirable.

The subject shows us,

I. That there is a disposition among men, to control the opinions of their fellow men; especially their religious opinions.

The disposition often originates in a restless desire for power. To be able to dictate without contradiction, gives an ascendancy, always congenial to the feelings of the aspiring partisan.

The origin of this disposition, however, need not always be resolved into depravity of character. We often perceive its commencement, in some of the best feelings of our nature. Honestly believing our own opinions, on important subjects, to be right, the wish that others may embrace them, is not only innocent, it is kind, and commendable. Regarding our principles, as the rule of conduct, and the basis of character, we cannot be too much in earnest, to have them established in our own minds, and in endeavoring by fair means, so to recommend them to those within the circle of our influence, as to persuade them to see, and feel, and act with us.

But how few, comparatively, have appeared to be satisfied with this! How many, not content with being right themselves; and with the best arguments they can use to influence others; making their own speculations the standard of truth and duty—are too ready to insist, that all around shall conform to it! A want of conformity, is in their estimation, a proof of their error. If the question in agitation, be of a religious nature, they are fatally wrong. Religion, from its native importance, heightening as it does, every passion on which it acts; and rendering every contest into which it enters, uncommonly ardent—their principles, their motives, and their characters, are condemned by those who differ from them, with unfeeling severity.

Being thus deep rooted, in the very principle of our natures, we must expect to find the development of this spirit, in every period of the world. And do we not find it, in fact, coeval with the history of man? For nearly six thousand years, has it not been producing its baleful effects among the nations?

Confining our attention, however, to what has taken place, since the introduction of Christianity, how has its mischievous power here displayed itself in all its atrocity! It was visible, even in the family of our Saviour. It was one of his own disciples who said, “Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us.” More than once, had our Lord occasion to reprove this spirit, in those around him.

Constantly, were both he and his disciples, harassed by the Scribes and Pharisees, on account of the doctrines which they taught. Of him the complaint was “He deceiveth the people.” And with respect to the disciples, the imposing interrogatory was, “Why do they transgress the tradition of the elders.”

And what was the result? Said our Saviour, “The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his Lord. Beware of men, for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you.” This is now history. He himself soon fell a victim to their intolerance; and his disciples, in every succeeding period of the church, have, in a greater or less degree, been drinking the same bitter cup.

Innumerable, almost, are the examples of this spirit, both in the conduct of Jews and Pagans toward the primitive Christians; in the conduct of Christians among themselves; and in their conduct toward the heathen, whom by violence, they undertook to proselyte to Christianity. Under its infatuating influence, the persecuted, for conscience sake, have become persecutors; and these, in their turn, have suffered the evils they had inflicted on others.

The subject leads us

II. To consider the means which have been used by those who have undertaken thus to control the opinions of others. The means employed on this occasion, were violence and fraud. We have already seen the Apostle before the Roman governor, both falsely accused, and grossly insulted—and had the clamors of his persecutors prevailed, probably the loss of life, would have been the immediate consequence of an adherence to his opinions. Where the state of society has favored it, something similar to this, has been the usual process for making free inquiry hazardous.

The first step has been, to produce an impression of infallibility, in the person, or the body, assuming the controlling power. They must be resorted to, as the unerring oracle. Claiming the keys of the kingdom, the door to its immunities must be opened or closed by them; and their decisions must be received with the most unwavering confidence.

Implicit faith, on the part of those to be controlled, is no less necessary, in establishing the desired ascendency, than infallibility in those who assume the power of controlling. The common people, as if incapable of understanding the word of God, must resign themselves to their teachers. As if blind, they must be led. When led, they must not hesitate to follow. Their reason, their judgment, their conscience, their moral agency; their interests for time and eternity, are no longer at their own disposal. And to have it known that they are not, frequent experiments must be made upon their credulity and good nature. If they hear it inculcated with uncommon ardor, that a few speculative points in theology, are the essentials of religion, no doubts may be entertained. If taught that “all error is fatal,” they must believe it. They must often, be made to understand, that all the remaining piety on the earth, has taken up its last abode with the people of their denomination; and that to them it belongs exclusively, to preserve and perpetuate sound doctrine and a pure church. It has been found, at some periods, and among some classes of Christians, not too great a stretch of credulity, for the proper exercise of implicit faith, to believe that dishonesty, falsehood, calumny, cruelty oppression, and wickedness of almost any description is venial, if in practicing it, what is called a good object may be promoted.

Other notions, similar to this in their spirit and tendency, such as that the correctness of opinions, is to be estimated according to their antiquity and prevalence; and that it is reproachful for a person to change his opinions—have been equally current. Where these expedients have failed of producing their desired effect, others have not been wanting.

The last resort of the persecuting bigot has been, to compel men to believe right. Aided by mystery, creeds, canons, decrees and councils, with all their appropriate appendages of terror, he commences the dreadful work. If they are few in number, who dissent from the common faith, he avails himself of the vantage-ground afforded him from this circumstance, for exciting, if possible, a general prejudice against them. This is done, by identifying them with everything odious; by indiscriminate censure; by vague and unfounded charges often repeated; by ungenerous allusions; unjust insinuations; unfair reasonings; and terrific denunciations. To these have succeeded, vexations ecclesiastical processes, beginning in making men offenders for a word, and issuing in the highest acts of discipline. Where the times have been favorable, in how many instances has death, in all its dreadful forms, been the consequence of a conscientious adherence to truth!

The object under the

III. General head of this discourse, is to show that the disposition manifested in these efforts to prevent free inquiry, is not only hateful in itself, but hostile in its effects, to the interests of social happiness.

Its effect, at Corinth, was an insurrection. The disturbance arose, as we have seen, from the exclusive spirit of the Jews, in their attempts to silence the Apostle.

The most violent dissentions, and the most bloody wars have arisen among men, in attempting by authority to regulate each others opinions.

Much has been said on the subject of heresy, and much has been done to suppress it. But it is worthy of remark, that all the mischief in society, has arisen rather from opposition to heresy, than from heresy itself.

The Apostle was now successfully preaching the gospel; and both he and his converts were walking worthy their vocation as Christians. But the Jews and others were continually dissatisfied. Their craft was in danger. Their pride of opinion, their prejudices, their interests were affected by his success. He had his adherents, and they had theirs. Hence the tumult.

Like causes, producing like effects, we must always expect the exclusive and controlling spirit, to produce disorder.

It is a gross insult offered to the understandings of men. The language of it is, either you have not the necessary faculties to comprehend what you are taught from the sacred oracles, or you have not integrity to avow what you really believe. A charge, founded upon either alternative, is touching a man of common feelings, where his sensibility cannot fail to be excited; and brings into action those passions, which are always unfavourable to social intercourse.

It is also a violation of right: and whenever the rights of men, and especially their religious rights, are invaded, there will be a reaction. The peace of society will be disturbed.

Let none infer, fr5om what may be said in contending for freedom of inquiry, that it is supposed to be of no importance, what a man believes. Our sentiments are our principles of action. Good sentiments, legitimately derived from the word of God, are unquestionably the foundation of religion. But in determining what these are, every man must judge for himself.—“Why even of yourselves,” saith our Lord, “judge ye not what is right.” “Not for that we have dominion over your faith,” saith our Apostle. And again, “Who art thou, that judgest another man’s servant.” Every man must judge for himself, and any attempt to subject him to any inconvenience on this account, is usurpation. It is an invasion of an unalienable right. Any man, or body of men, attempting to deprive me of that right encroaches upon Christian liberty, and is to be resisted. “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do.” The first principles of religious freedom being invaded, what security have we, for anything valuable.

Of the evils of persecution, nothing need be added. Its name is legion. Wherever the persecuting spirit has had power, it has been destructive beyond description. In resisting its impious claims, what torrents of blood have flowed; what privations and pains; what afflictions, in a thousand forms, have been endured!

It may, however, and often does exist, where the civil arm is wanting. There is a persecuting heart, and a persecuting tongue, as well as a persecuting sword. Hard names, uncharitable censures, rash dealings, are the very essence of it. Public slander, bitter reviling, “babblings,” “wounds without cause,” are as inconsistent with the spirit of the gospel, as to banish, imprison, and destroy men for their religion. With such a spirit walking about like “a roaring lion, seeking whom it may devour,” what have society before them but contention and woe?

The demoralizing effects of certain popular sentiments, which have sometimes obtained currency, must be evident to all.

That the end sanctifies the means, though too gross to be avowed, it cannot be denied, has had a secret and most pernicious influence.

Nor is it less evident, that the reproach so often cast upon men, for changing their opinions, is unfriendly to the progress of truth, and of course to human happiness.

To be “carried about by every wind of doctrine;” to change our opinions from mere whim and caprice, is certainly a disgrace and a sin.

But it is not less degrading and sinful, for a man, from the same motives, to defend opinions contrary to his convictions.

Implicitly to receive for truth, the speculations of those who have gone before us, is indeed, an effectual bar to all improvement. Said the venerable Robinson, in his well known parting advice, to that part of his flock who have been styled the pilgrims of New England, “I cannot sufficiently bewail the condition of the reformed churches, who are come to a period in religion, and will go, at present, no further than the instruments of their reformation.”

The notion, also, that the correctness of opinions is to be estimated according to their prevalence, is equally calculated to mislead mankind.

There was a time, during the Jewish monarchy, when a popular leader seduced the affections of the body of the people, placed himself at the head of ten tribes, and drew them off from the worship of the true God, to the idols, set up in Bethel and Dan.

Was it the duty of the two remaining tribes, to follow the example of the ten? Had they done it, and had they left upon record for it, that they thought it not justifiable to oppose the majority, would it have been evidence that they were a wise and virtuous people?

When there were only seven thousand in Israel, who had not bowed the knee to Baal, among the hundreds of thousands, who had, did they wisely, or did they not, in opposing the multitude?

When the darkness of superstition and idolatry overspread the face of the Christian Church, what would have become of pure religion, had not the Albigenses, and the Waldenses, and a few others, retired to the mountains of Italy, that they might there enjoy, unmolested, the blessed truths of an uncorrupted gospel.

If Wickliffe, Luther, Melanethon, and a few others, the fathers of the reformation, had not dared to make themselves singular in contending for Christian liberty, we might still have been groping in the darkness, and groaning under the burden of a most blind and cruel superstition.

We are never at liberty to “follow a multitude to do evil.” To be singular in a good cause, is proof of superior virtue. And to all who have their rials on this subject, it is said, “be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life;” while of those, who by their numbers, are embolden to harden themselves in transgression, it is said, “though hand join in hand,” they “shall not be unpunished.”

We have now attended to several thoughts suggested by the subject. We have seen from it, that the disposition in men, to control, by authority, the opinions of their fellow men, which has always been a dominant passion in the human breast, has been productive of an immense mischief to society. And it is because of its deleterious influence upon society and social happiness, that it has been made a topic for the present occasion. To this view of the subject, I have endeavoured, and shall still endeavour to confine myself.

It only remains to inquire, is it applicable to us?—and if so, how shall the evil complained of be remedied?

Does the subject then admit of an application to our own community?

Let the intelligent look at what is passing in many of our Congregations and Churches; in Ecclesiastical Associations and Councils, and answer for themselves. Let them listen to the voice of clamor and contumely, of terror and exclusion, issuing from the pulpit and the press, and echoing from one extremity of our limits to another, impeaching the purest motives, maligning the fairest characters, and enkindling unjust suspicions among the uninformed.—Let them observe the movements of those who set themselves in opposition to every gentle and tolerating measure; let them notice the projects that are put in operation for enlisting partisans, and for augmenting their resources. To gain the control of funds, see them, not only fawning upon the widow, and those who are so unhappy as to be destitute of near relatives, but watching around the dying pillow of the opulent, crying like the horse leach, “give, give;” encouraging the belief, that every cent committed to their disposal, shall be a gem in that crown of glory finally to be bestowed as a reward to the fidelity of their votaries.

Who that has read the history of Ignatius Loyola, and his followers; of their objects; of the peculiarities of their policy and government; of the progress of their power and influence, and of the pernicious effect of this order on civil society, that does not sometimes feel the mingled emotions of grief and indignation, at what he still sees passing before him?

Guarded, however, as the cause of religious liberty, at the present day is, by Genius, Literature and Religion, under the government of a holy God, she has nothing to fear. It ought to be mentioned with gratitude, to the great Author of all good, that we live in a day, when the principles of civil and religious liberty are so well understood. Many are disposed to open their eyes to the light of truth, and are roused to act. The reign of terror is past. The Inquisition is no longer in force. The thunders of the Vatican have ceased to roar. The dogmas of the school-men are no longer in vogue. The Gibbet is not now to be seen planted before our doors. The fires of persecution no longer blaze around our dwellings. Our sanctuaries of justice are unpolluted. Our rulers are enlightened, and the people are free.

It daily becomes more and more evident, that an imposing spirit, as it is not suited to the genius of a free people, cannot long be sustained by them. In very respectable portions of the community, it has been tried, and is well understood, that men will not be controlled in their opinions.

But still “the yoke of every oppressor” is not broken. There are burdens and impositions, which are still felt. If the power is taken away, the disposition to prevent free inquiry by authority is not wanting. It is not to be disguised, that in some sections of this enlightened Christian community, there is too much evidence of a disposition for spiritual domination, which is producing in society a perpetual mischief. There are bodies of men, still claiming a jurisdiction as absolute, if not as extensive, as was ever claimed by the most imposing Pontiffs of the dark ages.

It is what some constantly see, and hear, and feel. We are daily conversant with those, the language of whose conduct is, “Stand by thyself, I am holier than thou:” and who, considering themselves “to have attained,” in every necessary qualification, gratuitously assume the prerogative, of dictating to their fellow Christians, on disputed points, what they shall believe. With no superior claims to the necessary means of enlightening their fellow men; having had no more than common advantages for information: having no credentials of any special illumination: from their lives appearing to be, certainly, as much uninspired men as others: and differing as much from one another, as from those, whom they unite in condemning – they seem to be constantly saying to those around then, “The secret of the Lord is with us,” “hear his word at our mouths.” And if any, after this, in exercising the right of private judgment, fall into “the way that some call heresy,” the harshest epithets are applied. They are denounced, as introducing “another Gospel”; as “Apostates”; as “Deists in disguise.” If moral, they are accused of making a merit of their morality. If pious, it is hypocrisy.

In all these means, which are used for controlling the right of private judgment, do we not perceive the shattered remnants of the machinery of a once formidable and most mischievous hierarchy? And shall we see our fellow men collecting and arranging these remnants; and endeavoring again to bring them into action, without letting them know, that we are not insensible to their operations, and the evils of them.

Can we reflect that the subject admits of a direct and unequivocal application to ourselves; that the evils complained of do exist; and sink down under it, into a state of total unconcernedness? Realizing that the blessings of Independence are our birthright: being inhabitants of the Commonwealth, whose Constitution was the first to acknowledge the great principles of civil and religious liberty: living as we do, where those principles have ever been well understood and firmly maintained: occupying the ground where those struggles commenced, which issued in the freedom of our country: surrounded as we still are, by those who bore a conspicuous part in those struggles: in view, too, of those blood-stained heights, where the friends of freedom first met the shock of battle, and where now repose the ashes of the virtuous brave: surrounding, also, these altars, where, in the days of our fathers, the prayers of many a wrestling Jacob, in favor of the same cause, have ascended to the throne of God, and have prevailed; offering our devotions, as we do, at the present hour, among a people, who have not only prayed, but have lived like Christians; where the ministers of religion and the people of their respective charges, have, for the most part, like the primitive disciples maintained a delightful and harmonious intercourse;–can we contemplate with cold indifference, a spirit, which is at work, not only to dissolve this harmony where it exists, but which is calculated, also, to exert a most destructive influence throughout all our Towns and Churches?

Apprized of the evil, we inquire, How may it be remedied? As we would be a happy people, every encroachment upon Christian liberty, must be resisted. The resistance, where there is occasion for it, should be mild, courteous and dignified; at the same time, it should be frank and determined. It should be made, under a deep and solemn impression, that all other privileges are comparatively trifling, unless we can, unbiased and unembarrassed, continue to open our eyes upon the light of divine truth as it is communicated to us.

But why do I speak of resistance? Rather let all endeavor that any occasion for it may be unnecessary.

In order to this, be it understood, that the great questions, which, at the present day, agitate the public mind, are not to be decided by the force of authority. Men must be left, undisturbed, to enjoy the fruits of their own inquiries, and to decide for themselves. In forming our opinions, there must be mutual condescension. What we claim for ourselves, we must willingly concede to others. This must be done with good feelings; in the exercise of kind affections; in the spirit of humility; remembering that those who differ from us, no less than ourselves, have interests of infinite moment at stake.

Let it be understood, also, that with the same upright motives, in their investigations, men will arrive at extremely different results; that the members of the body of Christ, of all denominations, do “drink into the same spirit.” Guided by the word of God, and endeavoring to regulate their lives by its rules, they are aiming at the same thing. The honor of God; the peace and prosperity of society; their own salvation, and the salvation of those around them, is what they are all seeking. Let every man have the credit of good intentions, so far as it is supported by fair and honorable conduct. In addition to this, let the means of information continue to be generally diffused, and be made easy of access.

A principal artifice of the superstition of former ages, has been to keep the common people in ignorance: and in the true spirit of such a procedure, we still hear them advised, with the appearance of great seriousness, “not to read the writings, nor be present at the instructions,” of those, who in giving their own opinions of revealed truth, dissent from the common faith.

But is there any other way of dealing honestly with a rational being, at liberty to inquire for the truth, than to give him the advantages for knowing it, and leave him to judge for himself. The influence of such a course, has been tested: its good effects are visible: let it be still pursued, and we may hope, that error will vanish like the mist of the morning, before the rising sun.

If any with whom we are conversant, appear to be mistaken in their views of religion, let us endeavor to instruct them; if ignorant, let us enlighten them; if censorious, insolent, and dogmatical, in the spirit of meekness and love, let us rebuke them; but by no means, let us take upon ourselves the awfully hazardous responsibility of determining their future destiny. “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”

Would we see unhappy divisions multiplied: friendly intercourse interrupted: and the charities of life destroyed, then let us indulge an exclusive spirit: go on to draw dividing lines: to erect separate interests: to form parties and combinations to hunt down and devour one another.

On the other hand, would we enjoy true happiness, so far as it can be enjoyed in the present state; then in addition to our other innumerable blessings, “Let us seek the things that make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.” Believing as we are taught, that he who is not against Christ, is on his part, let us aspire to an elevation of sentiment, and a generosity of soul, which will enable us to look beyond all petty distinctions of party and system; and which will lead us in making our estimate of men, to look principally at their life and conversation. “By their fruits shall ye know them.”

All have an interest in the subject. It has been selected for the occasion, under the impression, perhaps a mistaken one, that it calls for public notice. It has been freely discussed, with the conviction, that the great principles of the Reformation, from which society has derived such a rich harvest of blessings, should ever be cherished in grateful remembrance: that every encroachment upon them should be regarded with a jealous eye: and that open opposition should with a jealous eye: and that open opposition should, if possible, be awed into silence. So important a cause, hitherto so happily maintained, we trust will never be abandoned.

We cannot but felicitate ourselves and the public, in view of the progress of Christian light and liberty, not only in our own State; but in our common country, and through the civilized world. Of this there are evident tokens. We rejoice to believe, that the time is advancing, when Christianity, unencumbered with those errors and corruptions which have been heaped upon it for ages, and no longer haunted by the demon of persecution, will everywhere prevail, and will be found in all the relations of life, to have its peculiar effects.

The subject, we trust, will be suitably noticed by our political fathers, to whom we look with confidence, in all our concerns, connected with the public peace and prosperity. To them we look, on this occasion, not for legislative interference, but for their influence as men and as Christians, who always have at heart the high interests of the State.

To determine “questions of words and names,” and ceremonies, which have been too much the subject of angry dispute and bloody contest, the enlightened Christian Magistrate will not consider a duty of his office.

In questions of conscience merely, though he may have an opinion of his own, he will not feel himself at liberty to decide for others.

And above all, will he be on his guard against lending his aid to persecutors. The conduct of the Roman Governor, in this respect, will meet the approbation of every judicious man. So far did he well, in caring for none of those things—So far, is his example worthy of imitation.

In other respects, however, his conduct is altogether the reverse of what we should expect in a wise and virtuous Magistrate. With the credentials, which the Apostle offered, Gallio was inexcusable, for not hearing him with respectful attention, and for not listening to his defense. Clothed in the pride of office, he seems not only to have been regardless of the interests of religion, but seems not to have cared, whether the accused suffered justly or unjustly.

His conduct was unbecoming a good ruler, in refusing protection, at the same time, to Sorsthenes, and, and in neglecting to quell the tumult which arose on his account.

The members of every well regulated society, have a decided interest in its welfare. The man of generous feelings, will never stand the unconcerned spectator of suffering innocence; and if clothed with authority, as he will not see the rights of conscience invaded without rebuke, so will he not suffer disorder and excess to go unpunished. In every situation, as the bold reprove of vice, he will be “a terror to evil doers, and for the praise of them, that do well.” “He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.” He will not forget, but with Gallio will remember, that “matters of wrong and wicked lewdness”—injustice and licentiousness, vice and immorality, are the subjects which peculiarly belong to his province; and that to restrain and suppress them, is the great object for which he is elevated to power. In dispelling the clouds that may have been gathered by ignorance, and prejudice and sin, his influence will be “as the light of the morning when the sun ariseth: even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain.”

He will cultivate that peace in his own breast, which in some measure composes the turbulent passions. In private life, he will be an example of the virtues of the Gospel. His public administrations will be marked with that true dignity of character, in which, honor, integrity, wisdom, disinterestedness, benevolence, and genuine patriotism, are harmoniously blended.

We look to him as the guardian of our rights, civil and religious. In every situation, in short, we expect to find in him, and exemplification of “the wisdom, which is from above; which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.”

With such rulers, have the inhabitants of this Commonwealth, been richly blessed, for successive generations.

Assembled on this joyful anniversary, we offer them the congratulations of the occasion. We tender them the homage of our respects. We hail them as the friends of our liberties, and of social order. We implore, in their behalf, the choicest benediction, of the Supreme Ruler.

In their deliberations and decisions, may they have the divine guidance—And in the great day of final decision may it appear, that in our respective stations, we have so discharged all relative and social duties, that in the abundant mercy of God, manifested through our Lord Jesus Christ, our works may follow us to a blessed reward.

Sermon – Election – 1822, Connecticut


Thomas Church Brownell (1779-1865) graduated from Union College in 1804. He was ordained in 1816. In 1819, he was consecrated a bishop in the Connecticut Episcopal diocese. He served as the first President of Trinity College (1824-1831). This election sermon was preached by Bishop Brownell in New Haven, CT on May 1, 1822.


sermon-election-1822-connecticut

A

SERMON,

ADDRESSED TO THE LEGISLATURE

OF THE STATE OF

CONNECTICUT

AT THE

ANNUAL ELECTION

IN

NEW-HAVEN,

MAY 1ST, 1822.

BY THOMAS CHURCH BROWNELL, D.D. LL.D
Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Connecticut

NEW-HAVEN:
PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE LEGISLATURE.
J. Barber, printer.
1822.

 

SERMON.
PSALM 97TH, Verse 1st.

“THE LORD REIGNETH; LET THE EARTH REJOICE.”

The Providence and government of God extend to all the affairs of men. All his dispensations are administered with unerring wisdom and justice, and dictated by unbounded goodness. These ideas should be impressed upon the minds of all men; and both nations and individuals should embrace them as the grounds of their dependence and their trust.

Our religious ancestors cultivated a deep sense of the superintending Providence of God; and were accustomed to recognize it in all the great transactions of state, not less than in the private concerns of life. It is in pursuance of a pious custom derived from them, that the supreme Magistrate, and the Legislators of this Commonwealth, have now assembled to solemnize their election to office, and to seek the direction and blessing of God, in the exercise of their high responsibilities.

It will accord, then, with the occasion on which we have met, not less than with the import of the text I have chosen, that we should devote our thoughts to that directing and controlling Providence which the Supreme Being exercises in the affairs of the world; and establish our hearts by meditating on the perfect righteousness, wisdom, and goodness, with which its dispensations are administered.—“The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice.”

I. Man, in the pride and presumption of his heart, is fond of accounting for everything through the agency of second causes. Limiting his views to these, he disregards the unseen Ruler of the Universe, who gives to these causes their impulse and direction. Speculating upon national wars, he traces their origin to the ambition of princes, and the intrigues of politicians. Civil commotions, where the citizen is armed against the citizen, and where the brother’s hand is raised against the brother;–these he regards as arising from the machinations of demagogues, working on the passions of the turbulent, and on the ignorance and prejudices of the weak. Dearth and famine, he attributes to unpropitious seasons; and the “pestilence, which walketh in darkness,” he ascribes to noxious vapours, and a tainted atmosphere. These he beholds as regular effects, constantly flowing from the same causes, and he looks no further. He imagines himself prepared to explain and to decide, with perfect confidence and self complacency. He sees not, nor recognizes Him who regulates the course of nature, by laws established in infinite wisdom, and who over-rules the passions and the counsels of men to his own purposes: Him, who, “when he giveth quietness, none can make trouble:” Him, who can “make the heaven that is over our head brass, and the earth that is under our feet iron:” Who can send forth the “pestilence that walketh in darkness, and the destruction that wasteth at noon-day:” Who can turn “a fruitful land into barrenness, for the wickedness of them that dwell therein.”

But let not the daring atheist think in his heart, which says there is no God, that these events are fortuitous. Let not the presumptuous speculatist ascribe them merely to the disorders of the elements, and the conflicts of human passions, in opposition to the plain dictates of revelation. Reason itself, no less than revelation, declares that amidst all these disorders of nature, and the confusion of nations, there is still a presiding and controlling Intelligence, secretly bringing light from the darkness: a Divine Spirit which moves over the troubled “face of the waters,” and harmonizes the chaos of the moral world, as it did originally that of nature.

If the order and beauty, the contrivance and design, which we observe in the works of nature, evince that the world was at first created by a wise, powerful, and benevolent Being; the continuance and preservation of the course of nature, demonstrate that it is upheld, directed, and governed by the same omnipotent wisdom and counsel. The celestial bodies are still kept and guided in their appointed orbits, and no planet dashes headlong from its course, spreading desolation through the system. All the elements of which the world is composed, however repugnant to each other they may be, are preserved in their original equilibrium. The fire consumes not the air; and the water which the atmosphere elaborates from the ocean, it returns again to the same great depository. The sun still comes daily “forth from his chamber, rejoicing as a giant to run his course.” Day and night; summer and winter; seed-time and harvest, are preserved in their regular vicissitudes; and the whole course of nature, upheld and directed by the hand that created it, still moves on without pause or decay. These facts demonstrate that there is a superintending and unerring Providence, “great in counsel, and mighty in work,” that guides the motions of the heavens, and bears up the pillars of the earth;” that recruits the decays of nature, and preserves the fabric ever the same.

Nor is the Providence of God less manifest in the affairs of men, than it is in the operations of nature. He who tempered the elements of the world, and moulded the minds of men as he willed, will sway them according to his pleasure. The great revolutions which decide the fate of nations, and change the face of the world, are moved and directed by his almighty influence. “Sitting upon the circle of the earth,” he wields and guides these moral phenomena, as he directs the comet’s path through the physical system; renovating the principles of life and growth, and by ways unknown but to himself, conducting all events to the great ends for which he first designed them.

“It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps,” independent of the divine concurrence. The deepest designs of the greatest politicians are often made to terminate in folly. Their counsels are distracted, their measures broken, and their plans defeated. The unjust oppressor is often ruined by the unjust oppressor, in his turn; and they who have spoiled the widow and the orphan, often leave their own widows and orphans a prey to other spoilers. In these events we cannot fail to trace the secret hand of Providence; that undiscernible hand, always wielded in righteousness, yet full of mercy and goodness; which governs and directs all the affairs of the world with unerring justice and inscrutable wisdom: which is so often opened to feed the hungry that cry for food; which is extended to relieve those who are oppressed, and to succor those who are in adversity or affliction; which “restrains the wrath of man,” checks the tide of iniquity, even when its current seems most uncontrollable, and rescues the world from confusion and distraction, by ways which no human wisdom could contrive, or force effect.

It is not merely to the great events of the world that the superintending Providence of God is confined. All things and all events are subject to his direction. As nothing is too great for the control of the Almighty, so nothing is too small for his notice. And the same providential care which preserves the balance of the universe, guides the planets in their courses, and directs the destinies of nations, suffers not a sparrow to fall to the ground unheeded, and even “numbers the very hairs of our heads.”

In the material world, the Providence of God is absolute, and independent of any concurrence or co-operation. The springs of nature are in his hand, and he moves them as he pleases. When her wheels roll on silently and harmoniously; when the rains from heaven moisten and refresh the earth, and the breezes fan the air with health, we seldom look beyond these second causes. It is when the waters descend in a deluge upon the land, and when the hurricane sweeps it with desolation, that we recognize the hand of Providence. And it is especially when we read in the sacred records of the course of nature suspended, or subverted; when we read of the sun arrested in the midst of his career, or of a dry pathway made through the midst of the sea, the waters forming a wall upon the right hand and upon the left, that we are compelled to acknowledge the existence and control of a power above nature, whose fiat everything in heaven and in earth must obey.

Towards his intelligent creatures, the Providence of God is exercised in concurrence with their own free-agency, and in consistency with their accountability. Having endowed them with the understanding to discern, and the will to choose, he does not subvert their rational powers; but his administration over them is exercised in a way which, however incomprehensible it may be to us, is still conformable to the capacities he has given them. We cannot, indeed, perceive the divine influence on our minds. We have no sense to convey to us an impression of it. It is not cognizable by our consciousness; and our knowledge of the nature and intercourse of spirits, is too imperfect to enable us to comprehend the manner, or the degree, in which it is exerted. We cannot understand the connexion between our mental faculties and our bodily organs, nor discover in what manner the volitions of our souls produce the corresponding movements of our bodies. How then shall we trace the connexion between the sovereign government of God, and the free-agency of man; or illustrate that obscure region, where they meet and blend together? “Such knowledge is too excellent for us; we cannot attain unto it.” Of this, however, we may be assured, that “though the heart of man deviseth his ways, yet the Lord directeth his steps;” and that having made man a rational and accountable creature, he governs and directs him in some way conformable to his nature, and compatible with the free exercise of his moral powers. The divine influence must, therefore, coalesce with our own free-agency. Its operations must combine with the voluntary operations of our own minds, though we are unable to distinguish or to separate them, or even to comprehend the manner in which they are exerted.

But perhaps we may properly make a distinction between God’s government of men, when considered as moral agents, and in their relation to himself, and in his government over them in their relations to society, and as the instruments of his providence, in the general government of the world.

As a moral being, it seems to be the province of the divine government, to give laws to man for the regulation of his conduct; to annex to them the proper rewards of obedience, and the punishments of disobedience; and to bestow upon him such inward supplies of grace, as may counterbalance the weakness and corruption of his fallen nature: and thus, leaving him to his freedom, to reward or punish him as he shall deserve.

But when we consider men as members of society, the consequences of their actions extend beyond themselves, and affect the condition of others. Under such circumstances, it should seem that the Providence of God must be concerned so to control and direct their actions, as may best serve the purposes of his government in the world, and conform to the deserts of those who may be affected by their conduct.

It cannot comport with the economy of divine Providence to make an individual good or bad; virtuous, or vicious, by irresistible force. But it may well accord with its dispensations, to induce men, by an unfelt influence, to do the good which they otherwise would not, and to abstain from the evil which they might be inclined to do. There will thus be a difference between the dispensation of Grace and that of Providence. The dispensation of Grace, looking chiefly to a future existence, will have for its object to ameliorate the nature of man, and make him virtuous and good, that he may be happy in another world. It can therefore admit of no greater force than is consistent with the free exercise of his moral powers. But there are general dispensations of Providence, which relate to the temporal condition of men and of nations; to the happiness or misery which may be awarded to them in the present world, for their own discipline and improvement, and to manifest the divine retributions. For such purposes, since it does not affect their future accountability, God may make individuals or nations, the mere instruments of his Providence, and the agents by which he will accomplish the wise counsels of his judgment or mercy to mankind.

In whatever unknown ways, then, the Providence of God may be exercised, in these truths we may rest: It will not destroy the freedom or accountability of his intelligent creatures: It will be administered in righteousness and mercy; and it will surely effect the great ends of his government in the world. The moral as well as the physical agent is in his hands, and he knows how to make both subservient to his gracious purposes, although both may be alike unconscious of the wonderful ministration in which they are employed.

Such seem to be the reflections suggested by the first proposition of our text—“The Lord reigneth.” The text also contains another proposition, which may be considered as a consequence of the first—“let the earth rejoice.”

II. The earth may rejoice in the government of God, because it is exercised in righteousness and mercy. Let us then proceed to a more minute consideration of the rules by which the Providence and government of God are administered.

It is a general rule, with respect to individuals, that the Providence of God is manifested in rewarding the right exercise of their moral faculties, and in punishing the abuse of them; and that men are made happy or miserable, according as they are virtuous or vicious. For the transgression of our first parents, pain, and disease, and death, were inflicted on the whole human race; as a standing monument of God’s displeasure against sin, and as a perpetual memento to mankind, of its awful consequences. If we look round upon society, we shall perceive that almost all the evils which it suffers, are the direct consequences of disobedience to the divine commands. Were each individual to “do to others as he would have other do to him,” the most perfect equity would become universal, and it would be impossible that anyone should suffer wrong. And were every man to “love his neighbour as himself,” the most perfect benevolence would prevail throughout the world. Instead of those malignant passions which destroy the harmony of social intercourse, every heart would be inspired with peace and love: and instead of those bitter contentions which self-interest and ambition create, the only emulation among men would be, who should contribute most to the diffusion of an universal charity. Thus the obedience and virtue of individuals, would ensure their own happiness and that of the community.

But since men will not obey the salutary laws of God, and since the present world is a state of discipline and probation, the economy of Providence has ordained pain and misery as the consequences of guilt; in order to check the devices of the wicked, and to deter the good man from transgression. Yet while it is the general dispensation of Providence, that happiness shall be the concomitant of a life of righteousness, while misery is attendant on guilt, the rule is not so universal as to destroy human liberty. It does not always make a man’s virtue and piety the exact measure of his temporal happiness—much less that of his worldly prosperity. The ungodly sometimes “prosper in the world, and increase in riches,” while the righteous man appears to have “cleansed his heart in vain.” Yet we need not distrust the righteous Providence of God. We need not become “envious at the foolish,” nor “stumble at the prosperity of the wicked.” When we take a more enlarged view of the divine government, and come to “understand their end,” we shall find that they ever “stand on slippery places,” and that they are often “brought to sudden desolation.” And even in these deviations from the general law of Providence, we shall discern the traces of that more perfect dispensation which will take place in another world. We shall read in them the intimations of that great day of final retribution, appointed by the Judge of “quick and dead,” when “for the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find, according to his ways.”

It is, therefore, by connecting the dispensation of both worlds together, that we learn rightly to estimate the awards of Providence. Thus we shall learn, that though wickedness may for a time triumph, while goodness lies prostrate, and is trampled upon, yet there is, in the end, an indissoluble connexion between virtue and happiness—between vice and misery; and that justice is ever the great rule of the divine government.

The Providence of God with respect to nations, differs in one important particular, from the measure of its dispensations with regard to individuals. Its rewards and punishments extend not beyond the present state. In their national capacity they must receive the award of their deserts. They cannot await the retribution of the general judgment.

Human laws punish the individual, to preserve the peace of society. A nation stands in the same relation to the aggregate of mankind, that an individual does to the community; and if it violate the laws which the Supreme Being has imposed to secure the peace and happiness of the world, the good of the great society of nations requires that it should receive the penalties of its guilt. For national transgressions, therefore, God inflicts national punishments. He chastises sinful nations with the scourge of war. He sends upon them the blight, and the mildew; famine and pestilence; and he takes from them the blessings which they have abused or despised. “Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen!” Why? “Because their tongue and their doings were against the Lord.”—“Her staff and her stay is taken away from her, and the man of war, and the judge, and the prophet, and the prudent, and the ancient, and the honourable men, and the counselor—for she cast away the law of the Lord of Hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”

But though there be this difference in the dispensation of Providence to individuals, and towards nations, yet the rule of the divine government is ever the same, and the same great law is extended to both:–The practice of virtue and religion is rewarded with the blessings of Heaven, while wickedness and impiety as surely bring down the divine punishments upon the guilty.

So manifest has been the economy of Providence, in this respect, that it has not escaped the observation even of the Heathen. Such nations have always esteemed it necessary to be just and good, not merely from a sense of present advantage, but from a firm conviction that it was required of them by the gods. And if we trace the history of these nations, we shall find the brightest periods of their glory, to have been when this sentiment was the most deeply impressed on the public mind, and when the bonds of civil life were sanctified by a feeling of their dependence upon Heaven. The illustrious nation, which of all others most interests the youthful imagination;–of this nation it has been well remarked, that “if in many things the Romans were inferior to others, in piety to the gods they were superior to all.” Whether contending for their national safety, or warring for victory and conquest, it was the first care both of their senate and the people, to propitiate the deities, who were supposed to be the protectors of Rome: and nothing could inspire confidence in their generals, or their armies, if any of the prescribed rites had been neglected. When their eagles were sent forth to battle, they were first consecrated to the gods. And if disaster or defeat attended them, these were supposed to be the consequence of some neglected rite, or of the prevalence of national vice and impiety. These superstitions, however absurd or extravagant they may appear, seem yet to be the result of some impression of the retributive justice of Heaven, derived from an observation of the course of human affairs, or stamped originally on the creature man, by the Creator himself:–A sentiment, however, which causes the most ignorant tribes to strive to propitiate the favour of their deities, and deprecate their displeasure, through a thousand erring ways.

But if the natural powers of reason and observation, or the remains of some original light, still shedding its feeble ray over the moral world, enabled the very heathen nations to perceive (though “through a glass darkly”) that there must be some Superior Power which presided over the world;–a power on which they were dependent, and to which they were accountable;–which rewarded their virtue and their piety with blessings, and sent down its punishments for their vice and irreligion; how manifest must all these truths appear under the clear light of revelation?

In the pages of the Holy Scriptures, we are everywhere instructed in the great truth that “righteousness exalteth a nation,” but that “sin is a reproach to any people.” This lesson is inculcated by direct precept, and by historical instruction; and above all, by the dispensations of Providence towards that distinguished nation—so long the “peculiar people” of God. By his servant Moses, he “set before them blessing and cursing;”—the rewards of righteousness, and the penalties of sin. By his prophets, he expostulated with them for their disobedience, and warned them of his impending judgments. When they kept his laws, and sought the Lord in righteousness, he enlarged their borders, and blessed them with prosperity. When they rebelled, and worshipped other gods, he chastised them with famine and with pestilence, with the sword and with captivity. And notwithstanding all their perverseness, and incorrigible wickedness, it was not till they had filled up the measure of their guilt, by the rejection and crucifixion of his beloved Son, that the arm of divine justice fell upon their land, annihilated their national existence, and scattered the remnant of the inhabitants among all people that dwell upon the face of the earth.

If we except the Jewish nation, we shall find no portion of the world where the hand of divine Providence has been so clearly discernible, or where its dispensations have been marked with such distinguished mercies, as in our own happy country. When we look back upon the history of two short centuries, and trace the progress of the little bands of pilgrims which first landed on our shores;–when we see them rapidly converting the savage wilderness into fertile fields; while the tide of population spreads along the coasts, and swells beyond the western mountains;–when we see this people successfully sustaining the arduous struggle of the war of Independence, and advancing in the path of national greatness, till they become a mighty Republic of freemen, with the noblest literary and religious institutions, and with the most perfect government under heaven, we cannot fail to perceive, that if ever a nation experienced the peculiar favour of providence, we are that people. And adopting the language of the Legislator of Israel, we may say, “What nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is, in all that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous?”

Let these distinguished national blessings, excite in us a corresponding national gratitude; and let us cherish the consideration, that the destinies of our country are still in the hands of the same superintending Providence. And while we thus discharge the first of duties which religion enjoins, we shall also be laying the foundation of the most exalted patriotism. We shall learn to love our country, not merely on account of the selfish interests which bind us to it, but because it is the favoured place appointed by the Almighty for the development of our physical and intellectual faculties, and for the range of our moral affections; and because we can find no worthier resting-place for these affections, except in that better country, reserved for the righteous, in the heavens. Such a patriotism connects in one view, both the present and the future world, and combines its influence with that of religion, to induce us to act our parts well here, with a reference to the rewards of eternity.

According to the principles which have now been advanced, and if the divine government be administered in conformity to the rules which have been stated, it follows, that whether we consider ourselves as individuals, as members of the community, or as Legislators, we have all of us important duties to perform.—If the superintending Providence of God, be exercised in a way compatible with our freedom and accountability, it becomes our duty to concur and co-operate with its gracious designs, and to act in conformity to the righteous laws of its administration.

As individuals, it becomes our duty to live “soberly, righteously, and godly, in the present world;” to render a faithful and willing obedience to all the divine commands, and cordially to embrace that way of salvation, through the righteousness and atonement of a crucified Redeemer, which is revealed in the Gospel;–and then, submissively and confidingly, to await the issue of the divine counsels. Such a life, if it do not bring to us all that temporal happiness which the general economy of Providence allows us to hope for, will still be attended with the richest consolations; and in that future world, where the righteous dispensations of Providence shall be consummated, it will insure to us everlasting felicity.

As members of the community, and as Legislators, it becomes our duty to promote the principles of equity and justice, to cherish the public morals, and to cultivate a fervent and enlightened national piety; as forming, according to the order of Providence, the only sure basis of national prosperity.

The first principles of our private and our public duties are, therefore, the same. They coincide in their elements, and are alike connected with the cultivation of morality and religion. And if the blessedness of individuals is the reward of a life of righteousness, so also the liberty, the prosperity, and the stability of nations, are founded on the moral and religious character of the individuals who compose them.—If our country is now free, prosperous, and happy, it is the award of Providence for the piety and the virtues of our forefathers. The blessings can only be preserved and perpetuated by the virtues and the piety of their descendants.

In revolving the history of past times, we perceive that the most distinguished nations have had their periods of prosperity and decline. Many of the greatest empires which have excited the admiration of the world, are now annihilated, and nothing remains of them but their name. Some have fallen the victims of civil dissensions; others have been swept away by the tide of conquest: and some have dwindled into insignificance, by the natural progress of luxury and effeminacy. In the same pages which relate the decline and dissolution of these nations, we read of the general corruption of public morals, and the degeneracy of national character, which preceded their fall. It is the order of Providence, that in the moral, as well as in the natural world, the same causes shall produce the same effects. So long as the principles of a pure morality, and an enlightened religion, are cherished by individuals, and diffused throughout a nation, that nation will remain free, prosperous and happy. But whenever the people become dissolute and licentious; when the sanctuaries of legislation and of justice shall become venal and corrupt, and the temples of religion shall be neglected, or polluted by infidelity, the degradation and final overthrow of such a people, will be sure to mark the impartial justice of the divine administration.

While Heaven protects and blesses our country, then, let us bear it impressed on our minds, that the rewards of righteousness, will not be continued to the ungrateful, the vicious, or the profane. Let us carefully practice ourselves, and strive to diffuse throughout the community, the principles of a sound morality; let us cherish in our hearts, and profess before the altars of our God, the doctrines of his pure and undefiled religion; and let us appropriate to ourselves, and conscientiously observe, the exhortation of Jehovah to the leader of his ancient people;–“Only observe to do according to all the law which I command thee; turn not from it to the right hand or to the left;–so shalt thou make thy way prosperous, and so shalt thou have good success.”

How much do you know about the Constitution?

Here are some questions relating to the United States Constitution so you can test your knowledge!

  1. Of the 39 signers of the Constitution, how many had previously signed the Declaration of Independence?
  2. The Constitution was signed in 1787, but was not binding until it was ratified. When did that happen?
  3. Which state was the first to ratify the new constitution?
  4. Which state was the last to ratify the Constitution?
  5. How many articles does the Constitution contain?
  6. Which article is the longest, and why?
  7. The Constitution Convention met in Philadelphia for the purpose of creating a document that would establish a new government for the States. True or False?

On September 17th 1787, in a warm room in Philadelphia, 39 men signed the document that formed our nation: the United States Constitution. With each passing year, America continues her record of having the longest on-going constitutional republic in history. Discover more resources, including lesson plans and activities, on our Constitution Hub!


How’d you do?

  1. Six: Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, George Clymer, George Read, and James Wilson1
  2. It was ratified on June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire became the 9th state to ratify the Constitution, as specified in Article 7 of the Constitution. The new government under the Constitution came into effect on March 4, 1789.2
  3. Delaware, on December 7, 17873
  4. Rhode island, on May 29, 17904
  5. Seven5
  6. Article I is the longest. It organizes and governs the legislative branch, which was the branch closest to the people and the most important of the three branches. It was therefore given the most, and the most powerful responsibilities.6
  7. False. The purpose was to address and solve the weaknesses that had become apparent under the Articles of Confederation, the document under which the country had been governed during the American Revolution.7

Endnotes

1 “Signers of the Declaration Biographical Sketches,” National Park Service, accessed December 15, 2023.
2 “About the Constitution: FAQs,” National Constitution Center, accessed December 15, 2023.
3 “Observing Constitution Day: Background,” National Archives, accessed December 15, 2023.
4 “Observing Constitution Day: Background,” National Archives, accessed December 15, 2023.
5 “The Constitution of the United States: A Transcript,” National Archives, accessed December 15, 2023.
6 “The Constitution of the United States: A Transcript,” National Archives, accessed December 15, 2023.
7 “Constitution of the United States: Primary Documents in American History,” Library of Congress, accessed December 15, 2023.

Charles Thomson – the Life of the Cause of Liberty

America’s founding was blessed by the contributions of many individuals who are little, or even completely unknown to us today. Charles Thomson is one such unsung patriot.

In 1774 he was beginning to make a name for himself as a patriotic leader in Philadelphia. John Adams noted, “This Charles Thompson is the Sam Adams of Philadelphia — the Life of the Cause of Liberty, they say.”1

secretary-of-the-continental-congress-charles-thomson-2Though never a member of that august body, as Secretary of the Continental Congress for over fifteen years, Thomson had a front-row seat to the birth of the nation and his fingerprints are all over America’s establishing documents. For example, the copy of the Declaration of Independence included with the official Journals of Congress were in Thomson’s handwriting, and he was one of only two people who actually signed it on July 4th.2

secretary-of-the-continental-congress-charles-thomson-3 Thomson is also responsible for the Great Seal of the United States, which he prepared and Congress approved in 1782.3

As the First Congress took its place under the new government created by the Constitution, Thomson retired from that long-term post. His last official act was personally notifying George Washington that he had been unanimously selected the President of the United States.4

But Thomson was not only a great patriot and supporter of the American cause, he was also a champion of the Word of God. In fact, his name is associated with some of America’s earliest Bible editions.

For example, his name, as Secretary of Congress, is found in the introduction to “The Bible of the Revolution,” which was the first Bible printed in English in America. That Bible was printed by Robert Aitken, the official printer of the Continental Congress. Aitken described his Bible as “a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools.”5 It was reviewed and approved by a committee of the Continental Congress, and published with the official congressional endorsement prominently in the front. (All of the original books pictured below that are associated with Charles Thomson are from our collection at WallBuilders.)

secretary-of-the-continental-congress-charles-thomson-5 Thomson was also responsible for the first American translation of the Greek Septuagint (the full Greek Bible) into English in 1808 – a labor of love that consumed nearly two decades of his life.6 Called Thomson’s Bible, it is a four volume-set that is considered one of the most scholarly of American Bible translations.

secretary-of-the-continental-congress-charles-thomson-7 Thomson also produced an eight-volume set in which every other page was blank, thus allowing readers space to write notes on the Scriptures as they studied them.
secretary-of-the-continental-congress-charles-thomson-6 In 1815, Thomson published his famous Synopsis of the Four Evangelists, in which he took all the passages from the four Gospels and arranged them chronologically, producing something like one super long Gospel, with all Jesus’ words and acts arranged sequentially. Today, we call such a work a synoptic Gospel.

George Washington praised Thomson’s dedication, “Your Services have been important, as your patriotism was distinguished” He added his belief that “Posterity will find your Name so honorably connected…”7 Sadly, today, Charles Thomson has become a forgotten Founding Father, but his influence, both politically and spiritually, permanently shaped the course of America and blessed American life.

February 14, 2024 This post has been updated to correct information regarding Thomson’s American translation of the Bible. 


Endnotes

1 John Adams, diary entry from August 30, 1774, Adams Family Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society, accessed November 1, 2023.
2 John Hancock was the second and the other delegates signed weeks later. Journals of the Continental Congress 1774-1779, edited from the original records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts, Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1905, The Avalon Project, Yale Law School, accessed November 1, 2023.
3  “Original Design of the Great Seal of the United States (1782),” Milestone Documents, National Archives, updated October 23, 2023.
4 Lewis R. Harley, Charles Thomson: Patriot and Scholar (Norristown, PA: Historical Society of Montgomery County, 1897), 28-29.
5 The Holy Bible as Printed by Robert Aitken and Approved & Recommended by the Congress of the United States of America in 1782, reprinted (New York: Arno Press, 1968), Introduction.
6 Harley, Charles Thomson: Patriot and Scholar (1897), 33-34.
7 George Washington to Charles Thomson, July 24, 1789, Founders Online, National Archives, accessed November 1, 2023.

The Finger of God on the Constitutional Convention

June 28th marks the annual anniversary of Founding Father Benjamin Franklin calling the Constitutional Convention to prayer after several weeks of difficult discussions and frequent impasses. The Founders well understood the need to seek God and the important part that God played both in establishing this nation and in the writing of the Constitution.

As Alexander Hamilton reported after its completion:

For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system which without the finger of God [Luke 11:20] never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.1

James Madison agreed, and reported:

It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it the finger of that Almighty Hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the Revolution.2

As far as these delegates were concerned, the finger of God – that is, His Divine power – had guided their writing of the Constitution. Benjamin Franklin also believed this to be the case, explaining:

[I] beg I may not be understood to infer that our general Convention was Divinely inspired when it formed the new federal Constitution . . . [yet] I can hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance to the welfare of millions now existing (and to exist in the posterity of a great nation) should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent, and beneficent Ruler in Whom all inferior spirits “live and move and have their being” [Acts 17:28].3

George Washington (president of the Convention) similarly attested:

As to my sentiments with respect to the merits of the new Constitution, I will disclose them without reserve. . . . It appears to me then little short of a miracle that the delegates from so many different states . . . should unite in forming a system of national government.4

Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration from Philadelphia who closely monitored the proceedings, concurred, openly testifying:

I do not believe that the Constitution was the offspring of inspiration, but I am as perfectly satisfied that the Union of the States in its form and adoption is as much the work of a Divine Providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testament were the effects of a Divine power.5

(For more about the Founders’ views of the “finger of God” and what that meant historically, see the article on this in the Founders’ Bible, from Luke 11:20).

Let us remember that God truly has had His hand involved in the formation of our government and let us take time out, as George Washington recommended, “to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor”6 on America again.


Footnotes

1 Alexander Hamilton to Mr. Childs, Wednesday, October 17, 1787, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison and Other Men of Their Time, The Federalist and Other Contemporary Papers on the Constitution of the United States, ed. E.H. Scott (New York: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1894), 646.
2 James Madison, Federalist #37, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, & James Madison, The Federalist (Philadelphia: Benjamin Warner, 1818), 194.
3 Benjamin Franklin, “A Comparison of the Conduct of the Ancient Jews and of the Anti-Federalists in the United States of America,” no date, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Jared Sparks (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore, and Mason, 1837), V:162.
4 George Washington to Marquis de Lafayette, February 7, 1788, The Writings of George Washington, ed. Jared Sparks (Boston: Russell, Odiorne, and Metcalf, 1835), IX:317.
5 Benjamin Rush to Elias Boudinot on July 9, 1788, Letters of Benjamin Rush, ed. L. H. Butterfield (Princeton, New Jersey: American Philosophical Society, 1951), I:475.
6 Proclamation for a National Thanksgiving on October 3, 1789, Jared Sparks, The Life of George Washington (London: Henry Colburn, 1839), II:301.

A Southern View of Black History?

Today, most Americans are taught Black History from a southern point of view. That is, they are exposed to the slave trade and the atrocities of slavery that were common in the South but hear nearly nothing about the many positive things that occurred in the North.

For example, who has been taught about Wentworth Cheswell1 — the first black elected to office in America, in 1768 in New Hampshire? Or the election of Black American Thomas Hercules to office in Pennsylvania in 1793? Or that in Massachusetts, blacks routinely voted in colonial elections? Or that when the Constitution was ratified in Maryland, more Blacks than Whites voted in Baltimore? Such stories are absent from textbooks today.

History is properly to teach the good, the bad, and the ugly — all of it; but students today usually get only the bad and the ugly, rarely the good. For example, students are regularly told that the first load of slaves sailed up the James River in Virginia in 1619 and thus slavery was introduced into America,2 but few learn about the first slaves that arrived in the Massachusetts Colony set up by the Christian Pilgrims and Puritans. When that slave ship arrived in Massachusetts, the ship’s officers were arrested and imprisoned, and the kidnapped slaves were returned to Africa at the Colony’s expense.3 That positive side of history is untold today.

Similarly, most Americans are unaware that American colonies passed anti-slavery laws before the American Revolution, but that those laws were vetoed by Great Britain, who insisted on the continuance of slavery in America. In fact, several Founders who owned slaves while British citizens freed them once America declared her independence. Sadly, we have been taught to identify Founding Fathers who owned slaves but are unaware of the greater number who opposed slavery or worked with anti-slavery societies.

WallBuilders owns numerous documents showing these positive aspects of Black History, including of praiseworthy efforts to end oppression of African Americans.

For example, the 1774 letter on the right is from Quaker John Townsend, who wrote to inquire after an African slave he had earlier sold. He wanted to reacquire that slave in order to “have the opportunity to set her free.” (The Quakers, like several colonial denominations, firmly opposed slavery and pushed their members to do all possible to end the evil.)

In this 1782 document, Christopher Johnson, a soldier in the American Revolution, declares that he is “fully persuaded that freedom is the natural rights of all mankind & that it is my duty to do unto others as I would desire to be done by in the like situation.” Having fought a war to win his own political freedom, and invoking the Golden Rule delivered by Jesus in Matthew 7:12, he freed (that is, manumitted) his slaves.

In this 1837 document, Dorcas, a Black American who is “a free woman of color,” petitions the court to recognize the legality of two slaves that were freed. According to the Tennessee Act of 1831,4 freed slaves were required to move out of the state, but the subsequent act of 18335 permitted slaves to remain in the state if they had received their freedom prior to 1831. In her letter, Dorcas affirms that “the said two slaves, Warner and Nancy” had received “their freedom long before the passage of the act of 1831” and asks the court to take appropriate action for ensuring their freedom.

On our website, there are many more such documents and many inspiring stories, illustrating a side of Black History of which few Americans are told today


Endnotes

1 “A Black Patriot: Wentworth Cheswell,” WallBuilders, https://wallbuilders.com/resource/a-black-patriot-wentworth-cheswell/.
2 “Slavery,” Harper’s Encyclopaedia of United States History, ed. Benson Lossing (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1974); W. O. Blake, The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade (Columbus: J. & H. Miller, 1858), 98.
3 Blake, History of Slavery (1858), 370-371; Thomas R.R. Cobb, An Inquiry into the Law of Negro Slavery (Philadelphia: T. & J. W. Johnson & Co., 1858), I:cxlvii-cxlviii; W. E. Burghardt DuBois, The Suppression of the AfricanSlave-Trade to the United States of America (New York: Social Science Press, 1954), 30.
4 “Emancipation: 1831–Chapter 102,” A Compilation of the Statutes of Tennessee, Of a General and Permanent Nature, From the Commencment of the Government to the Present Time, eds. R. L. Caruthers & A. O. P. Nicholson (Nashville: James Smith, 1836), 279.
5 “An Act to explain an act, entitled “an act concerning free persons of color, and for other purpose,” passed December 16, 1831,” November 23, 1833, Public Acts Passed at the First Session of the Twentieth General Assembly of the State of Tennessee 1833 (Nashville: Allen A. Hall & F. S. Heiskell, 1833), 99-100.

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 2003

A black civil rights leader recently told an assembly at Michigan State University that American democracy was only decades old rather than centuries- that not until the 1965 Voting Rights Act when blacks could vote did democracy truly begin. [1]

Such a declaration does not accurately portray the history of black voting in America nor does it honor the thousands of blacks who sacrificed their lives obtaining the right to vote and who exercised that right as long as two centuries ago. In fact, most today are completely unaware that it was not Democrats but was actually Republicans-” like the seven pictured on the front cover-” who not only helped achieve the passage of explicit constitutional voting rights for blacks in 1870 but who also held hundreds of elected offices during the 1800s. [2]

Black Voting in the 1700s

Acknowledgment that blacks voted long before the 1965 Voting Rights Act was provided in the infamous 1856 Dred Scott decision in which a Democratic-controlled US Supreme Court observed that blacks “had no rights which a white man was bound to respect; and that the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.” [3] Non-Democrat Justice Benjamin R. Curtis, one of only two on the Court who dissented in that opinion, provided a lengthy documentary history to show that many blacks in America had often exercised the rights of citizens-” that many at the time of the American Revolution “possessed the franchise of [voters] on equal terms with other citizens.” [4]

State constitutions protecting voting rights for blacks included those of Delaware (1776), [5] Maryland (1776), [6] New Hampshire (1784), [7] and New York (1777). [8] (Constitution signer Rufus King declared that in New York, “a citizen of color was entitled to all the privileges of a citizen. . . . [and] entitled to vote.”) [9] Pennsylvania also extended such rights in her 1776 constitution, [10] as did Massachusetts in her 1780 constitution. [11] In fact, nearly a century later in 1874, US Rep. Robert Brown Elliott (a black Republican from SC) queried: “When did Massachusetts sully her proud record by placing on her statute-book any law which admitted to the ballot the white man and shut out the black man? She has never done it; she will not do it.” [12]

As a result of these provisions, early American towns such as Baltimore had more blacks than whites voting in elections; [13] and when the proposed US Constitution was placed before citizens in 1787 and 1788, it was ratified by both black and white voters in a number of States. [14]

This is not to imply that all blacks were allowed to vote; free blacks could vote (except in South Carolina) but slaves were not permitted to vote in any State. Yet in many States this was not an issue, for many worked to end slavery during and after the American Revolution. Although Great Britain had prohibited the abolition of slavery in the Colonies before the Revolution, [15] as independent States they were free to end slavery-” as occurred in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York. [16] Additionally, blacks in many early States not only had the right to vote but also the right to hold office. [17]

Congressional Actions

In the early years of the Republic, the federal Congress also moved toward ending slavery and thus toward achieving voting rights for all blacks, not just free blacks. For example, in 1789 Congress banned slavery in any federally held territory; in 1794, [18] the exportation of slaves from any State was banned; [19] and in 1808, the importation of slaves into any State was also banned. [20] In fact, more progress was made to end slavery and achieve civil rights for blacks in America at that time than was made in any other nation in the world. [21]

In 1820, however, following the death of most of the Founding Fathers, a new generation of leaders in Congress halted and reversed this early progress through acts such as the Missouri Compromise, which permitted the admission of new slave-holding States. [22] This policy was loudly lamented and strenuously opposed by the few Founders remaining alive. Elias Boudinot-” a president of Congress during the Revolution-” warned that this new direction by Congress would bring “an end to the happiness of the United States.” [23] A frail John Adams feared that lifting the slavery prohibition would destroy America; [24] and an elderly Jefferson was appalled at the proposal, declaring, “In the gloomiest moment of the Revolutionary War, I never had any apprehensions equal to what I feel from this source.” [25] Congress also enacted the Fugitive Slave Law allowing southern slavers to go North and kidnap blacks on the spurious claim that they were runaway slaves [26] and then passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, allowing slavery into what is now Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska. [27]

This new anti-civil rights attitude in Congress was also reflected in many of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States. For example, in 1835 North Carolina reversed its policies and limited voting to whites only, [28] as also occurred in Maryland in 1809. [29]

Political Parties

The Democratic Party had become the dominant political party in America in the 1820s, [30] and in May 1854, in response to the strong pro-slavery positions of the Democrats, several anti-slavery Members of Congress formed an anti-slavery party-” the Republican Party. [31] It was founded upon the principles of equality originally set forth in the governing documents of the Republic. In an 1865 publication documenting the history of black voting rights, Philadelphia attorney John Hancock confirmed that the Declaration of Independence set forth “equal rights to all. It contains not a word nor a clause regarding color. Nor is there any provision of the kind to be found in the Constitution of the United States.” [32]

The original Republican platform in 1856 had only nine planks-” six of which were dedicated to ending slavery and securing equal rights for African-Americans. [33] The Democratic platform of that year took an opposite position and defended slavery, even warning that “all efforts of the abolitionists [those opposed to slavery]. . . are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences and . . . diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union.” [34] The next Democratic platform (1860) endorsed both the Fugitive Slave Law and the Dred Scott decision; [35] Democrats even distributed copies of the Dred Scott ruling to justify their anti-black positions. [36]

Specific Constitutional Rights for African-Americans

When Abraham Lincoln was elected the first Republican President in 1861 (along with the first ever Republican Congress), southern pro-slavery Democrats saw the handwriting on the wall. They left the Union and took their States with them, forming a brand new nation: the Confederate States of America, and their followers became known as Rebels. During the War, Lincoln implemented the first anti-slavery measures since the early Republic: in 1862, he abolished slavery in Washington, DC; [37] in 1863, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, ordering slaves to be freed in southern States that had not already done so; [38] in 1864, he signed several early civil rights bills; [39] etc. After the war ended in 1865, the Republican Congress passed the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery and the 14th Amendment providing full civil rights for all blacks, thus fulfilling the original promise of the Declaration of Independence.

Most southern States ignored these new Amendments. [40] Congress therefore insisted that the southern States ratify and implement these Amendments before they could be readmitted into the United States. [41]

Until their readmission, the civil rights of the Rebels in the South-” including their right to vote in elections-” were suspended. [42] The Constitution authorizes that certain civil rights may be suspended “in cases of rebellion” or when “the public safety may require it” (Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 2). In fact, because the Rebels had taken up arms against their own nation-” an act of treason according to the Constitution (“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them . . .” Art. III, Sec. 3, cl. 1), they could have been executed (Art. III, Sec. 3, cl. 2). Instead, amnesty was granted to the Rebels if they took an oath of fidelity to the United States, which most eventually did. (Regrettably, after their readmission, and after Democrats regained the State legislatures from Republicans, those States worked aggressively to circumvent the 14th Amendment in violation of the pledge [43] they had taken.)

Because the Rebels (who had almost exclusively been Democrats) were not allowed to vote in the early parts of Reconstruction, Republicans became the political majority in the South; and since nearly every African-American was a Republican and could now vote, most southern legislatures-” at least for a few years-” became Republican and included many black legislators. In Texas, 42 blacks were elected to the State Legislature, [44] 50 to the South Carolina Legislature, [45] 127 to Louisiana’s, [46] 99 to Alabama’s, [47] etc.-” all as Republicans. These Republican legislatures moved quickly to protect voting rights for blacks, prohibit segregation, establish public education, and open public transportation, State police, juries, and other institutions to blacks. [48] (It is noteworthy that the blacks serving both in the federal and State legislatures during that time forgivingly voted for amnesty for the Rebels. [49])

During the time when most southern Democrats had not yet signed the oath of fidelity to the United States and therefore could not vote, they still found ways to intimidate and keep blacks from voting. For example, in 1865-1866, the Ku Klux Klan was formed by Democrats to overthrow Republicans and pave the way for Democrats to regain control [50]-” as when Democrats attacked the State Republican Convention in Louisiana in 1866, killing 40 blacks, 20 whites, and wounding 150 others. [51] In addition to the use of force, southern Democrats also relied on absurd technicalities to limit blacks. In Georgia, 28 black legislators were elected as Republicans, but Democratic officials decided that even though blacks had the right to vote in Georgia, they did not have the right to hold office; the 28 black members were therefore expelled. [52]

Because of such blatant attempts to nullify the guarantees of the 14th Amendment, the Republican Congress passed the 15th Amendment to give explicit voting rights to African-Americans. Significantly, not one of the 56 Democrats serving in Congress at that time voted for the 15th Amendment. [53]

Democratic Efforts to Limit Voting Rights for Blacks

During Reconstruction (1865-1877), Republicans passed four federal civil rights bills to protect the rights of African-Americans, the fourth being passed in 1875. [54] It was nearly a century before the next civil rights bill was passed, because in 1876 Democrats regained partial control of Congress and successfully blocked further progress. As Democrats regained control of the legislatures in southern States, they began to repeal State civil rights protections and to abrogate existing federal civil rights laws. As African-American US Rep. John Roy Lynch (MS) noted, “The opposition to civil rights in the South is confined almost exclusively to States under democratic control . . .” [55]

Devious and cunning methods were required to circumvent the explicit voting protections of the 14th and 15th Amendments, and southern Democrats implemented nearly a dozen separate devices to prevent blacks from voting, including:

  • Poll taxes

  • Literacy tests

  • “Grandfather” clauses

  • Suppressive election procedures

  • Black codes and enforced segregation

  • Bizarre gerrymandering

  • White-only primaries

  • Physical intimidation and violence

  • Restrictive eligibility requirements

  • Rewriting of State constitutions

1. The poll tax

The poll tax was a fee paid by a voter before he could vote. The fee was high enough that most poor were unable to pay the tax and therefore unable to vote. Although the poll tax affected both whites and blacks, it was disproportionately hard on blacks who were just emerging from slavery, many of whom had not yet established an independent means of living. A poll tax was first proposed in Texas in 1874, right after Democrats reclaimed power from the Republicans, [56] but it was North Carolina in 1876 that became the first State to enact a poll tax, [57] and other southern States quickly followed. [58]

2. Literacy tests

Literacy tests required a voter to demonstrate a certain level of learning proficiency before he could vote. In some cases, the test was 20 pages long for blacks, and those administering the tests were white Democrats who nearly always ruled that blacks were illiterate. In Alabama, the test included questions such as, “Where do presidential electors cast ballots for president?” “Name the rights a person has after he has been indicted by a grand jury.” [59] Democrats required blacks to have an above average education before they could vote but then simultaneously opposed black education and even worked with the Ku Klux Klan to burn down schools attended by blacks. [60] Clearly, they did not intend for blacks to vote.

3. “Grandfather” clauses

“Grandfather” clauses were laws passed by Democratic legislatures allowing an individual to vote if his father or grandfather had been registered to vote prior to the passage of the 15th Amendment. [61] Since voting in the South prior to the 15th Amendment was almost completely by whites, this law ensured that poor and illiterate whites, but not blacks, could vote.

4. Suppressive election procedures

Some election procedures (such as “multiple ballots”) were intentionally made complex and misleading. For example, a Republican voter might be required to cast a ballot in up to eight separate locations-” or sometimes to cast a vote for each Republican on the ballot at a separate location-” before the ballot would be counted. Democratic officials, however, often failed to inform black voters of this complicated procedure and their ballots were therefore disqualified. [62]

5. Black codes and enforced segregation

Black Codes (later called Jim Crow laws) restricted the freedoms and economic opportunities of blacks. For example, in the four years from 1865-1869, southern Democrats passed “Black Codes” to prohibit blacks from voting, holding office, owning property, entering towns without permission, serving on juries, or racially intermarrying. [63]

National observers at that time concluded that the South was simply trying to institute a new form of slavery through these Black Codes. [64] This tactic was obvious to African-Americans, thus causing black US Rep. Joseph H. Rainey (Republican from SC) to quip: “I can only say that we love freedom more-” vastly more-” than slavery; consequently we hope to keep clear of the Democrats!” [65]

Southern Democrats went well beyond Black Codes, however, and also imposed forced racial segregation. In 1875, Tennessee became the first State to do so, [66] and by 1890 several other southern States had followed. [67] As a result, schools, hospitals, public transportation, restaurants, etc., became segregated. (Even though the Republican Congress had already passed laws banning segregation, the US Supreme Court struck down those anti-segregation laws in a series of decisions in the 1870s and 1880s. [68])

6. Bizarre gerrymandering

Once the Democrats regained State legislatures at the end of Reconstruction, they began to redraw election lines to make it impossible for Republicans to be elected, thereby preventing blacks from being elected. [69] For example, although many blacks were elected as Republicans in Texas during Reconstruction, when the last African-American left the State House in 1897, none was elected (either as a Republican or a Democrat) for the next 70 years until federal courts ordered a change in the way Texas Democrats drew voting lines. [70] Furthermore, although Republicans had been an overwhelming majority in the State legislature during Reconstruction, after Democrats redrew election lines, for several decades there were never more than two Republicans serving in the House nor one in the Senate. [71] This pattern was typical in other southern States as well.

7. White-only primaries

Another way Democrats could keep blacks from being elected was by enacting Democratic Party policies prohibiting blacks from voting in their primaries. When Texas later codified this policy into State law, the US Supreme Court struck down that Texas law in 1927, [72] but not the party policies. The Democratic Parties in Georgia, [73] Louisiana, [74] Florida, [75] Mississippi, [76] South Carolina, [77] etc., therefore continued their reliance on white-only primaries. Because Democrats solidly controlled every level of government in the South (often called the “solid Democratic South” [78]), this policy had the same effect as a State law and again ensured that no black would be elected. In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld this Democratic policy [79] but then reversed itself and finally struck it down in 1944. [80]

8. Physical intimidation and violence

In 1871, black US Rep. Robert Brown Elliott (Republican from SC) observed that: “the declared purpose [of the Democratic party is] to defeat the ballot with the bullet and other coercive means. . . . The white Republican of the South is also hunted down and murdered or scourged for his opinion’s sake, and during the past two years more than six hundred loyal [Republican] men of both races have perished in my State alone.” [81] Elliott’s term “coercive means” accurately described the lynchings as well as the cross burnings, church burnings, incarceration on trumped-up charges, beatings, rape, murder, etc.

The Ku Klux Klan was a leader in this form of violent intimidation by Democrats. As African-American US Rep. James T. Rapier (Republican from al) explained in 1874, Democrats “were hunting me down as the partridge on the mount, night and day, with their Ku Klux Klan, simply because I was a Republican and refused to bow at the foot of their Baal.” [82]

Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective. Between 1882 and 1964, 4,743 persons were lynched-” 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites. [83] Why were so many more blacks lynched than whites? According to African-American Rep. John R. Lynch (Republican from SC), “More colored than white men are thus persecuted simply because they constitute in larger numbers the opposition to the Democratic Party.” [84]

Republicans often led the effort to pass federal anti-lynching laws, [85] but Democrats successfully blocked every anti-lynching bill. For example, in 1921, Republican Rep. Leonidas Dyer (MO) introduced a federal anti-lynching bill in Congress, but Democrats in the Senate killed it. [86] The NAACP reported on December 17, 1921, that: “since the introduction of the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill in Congress on April 11, 1921, there have been 28 persons murdered by lynchings in the United States.” [87] Although some Democrats introduced anti-lynching bills across the decades, their Democratic leaders killed every effort and Congress never did pass an anti-lynching bill. [88]

9. Restrictive eligibility requirements

Election policies designed to limit black voting included requirements that a voter must reside in a state for two years, his county for one year, and his ward or precinct for six months before he could vote. [89] This requirement especially limited the effect of workers seeking employment-” often blacks. After the poll tax was abolished, some States, still trying to achieve the same effect, enacted annual registration fees for voters. The lower courts struck down such fees in 1971; [90] in 1972 the Supreme Court struck down the excessive filing fees established by Democratic legislatures; [91] these fees were designed to prevent what the Supreme Court had termed the “less affluent segment of the community” [92] from participating as candidates.

10. Rewriting of State constitutions

As a part of Reconstruction, most southern States had been required to rewrite their State constitutions to add full civil rights protections. [93] However, less than two decades later, many States revised their constitutions to remove those clauses. For example, in 1868 North Carolina had rewritten its constitution to include civil rights, [94] but in 1876 it amended its constitution to exclude most blacks from voting. [95] Over the next two decades, Democrats in Mississippi, [96] South Carolina, [97] Louisiana, [98] Florida, [99] Alabama, [100] and Virginia [101] also altered their constitutions or passed laws to negate many of the rights given to blacks during Reconstruction.

11. Other requirements

Other restrictions used by Democrats to keep blacks from voting included property ownership requirements. For example, in Alabama in 1901, a voter was required to own land or property worth at least $300 before he could vote [102] (today that would equate to more than $6,500. [103]) Some States would withhold voting rights for the “commission” of a crime-” not for a serious crime or a felony but rather for violating any of a long list of petty offenses (unemployed blacks or those looking for work were often charged with vagrancy, resulting in a loss of their voting rights). [104]

An Historical Sidenote

Current writers and texts addressing the post-Civil War period often present an incomplete portrayal of that era. For example, africana.com notes: “Southerners established whites-only voting in party primaries . . . or gerrymandered electoral districts, thus diluting the strength of black voters.” [105] Although it is true that both whites and southerners were the overwhelming source of difficulties for African-Americans, it was just one type of southern whites that caused the problems: southern racist whites. There was another type of southern whites: the non-racist whites, many of whom suffered great persecutions and even loss of life for supporting blacks. These whites are often unrecognized or unacknowledged in black history and are wrongly grouped with racist whites through the use of the overly broad terms such as “southerners” or “whites.” To make an accurate portrayal of black history, a distinction must be made between types of whites.

For example, the Rev. Richard Allen (1760-1831), a founder of the AME church in America, suffered many injuries at the hands of “whites”: he was a slave, his mother and brothers were sold separately and his family was split by his master, Allen was opposed by prominent Gospel ministers, etc. Yet Allen understood that only some whites were hostile. In fact, in his own memoirs, Allen openly acknowledges whites who helped him. For example, Allen writes to other blacks: “I hope the name of Dr. Benjamin Rush [a white signer of the Declaration] and Robert Ralston [a white wealthy merchant] will never be forgotten among us. They were the first two gentlemen who espoused the cause of the oppressed and aided us in building the house of the Lord for the poor Africans to worship in.” [106] Allen also notes that in 1784 when he started his first church in Philadelphia, “there were but few colored people in the neighborhood-” the most of my congregation was white.” [107] Such positive portrayals of black/white relations are too often missing from black history pieces today; instead, “whites” are described as oppressors. Some were; some were not.

Another illustration is provided by the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments. Constitutional amendments must be passed by a margin of two-thirds in Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States. Those Amendments abolishing slavery and providing civil rights and voting rights for African-Americans were passed by two-thirds of the white men in Congress and by white men in the legislature of three-fourths of the States-” an overwhelming majority of these white men were Republicans and were not racists. (Among the literally hundreds of whites voting for these amendments were two African-American Republicans elected in Massachusetts in 1866. [108])

Therefore, the africana.com quote would be much more historically correct-” although more politically incorrect-” were it to read: “Democratic legislatures in the South [instead of just “southerners”] established whites-only voting in party primaries . . . ” This weakness of distinction is typical of far too many black history writings addressing the post-Reconstruction era.

An Obvious Purpose

It is clear that many southern Democrats despised blacks and Republicans and used every possible means to keep them from power. This hostility was evident in the numerous devices they used-” including violence. In fact, after examining the abundant evidence, Republican US Sen. Roscoe Conkling (nominated as a US Supreme Court Justice in 1882) concluded that the Democratic Party was determined to exterminate blacks in those States where Democratic supremacy was threatened. [109]

The Democrats’ hostility was evident not only in their actions but also in the words they used to describe blacks and Republicans. Democrats applied epithets that were at that time considered base, vulgar, and derogatory-” terms such as “scalawags” (those in the South who had opposed succession) [110] or “radicals” (early Republicans were considered radical because their party was bi-racial and because they allowed blacks to vote and participate in the political process). [111]

Clearly, because Republicans embraced and welcomed blacks as equals, Democrats abhorred and bitterly opposed them. As black US Rep. Richard H. Cain (Republican from SC) explained in 1875: “The bad blood of the South comes because the Negroes are Republicans. If they would only cease to be Republicans and vote the straight-out Democratic ticket there would be no trouble. Then the bad blood would sink entirely out of sight.” [112] Many Democrats today-” including many black Democrats-” have picked up the Democrats’ long-standing hatred for Republicans without understanding its origins. They often blame that generations-long contempt on issues other than the anti-black, anti-Republican sentiments that shaped their Party, but history is clear.

Fighting the Constitution

Decades after the passage of the 14th and 15th Amendments, many Democrats still steadfastly opposed those protections. In 1900, Democrat US Sen. Ben Tillman (SC) declared: “We made up our minds that the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution were themselves null and void; that the [civil rights] acts of Congress . . . were null and void; that oaths required by such laws were null and void.” [113] Democrats such as Rep. W. Bourke Cockran (NY), Sen. John Tyler Morgan (AL), Sen. Samuel McEnery (LA), and others agreed with this position and were among the Democrats seeking a repeal of the 15th Amendment (voting rights for African-Americans). [114] In fact, Sen. McEnery even declared: “I believe . . . that not a single southern Senator would object to such a move” [115] (of the 22 southern Senators, 20 were Democrats [116]).

Effect on Black Voting

Unrelenting efforts by Democrats to suppress black voting were successful. Eventually, in Selma, Alabama, the voting rolls were 99 percent white and 1 percent black even though there were more black residents than whites in that city; [117] and in Birmingham-” a city with 18,000 blacks-” only 30 of them were eligible to vote. [118] Black voters in Alabama and Florida were reduced by nearly 90 percent, [119] and in Texas from 100,000 to only 5,000. [120] By the 1940s, only 5 percent of blacks in the south were registered to vote. [121]

More Recent Civil Rights Efforts

In the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, a few Democratic leaders began to oppose their own party’s policies against blacks. Democratic President Harry S. Truman from Missouri was perhaps the first and most vocal national Democratic leader to advocate strong civil rights protections, [122] yet his party rejected his efforts. [123] Reformers such as Truman learned that it was a difficult task for rank-and-file Democrats to reshape their long-held views on race.

In fact, in 1924 when Texas Democratic candidate for Governor, Ma Ferguson, ran against the Democratic Ku Klux Klan candidate in the primary, it cost her the widespread support of the Texas Democratic Party. [124] Democrat Franklin Roosevelt understood his Party, however, and in his 1932 race he made subtle overtures to blacks but avoided making any overt civil rights promises. FDR was so unsuccessful in this approach that his Republican opponent, Herbert Hoover, received over 75 percent of the black vote in that election. [125]

Unlike FDR, Harry Truman worked boldly and openly to change his party. In 1946, he became the first modern President to institute a comprehensive review of race relations and, not surprisingly, faced strenuous opposition from within his own party. In fact, Democratic Sen. Theodore Bilbo (MS) admonished every “red blooded Anglo Saxon man in Mississippi to resort to any means” to keep blacks from voting. [126] Nonetheless, Truman pushed forward and introduced an aggressive civil rights legislative package that included an anti-lynching law, an anti-poll tax law, desegregation of the military, etc., but his own party killed all of his proposals. [127]

Southern Democratic Governors, denouncing Truman’s proposals, met in Florida and proposed what they called a “southern conference of true Democrats” to plan their strategy. [128] That summer at the Democratic National Convention when Truman placed strong civil rights language in the national Democratic platform, a walkout of southern delegates resulted. Southern Democrats then formed the Dixiecrat Party and ran South Carolina Gov. Strom Thurmond as their candidate for President. [129] (It was concerning this 1948 presidential bid by Thurmond that Republican Sen. Trent Lott (MS) uttered his disgraceful comments [130] that made national news.) Thurmond’s bid was unsuccessful; he later had a change of heart on civil rights and in 1964 left the Democratic Party. In 1971, as a Republican US Senator, Thurmond became the first southern Senator to hire a black in his senatorial office. [131]

In 1954, additional civil rights progress was made when the US Supreme Court rendered its Brown v. Board of Education decision, [132] integrating public schools and ending segregation. (Significantly, the Court was only reversing its own position taken nearly sixty years earlier in the Plessy v. Ferguson decision that upheld segregation laws enacted by Democratic State legislatures.)

In 1957, and then again in 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower made bold civil rights proposals to increase black voting rights and protections. [133] Since Congress was solidly in the hands of the Democrats, they cut the heart out of his bills before passing weak, watered-down versions of his proposals. [134] Nevertheless, to focus national attention upon the plight of blacks, Eisenhower started a civil rights commission and was the first President to appoint a black to an executive position in the White House. [135]

In 1963, following the Birmingham riots, Democratic President John F. Kennedy proposed a strong civil rights bill. Its language was taken from the wording of Eisenhower’s original civil rights bill (before it was gutted by Democrats) and from proposals made by Eisenhower’s civil rights commission. [136] Kennedy’s tragic assassination halted his bill.

In 1964, the 24th Amendment was added to the Constitution, abolishing the poll tax. Significantly, on five previous occasions the House passed a ban on the poll tax but Senate Democrats had killed the bills each time. [137] As early as 1949 (as part of Truman’s proposed civil rights package), Democratic Sen. Spessard Holland (FL) introduced a constitutional amendment to end poll taxes, but it was 1962 before it was approved by the Senate. [138] Significantly, 91 percent of the Republicans in Congress voted to end the poll tax but only 71 percent of the Democrats did so; and in the Senate, of the 16 Senators who opposed the 24th Amendment, 15 were Democrats. [139] (The 24th Amendment banned poll taxes only for federal elections; in 1966, the US Supreme Court struck down poll taxes for all elections, including local and State. [140])

In 1964, Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson picked up the civil rights bill introduced by President Kennedy. However, even though Democrats held almost two-thirds of the seats in Congress at that time, Johnson could not garner sufficient votes from within his own party to pass the bill. (Johnson needed 269 votes from his Party to achieve passage but could garner the support of only 198 of the 315 Democrats in Congress. [141]) Johnson therefore worked with Republicans to achieve the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, followed by the 1965 Voting Rights Act. (The 1965 Voting Rights Act by Johnson was a resurrection of Eisenhower’s original language before it had been killed by Democrats. When it was finally approved under Johnson, of the 18 Senators who opposed the Voting Rights Act, 17 were Democrats. In fact, 97 percent of Republican Senators voted for the Act. [142])

The 1965 Voting Rights Act banned literacy tests and authorized the federal government to oversee voter registration and elections in counties that had used voter eligibility tests. Within a year, 450,000 new southern blacks successfully registered to vote; [143] and voter registration of African-Americans in Mississippi rose from only 5 percent in 1960 to 60 percent by 1968. [144]

The 1965 Voting Rights Act opened opportunities for African-Americans that they had not enjoyed since Republicans had been in power a century before; the laws and policies long enforced by southern Democratic legislatures had finally come to an end. As a result, the number of blacks serving in federal and State legislatures rose from 2 in 1965 to 160 in 1990. [145]

Controversies and Successes

In recent years, much national media coverage has focused on allegations of election fraud in Dade County and West Palm Beach, Florida; St. Louis, Missouri; Michigan (the buying of votes); New Mexico (the destruction of thousands of uncounted ballots); etc. Significantly, each one of these incidents occurred in an area that was overwhelmingly Democratic and where the elections had been administered by Democratic election officials. The fact that such problems occur in areas under Democratic rather than Republican control might surprise many today, but it would not have surprised African-Americans a century ago.

In 1875, African-American US Rep. Joseph H. Rainey (Republican from SC) declared: “We intend to continue to vote so long as the government gives us the right and necessary protection; and I know that right accorded to us now will never be withheld in the future if left to the Republican Party.” [146] In fact, on the floor of Congress, Rainey told Democrats: “Your votes, your actions, and the constant cultivation of your cherished prejudices prove to the Negroes of the entire country that the Democrats are in opposition to them, and if they (the Democrats) could have [their way], our race would have no foothold here. . . . The Democratic Party may woo us, they may court us and try to get us to worship at their shrine, but I will tell the gentleman that we are Republicans by instinct, and we will be Republicans so long as God will allow our proper senses to hold sway over us.” [147]

The original philosophies and actions of both major parties are vividly documented in history but are largely unreported today. And while there has been good and bad on both sides, a general pattern is clearly established: African-Americans made their most significant gains as Republicans. Even today many of those patterns still remain. It is significant that black Republican US Rep. JC Watts (OK) chaired the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia in 2000. Watts was the third African-American to chair a National Republican Convention (the first was US Rep. John Roy Lynch (MS) in 1884 and then US Sen. Edward Brooke (MA) in 1968); [148] however, no African-American has ever chaired, or even co-chaired, a Democratic National Convention. Similarly, in the 130 years that Democrats controlled Texas, only 4 minority individuals served Statewide; in the 8 years that Republicans have controlled the State, 6 minority individuals already have served Statewide. In fact, Texas just elected three African-Americans to statewide office-” all as Republicans, apparently becoming the first State in America’s history to achieve this distinction. Furthermore, Maryland and Ohio each just elected black Lt. Governors-” both as Republicans.

An important point is illustrated by these recent elections (and by scores before them): in Democratic-controlled States, rarely are African-Americans elected statewide (with the exception of US Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun (IL, 1992-1998)); and African-American Democratic Representatives to Congress usually are elected only from minority districts (districts with a majority of minority voters). Minority Republicans, on the other hand, are elected statewide in Republican States, or in congressional districts with large white majorities. [149]

Perhaps this explains why African-American abolitionist Frederick Douglass a century ago reminded blacks: “The Republican Party is the ship, all else is the sea.” [150] The history of African-American voting rights in America proves Douglass was right.

[For more information on the struggle for African American Civil Rights see our Setting the Record Straight resource (in DVD, VHS, and Book format); we have also cataloged our Black History resources here]


Endnotes

[1] The Washington Times online, Steve Miller, “Jackson dismisses Founding Fathers,” September 16, 2002 (at https://www.wa shtimes.com/national/20020916-78725174.htm).

[2] Stanford University online, Peter Kolchin, “Reconstruction,” 1997 (at https://www.stanford.edu/~paherman/reconstruction.htm).

[3] Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 407 (1856).

[4] Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 573 (1856), Curtis, J. (dissenting).

[5] The Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (Boston: Norman and Bowen, 1785), p. 92, 1776 Delaware Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #6.

[6] Constitutions (1785), p. 104, 1776 Maryland Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #5.

[7] Constitutions (1785), p. 5, 1784 New Hampshire Constitution, “Bill of Rights,” #11.

[8] Constitutions (1785), p. 58, 1777 New York Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #7.

[9] Rufus King, The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, Charles R. King, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1900), p. 404.

[10] Constitutions (1785), p. 78, 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #7.

[11] Constitutions (1785), p. 8, 1780 Massachusetts Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #9.

[12] Carter G. Woodson, Negro Orators and Their Orations (Washington, DC: The Associated Publishers, Inc., 1925), p. 310, Rep. Robert Brown Elliott from his speech on the Civil Rights Bill on January 6, 1874.

[13] John Hancock, Essays on the Elective Franchise; or, Who Has the Right to Vote? (Philadelphia: Merrihew & Son, 1865), pp. 22-23.

[14] Hancock, Essays on the Elective Franchise, p. 27.

[15] Benson Lossing, Harpers’ Popular Cyclopedia, pp.1299-1300; W.O. Blake, History of Slavery and the Slave Trade, p. 177; Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (1839), Vol. VIII, p. 42, to the Rev. Dean Woodward on April 10, 1773; Frank Moore, Materials for History Printed From Original Manuscripts, the Correspondence of Henry Laurens of South Carolina (New York: Zenger Club, 1861), p. 20, to John Laurens on August 14, 1776; Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1903), Vol. I, p. 34.

[16] Thomas R. R. Cobb, An Inquiry into the Law of Negro Slavery in the United States of America (Philadelphia: T. & T.W. Johnson & Co., 1858), pp. 171-172; see also The Public Laws of the State of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, as revised by a Committee, and finally enacted by the Honorable General Assembly, at their Session in January, 1798 (Providence: Carter and Wilkinson, 1798), pp. 607-611; see also The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut. Book 1. Published by Authority of the General Assembly (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1808), pp. 623-626; see also Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, From the Fourteenth Day of October, One Thousand Seven Hundred, to the Twentieth Day of March One Thousand Eight Hundred and Ten. Published by Authority of the Legislature (Philadelphia: Jon Bioren, 1810), Vol. 1, pp. 492-497.

[17] Constitutions (1785), p. 5, 1784 New Hampshire Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #11; p. 8, 1780 Massachusetts Constitution, #9; p. 78, 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution, #7.

[18] Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 1834), Vol. II, p. 2215, 1789, “An act to provide for the government of the Territory northwest of the river Ohio”; see also The Constitutions of the United States of America (Trenton: William and David Robinson, 1813), p. 366, “Northwest Ordinance,” Article #6.

[19] Debates and Proceedings (1849), p. 1425, “An act to prohibit the carrying on the slave-trade from the United States to any foreign place or country” in 1794.

[20] Debates and Proceedings (1849), p. 1266, “An act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States” in 1807.

[21] Cobb, An Inquiry into the Law of Negro Slavery, pp. 153, 163, 169.

[22] Debates and Proceedings (1849), pp. 2555, 2559, “An act to authorize the people of Missouri Territory to form a constitution and state government” in 1820.

[23] George Adams Boyd, Elias Boudinot (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952), p. 290, in a letter to Elias Boudinot on November 27, 1819.

[24] Charles Francis Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), p. 386, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson on December 18, 1819.

[25] Thomas Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson (New York and London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905), p. 157, in a letter to Hugh Nelson on February 7, 1820.

[26] Statutes at Large and Treaties of the United States of America, from December 1, 1845, to March 3, 1851, George Minot, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1862), 31st Congress, 1st Session, Chapter 55, September 18, 1850, Vol. 9, pp. 462-465.

[27] Statutes at Large and Treaties of the United States of America, from December 1, 1851, to March 3, 1855, George Minot, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1855), 33rd Congress, 1st Session, Chapter 59, May 30, 1854, Vol. 10, pp. 277-290.

[28] Hancock, Essays on the Elective Franchise, p. 22.

[29] Hancock, Essays on the Elective Franchise, pp. 22-23.

[30] Thomas Hudson McKee, The National Conventions and Platforms of All Political Parties, 1789-1905 (New York: Burt Franklin, 1971), pp. 18-20; Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives online, “Party Divisions” (at ht tp://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_History/partyDiv.php); CNN AllPolitics.com, “Democratic Party History,” August 2, 2000 (at https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/democratic/features/history/).

[31] Eugene V. Smalley, A Brief History of the Republican Party. From Its Organization to the Presidential Campaign of 1884 (New York: John Alden, Publisher, 1885), p. 30.

[32] Hancock, Essays on the Elective Franchise, pp. 32-33.

[33] McKee, National Conventions and Platforms, pp. 97-99.

[34] McKee, National Conventions and Platforms, p. 91.

[35] McKee, National Conventions and Platforms, pp. 108-109.

[36] Harper’s Weekly online, “The Dred Scott Decision” (at https://blackhistory.harpweek.com/7Illustrations/Slavery/DredScottAd.htm) , in an advertisement that appeared in Harper’s Weekly, July 23, 1859.

[37] Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamation of the United States of America, from December 5, 1859, to March 3, 1863, George P. Spanger, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1863), 37th Congress, 2nd Session, Chapter 54, April 16, 1862, Vol. 15, pp. 376-378.

[38] James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. VI, 157-159, Proclamation by Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863.

[39] Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamation of the United States of America, from December, 1863, to December, 1865, George P. Spanger, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1866), 38th Congress, 1st Session, Chapter 166, June 28, 1864, Vol. 13, p. 200; 1st Session, Chapter 144, June 20, 1864, Vol. 13, p. 144-145 [equalized pay]; and 2nd Session, Chapter 90, March 3, 1865, Vol. 13, pp. 507-509.

[40] Dominicus-von-Linprun-Gymnasium online, “American History: The Past of a Nation”

(at https://www.gymnasium-viechtach.de/ushistory/2_e.htm).

[41] Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamation of the United States of America, from December, 1865, to March, 1867, George P. Spanger, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1868), 39th Congress, 2nd Session, Chapter 152, March 2, 1867, Vol. 14, pp. 428-430; Statutes, from December, 1867, to March, 1869 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1869), 40th Congress, 2nd Session, Chapter 69, June 22, 1868, Vol. 15, pp. 72-74.

[42] Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamation of the United States of America, from December, 1865, to March, 1867, George P. Spanger, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1868), 39th Congress, 2nd Session, Chapter 152, March 2, 1867, Vol. 14, p. 429.

[43] Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamation of the United States of America, from December, 1867, to March, 1869, George P. Spanger, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1869), 40th Congress, 1st Session, Chapter 6, March 23, 1867, Vol. 15, pp. 2-4.

[44] The Handbook of Texas online, “African Americans and Politics” (at https://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbok/online/articles/print/AA/wmafr.html)

[45] Langston Hughes, Milton Meltzer, and Eric C. Lincoln, A Pictorial History of Blackamericans (New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1983), p. 204.

[46] Hughes, Meltzer, and Lincoln, Pictorial History (1983), p. 205.

[47] Alabama Moments in American History online, “Alabama’s Black Leaders During Reconstruction” (at https://www.alabam amoments.state.al.us/sec26det.html); etc.

[48] The Handbook of Texas online, “Reconstruction” (at https://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/print/AA/wmafr.html).

[49] Woodson, Negro Orators and Their Orations, p. 291, Sen. Hiram R. Revels from his speech on the Georgia Bill on March 16, 1870; p. 337, Rep. Richard H. Cain from his speech on the Civil Rights Bill on January 10, 1874; p. 379, Rep. Joseph H. Rainey from his speech made on March 5, 1872 in reply to an attack upon the colored state legislators of South Carolina by Representative Cox of New York; etc.

[50] Smalley, Brief History of the Republican Party, pp. 49-50; see also The Handbook of Texas online, “Ku Klux Klan” (at https://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbok/online/articles/view/KK/vek2.html).

[51] Hughes, Meltzer, and Lincoln, Pictorial History (1983), p. 199; see also The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson online, “The New Orleans Massacre” (at https://www.impeach-andrewjohnson.com/06FirstImpeachmentDiscussion s/iiib-8a.htm); and Harper’s Weekly online, “The Riot in New Orleans” (at https://www.blackhistory.harpweek.com/7Illustrations/Reco nstruction/RiotInNewOrleans.htm).

[52] Woodson, Negro Orators and Their Orations, p. 291, Sen. Hiram R. Revels from his speech on the Georgia Bill on March 16, 1870; see also National Anti-Slavery Standard, September 26, 1868, “The South. The Rebel Perfidy in the Legislature. Colored Republicans Expelled” p. 1, and Georgia Secretary of State online, “Expelled Because of their Color: African-American Legislators in Georgia” (at https://www.sos.state .ga.us/Archives/ve/1/ec1.htm).

[53] Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1869), 40th Congress, 3rd Session, February 25, 1869, pp. 449-450; Journal of the Senate of the United States (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1869), 40th Congress, 3rd Session, February 25, 1869, p. 361.

[54] Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamation of the United States of America, from December, 1865, to March, 1867, George P. Spanger, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1868), 39th Congress, 1st Session, Chapter 31, April 9, 1866, Vol. 14, pp. 27-30; 39th Congress, 2nd Session, Chapter 153, March 2, 1867, Vol. 14, pp. 428-430; Statutes at Large, from December, 1869, to March, 1871 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1871), 41st Congress, 2nd Session, Chapter 114, May 31, 1870, Vol. 16, pp. 140-146; Statutes at Large, from December, 1873, to March, 1875 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1875), 43rd Congress, 2nd Session, Chapter 114, March 1, 1875, Vol. 18, Part 3, pp. 335-337.

[55] Woodson, Negro Orators and Their Orations, p. 375, Rep. John R. Lynch from his speech on the Civil Rights Bill on February 3, 1875.

[56] The Handbook of Texas online, “Constitution Proposed in 1874” (at https://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/CC/mhc12.html), and “Constitution of 1876” (at https://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/CC/mhc7.html) .

[57] The Federal and State Constitutions Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and Colonies, Francis Newton Thorpe, editor (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1909), pp. 2834-2835, 1876 North Carolina Constitution, Article 5, Section 1; Article 6, Section 4.

[58] Palm Beach Post online, Mark Caputo, “Black Judge’s Honor Restored in History Books,” February 27, 2002 (at https://www.myflorida.com/myflorida/governorsoffice/black_history/ju dge2.html); University of Dayton School of Law online, J. Whyatt Mondesire, “Felon Disenfranchisement: the Modern Day Poll Tax” (at https://academic .udayton.edu/race/04needs/voting06.htm).

[59] Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History online, “America in Ferment: The Tumultuous 1960s,” November 14, 2002 (at http:/ /www.gliah.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=369).

[60] PBS online, “The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow” (at https://www.pbs. org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_kkk.html); see also Cyberschool online, “African Americans Under Congressional Reconstruction” (at https://br t.uoregon.edu/cyberschool/history/ch15/rights.html); see also Hughes, Meltzer, and Lincoln, Pictorial History (1983), p. 199; etc.

[61] Ohio State University online, “Voting Restrictions: Jim Crow” (at https://1912.hist ory.ohio-state.edu/race/jimcrow.htm); see also SkyMinds.Net, “American Civilization: The Reconstruction” (at https://www.skyminds.net/ civilization/12.php).

[62] Florida: History, People & Politics online, Unit 3: Florida as a State; “Civil Rights: The Case of Florida; Black Codes” (at https://www.fcim.org/ flhistory/unit3_t4_case.htm); see also World Socialist Web Site, Jerry White, “Florida’s Legacy of Voter Disenfranchisement,” April 6, 2001, p. 2 (at https://www. wsws.org/articles/2001/apr2001/flor-a09_prn.shtml); see also Pensacola Beach Residents & Leaseholders Assn. online, “Reconstruction and Revanchism in Escambia County, 1865-1888” (at https://www.pbrla.com /hxarchive_civwar_recon.html).

[63] African-American History online, “The Black Codes of 1865” (at https:// aafroamhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa121900a.htm); see also The Handbook of Texas online, “Black Codes,” p. 1 (at https://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/BB/jsb1.html) .

[64] The Handbook of Texas online, “Reconstruction” (at https://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/print/AA/wmafr.html).

[65] Woodson, Negro Orators and Their Orations, p. 305, Rep. Joseph H. Rainey, speaking on April 1, 1871, to explain how the Ku Klux Klan’s actions limit African-American people’s participation in the political process.

[66] CNN.com, “Timeline of the Civil Rights Movement, 1850-1970,” February 1, 2001 (at https://www.cnn.com/fyi/interactive/specials/bhm/story/timeline.html).

[67] African-American History online, “Creation of the Jim Crow South” (at https://a afroamhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa010201a.htm); see also National Park Service online, “Jim Crow Laws” (at https://www.nps.go v/malu/documents/jim_crow_laws.htm); etc.

[68] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883).

[69] United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Voting Section online, “Introduction to Federal Voting Rights Laws” (at https://www.usdoj.gov/crt/vo ting/intro.htm).

[70] The Handbook of Texas online, “African Americans and Politics,” p. 3 (at https://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/print/AA/wmafr.html) , and “Texas Legislature,” pp. 4, 6 (at https://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/print/TT/mkt2.html ).

[71] The Handbook of Texas online, “Texas Legislature,” p. 4 (at https://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/print/TT/mkt2.html ).

[72] Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927).

[73] Our Georgian History online, Col. Samuel Taylor, “Georgia’s Gilded Age: Georgia History 101” (at https:// www.ourgeorgiahistory.com/history101/gahistory09.html).

[74] SSHA Political Network News online, J. Morgan Kousser, “H-Pol’s Online Seminar: Historical Origins of the Runoff Primary,” Fall 1996 (at https://w ww2.h-net.msu.edu/~pol/ssha/netnews/f96/kousser.htm).

[75] World Socialist Web Site, Jerry White, “Florida’s Legacy of Voter Disenfranchisement,” April 6, 2001, p. 2 (at https://www. wsws.org/articles/2001/apr2001/flor-a09_prn.shtml).

[76] Ohio State University online, “Voting Restrictions: Jim Crow” (at https://1912.hist ory.ohio-state.edu/race/jimcrow.htm).

[77] Jim Crow Guide to the USA online, Stetson Kennedy, Chapter 10 (at https:// www.stetsonkennedy.com/jim_crow_guide/chapter10_2.htm).

[78] Harvard University Press online, “The Transformation of Southern Politics,” from a book review of The Rise of Southern Politics, Earl Black and Merle Black, p. 2 (at https:// www.hup.harvard.edu/Newsroom/pr_rise_south_repubs.html); see also The Atlantic online, Grover Norquist, “Is the Party Over?,” p. 3 (at https://www .theatlantic.com/unbound/forum/gop/norquist1.htm)

[79] Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U.S. 45, 55 (1935).

[80] Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 658 (1944); see also The Handbook of Texas online, “White Primary” (at https://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/print/WW/wdw1.html ).

[81] Neglected Voices online, “Speeches of African-American Representatives Addressing the Ku Klux Klan Bill of 1871,” pp. 5,10, Representative Robert B. Elliot, responding on April 1, 1871 to arguments that the Bill is unconstitutional, and that Ku Klux Klan is not violent (at https://www .law.nyu.edu/davisp/neglectedvoices/ElliotR.html).

[82 Woodson, Negro Orators and Their Orations, p. 354, Rep. James T. Rapier from his speech on the Civil Rights Bill on June 9, 1874.

[83] University of Missouri-Kansas City online, statistics provided by the Archives at Tuskegee Institute, “Lynching Statistics by Year” (at https://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingyear.html ).

[84] Woodson, Negro Orators and Their Orations, p. 276, Rep. John R. Lynch from his speech in the case of his contested election.

[85] Robert L. Zangrando, The NAACP Crusade Against Lynching, 1909-1950 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1980), p. 16.

[86] Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates in the Second Session of the 73rd Congress of the United States of America (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1934), Vol. 78, Part 11, p. 11869, June 15, 1934.

[87] Hughes, Meltzer, and Lincoln, Pictorial History (1983), p. 269.

[88] History Matters online, “The Body Court: Lynching in Arkansas” (at https://historymatters.gmu.edu/d /5467/); see also History @ Bedford/St. Martin’s online, “Conclusion” (at https://www.bedfordstmartins.com/history/modules/mod23/mod15_frame conclusion.htm).

[89] Alabama Public Television online, Wayne Flint, “History of the 1901 Alabama Constitution” (at https://www.aptv.org/con stitution/history.html).

[90] The Handbook of Texas online, “African Americans and Politics” p. 6 at (https://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/AA/wmafr.html ). &nbs p;

[91] Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972).

[92] Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 144 (1972).

[93] Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamation of the United States of America, from December, 1865, to March, 1867, George P. Spanger, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1868), 39th Congress, 2nd Session, Chapter 152, March 2, 1867, Vol. 14, pp. 428-429.

[94] The Federal and State Constitutions (1909), Vol. V, pp. 2800-2803, 2814, 1868 North Carolina Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #1, #10, #33, Article 6, Section 1.

[95] The Federal and State Constitutions (1909), Vol. V, pp. 2822-2823,2834-2835, 1876 North Carolina Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #1, #10, Article 5, Section 1; Article 6, Section 4.

[96] The Federal and State Constitutions (1909), pp. 2067-2068, 1832 Mississippi Constitution, Amendment 13, Article VIII; see also p. 2079, 1868 Mississippi Constitution, Article 7, Section 2; pp. 2120-2121, 1890 Mississippi Constitution, Article 12, Sections 241, 243-244.

[97] The Federal and State Constitutions (1909), pp. 3276, 3279-3280, 1865 South Carolina Constitution, Article 4, Ordinance, Section 3; see also pp. 3281, 3297-3298, 1868 South Carolina Constitution, Article 1, Sections 1-2, Article 8, Sections 2, 12; see also pp. 3307-3308, 1895 South Carolina Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #9, “Right of Suffrage,” Sec. 3 (c).

[98] The Federal and State Constitutions (1909), pp. 1449, 1462-1463, 1868 Louisiana Constitution, “Bill of Rights,” #1-3, 98, 103; see also pp. 1471, 1502, 1879 Louisiana Constitution, “Bill of Rights,” #5, #188; see also pp. 1562-1563, 1898 Louisiana Constitution, “Bill of Rights,” #197, Sections 2-4, #198.

[99] The Federal and State Constitutions (1909), pp. 704, 719-720, 1868 Florida Constitution, Article 1, 15.

[100] The Federal and State Constitutions (1909), pp. 132, 144, 1867 Alabama Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #1, Article 7, Section 2; see also p. 154, 1875 Alabama Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #1, Article 8, Section 1; see also pp. 209-210, 215, 1901 Alabama Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #181, #194.

[101] The Federal and State Constitutions (1909), pp. 3873-3875, 1870 Virginia Constitution, “Bill of Rights,” #1 Article 3, Section 1; see also pp. 3904-3907, 1902 Virginia Constitution, “Bill of Rights,” #1, #18-19.

[102] The Federal and State Constitutions (1909), p. 210, 1901 Alabama Constitution, Article 8, #181.

[103] Columbia Journalism Review online, “CJR Dollar Conversion Calculator” (at https://www.cjr.org/resources/inflater.asp).

[104] Florida: History, People & Politics online, Unit 3: Florida as a State; “Civil Rights: The Case of Florida; Black Codes” (at https://www.fcim.org/ flhistory/unit3_t4_case.htm).

[105] Africana.com, “History: Fifteenth Amendment or 15th Amendment,” p. 2 (at https://www.africana.com/A rticles/tt_521.htm).

[106] Richard Allen, The Life Experience and Gospel Labors of the Rt. Rev. Richard Allen (New York, Nashville: Abingdon Press, reprint of an earlier edition, 1960), p. 26.

[107] Allen, Life Experience (1960), p. 21.

[108] Virtual Black History Museum in Louisiana online, “1800s Interactive First’s Timeline,” p. 3 (at https://www.sabine. k12.la.us/mjhs/Archives/1800.htm).

[109] A Republican Text-Book for Colored Voters online, T.H.R. Clarke, B. McKay, editors, p. 43 (at https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/murray:@field(FLD001+75319795+):@@@$REF$ ).

[110] Hughes, Meltzer, and Lincoln, Pictorial History (1983), p. 202; see also “Reconstruction” (at https://www.stanfo rd.edu/paherman/reconstruction.htm).

[111] The Handbook of Texas online, “African Americans and Politics” (at https://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/print/AA/wmafr.html), and “Reconstruction” (at https://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/RR/mzr1.html).

[112] Neglected Voices online, Representative Richard H. Cain, responding on February 3, 1875, to arguments that the Bill would unconstitutionally infringe the rights of whites (at ht tp://www.law.nyu.edu/davidp/neglectedvoices/RaineyFeb031875.html).

[113] Library of Congress online, A Republican Text-Book for Colored Voters, p. 1 (at https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/murray:@field(FL D001+75319795+):@@@$REF$).

[114] Library of Congress online, A Republican Text-Book for Colored Voters, pp. 1, 10-11, 31 (at https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/murray:@field(FL D001+75319795+):@@@$REF$); see also Library of Congress online, Hon. John P. Green, Colored Men and the Democratic Party: Review of American History on This Issue (Springfield, Ohio: Springfield Publishing Company), p. 6. (at https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mur ray:@field(FLD001+91898214+):@@@$REF$).

[115] Library of Congress online, Green, Colored Men and the Democratic Party, p. 6 (at . https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/murray:@field(F LD001+91898214+):@@@$REF$).

[116] Biographical Directory of the American Congress 1774-1927 (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1928), pp. 435-444, 479-488.

[117] Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History online, “Voting Rights, Period: 1960s,” p. 1 (at http:/ /www.gliah.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=369).

[118] Alabama Public Television online, Wayne Flint, “History of the 1901 Alabama Constitution,” p. 5 (at https://www.aptv.org/con stitution/history.html).

[119] Alabama Public Television online, Wayne Flint, “History of the 1901 Alabama Constitution,” p. 6 (at https://www.aptv.org/con stitution/history.html); see also World Socialist Web Site, Jerry White, “Florida’s Legacy of Voter Disenfranchisement,” April 6, 2001, p. 2 (at https://www. wsws.org/articles/2001/apr2001/flor-a09.shtml).

[120] Mike Kingston, Sam Attlesey, and Mary G. Crawford, Political History of Texas (Austin: Eakin Press, 1992), p. 187.

[121] Africana.com, “History: Fifteenth Amendment or 15th Amendment,” p. 2 (at https://www.africana.com/A rticles/tt_521.htm).

[122] Democratic National Committee online, “Brief History of the Democratic Party” (at https://www.democrats.org/ about/history.html), the article states, “With the election of Harry Truman, Democrats began the fight to bring down the final barriers of race and gender.” (emphasis added).

[123] Documentary History of the Truman Presidency online, “The Truman Administration’s Civil Rights Program: The Report of the Committee on Civil Rights” and President Truman’s Message to Congress of February 2, 1948, Vol. 11, p. 3 (at https://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2upa/Aph/truman_docs/g uide_intros/tru11.htm), and “The Truman Administration’s Civil Rights Program: President Truman’s Attempts to Put the Principles of Racial Justice into Law, 1948-1950,” Vol. 12, pp.

1-2 (at https://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2upa/ Aph/truman_docs/guide_intros/tru11.htm).

[124] The Handbook of Texas online, “Democratic Party,” p. 2 (at https://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/print/DD/wad1.html ).

[125] Colorado College online, “A Brief History of Civil Rights in the United States of America,” p. 8 (at https://www2.coloradocollege.edu/Dept/PS/faculty/loevy/civil%20rights.h tml).

[126] Truman Presidency online, “Report of the Committee on Civil Rights,” Vol. 11, p. 3 (at https://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2upa/Aph/truman_docs/g uide_intros/tru11.htm).

[127] United States of America Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates in the Second Session of the Eightieth Congress Second Session (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1948), Vol. 94, Part 1, p. 927 February 2, 1948; see also Truman Presidency online, “Report of the Committee on Civil Rights,” Vol. 12, p. 13, (at https://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2upa/Aph/truman_docs/guide_intros/t ru12.htm).

[128] Truman Presidency online, “Attempts to Put the Principles of Racial Justice into Law,” Vol. 12, p. 2 (at https://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2upa/Aph/truman_docs/gu ide_intros/tru12.htm).

[129] Truman Presidency online, “Attempts to Put the Principles of Racial Justice into Law,” Vol. 12, p. 2 (at https://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2upa/Aph/truman_docs/gu ide_intros/tru12.htm).

[130] Time online, Karen Tumulty, “Trent Lott’s Segregationist College Days,” p. 2 (at http:/ /www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399310,00.html), Lott stated that “…if the rest of the country had followed our [Mississippi’s segregationist Dixiecrat party] lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years either.”

[131] The Washington Post Writers Group online, Ellen Goodman, “Forgiving History?,” 2002, p. 2 (at https://www.pos twritersgroup.com/archives/good1212.htm).

[132] Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

[133] The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Low that Ended Racial Segregation, Robert D. Loevy, editor (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), pp. 26, 27, 33; see also Civil Rights-” 1957: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty-Fifth Congress First Session (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 125-131; Civil Rights Act of 1960: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty Sixth Congress Second Session on H.R. 8601 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 2-7.

[134] The Civil Rights Act of 1964, pp. 26, 27, 28, 30, 31.

[135] The White House Historical Association online, “African Americans and the White House: the 1950s” (at https://www.whitehousehistory.org/04_history/subs_t imeline/c_africans/frame_c_1950.html).

[136] Civil Rights-” 1957: Hearings, Part 3, p. 131; “Civil Rights Act of 1957” online, Part 3 (at http: //www.nv.cc.va.us/home/nvsageh/Hist122/Part4/CRact57.htm); see also The Civil Rights Act of 1964, pp. 27, 30-31; civilrights.org, “Civil Rights Act of 1964,” (at https://www.civilrights.org/library/permanent_collection/resources/1964cra.html ); “Voting Rights Act of 1965,” 42 U.S.C. 1973I.

[137] United States of America Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 88th Congress (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1963), 1st Session, Vol. 109, Part 9, June 27, 1963, pp. 11864-11865; Library of Congress online, “Today in History,” January 23, 2002, pp. 1-2 (at https://memory.loc.gov/am mem/today/jan23.html).

[138] Library of Congress online, “Today in History,” January 23, 2002, p. 2 (at https://memory.loc.gov/am mem/today/jan23.html).

[139] Congressional Quarterly (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Service, 1962), 87th Congress, 2nd Session, 1962, Vol. 18, pp. 630, 654.

[140] Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966).

[141] Congressional Quarterly (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Service, 1965), 88th Congress, 2nd Session, 1964, Vol. 20, pp. 606, 696.

[142] Congressional Quarterly (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Service, 1966), 89th Congress, 1st Session, 1965, Vol. 21, pp. 984, 1063.

[143] Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History online, “Voting Rights, Period: 1960s,” p. 2 (at http:/ /www.gliah.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=369).

[144] Africana.com, “Voting Rights Acts of 1965,” Kate Tuttle, pp. 1-2 (at https://www.africana.com/A rticles/tt_393.htm).

[145] Africana.com, “Voting Rights Acts of 1965,” Kate Tuttle, p. 2 (at https://www.africana.com/A rticles/tt_393.htm).

[146] Neglected Voices online, p. 6, Representative Joseph H. Rainey, responding on February 3, 1875, to arguments that the Bill would unconstitutionally infringe on the rights of whites, p. 6 (at https://www .law.nyu.edu/davisp/neglectedvoices/ElliotR.html).

[147] Woodson, Negro Orators and Their Orations, pp. 379-380, Rep. Joseph H. Rainey from his speech made on March 5, 1872 in reply to an attack upon the colored state legislators of South Carolina by Representative Cox of New York.

[148] James Haskins, Distinguished African American Political and Governmental Leaders (Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1999), p. 155; see also USA Today online, “Conventions 2000: Rep. J.C. Watts,” p. 1 (at https://www.usato day.com/community/chat/0817watts.htm); African American Political History online (at htt p://www.garyjosejames.com/AfricanAmericanPoliticalHistory.html).

[149] Maryland State Archives online, Michael Steele,”Lieutenant Governor,” January 27, 2003 (at https://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/mdmanual/08conoff/html/msa13921 .html); see also Ohio Republican Party online, “Leadership: Lt. Governor Jennette Bradley” (at https://www.ohiogop.org/Victory2002.asp?FormMod e=Candidates&CID=8&T=Lt%2E+Governor+Jennette+Bradley); see also Black News Weekly online,”Ga. Could Send 5 Blacks to Congress,” p. 2 (at https://www.blacknewsweekly.c om/210.html); see also The Weekly Standard online, Beth Henary, “Things Go Right in Texas,” November 7, 2002 (at https://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/ 875ahmds.asp); etc.

[150] Library of Congress online, A Republican Text-Book for Colored Voters online, p. 13 (at https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/murray:@field(F LD001+75319795+):@@@$REF$).