The Truth about Columbus

The Truth about Columbus

the-truth-about-columbus-1Columbus Day has become yet another occasion for tearing down our American heritage and heroes. Perhaps no other holiday in American history has so quickly gone from one honoring a venerated hero, to now portraying him as a genocidal exterminationist.

Academia, teachers, public schools, and others across the nation are now attacking Christopher Columbus in what appears to be a concerted effort to make children as repulsed by Columbus as they would be of the world’s most notorious criminal.

Columbus did have faults; but he also made indispensable positive contributions to America and American history. He deserves to be honored, not because he was perfect but because of his contributions.

Last week on Columbus Day, as both adults and children were told of the now-evil Columbus, many asked us questions about what was true concerning him. Following are some recommendations on how to find details about Columbus that are ignored today.


the-truth-about-columbus-2Have your children read Christopher Columbus: Across the Ocean Sea and watch “Drive Thru History America — Columbus, the Pilgrims, and Early Boston.” For adults and older readers, we highly recommend Dr. John Eidsmoe’s Columbus and Cortez.

And if you want to read an old classic about Columbus, check out Washington Irving’s (1783-1859) famous A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828), which was so popular that it went through an amazing 175 editions by the end of the century! (This book can be read or downloaded for free as a pdf from Google books.)

Proverbs 18:17 reminds us that one side always sounds good until you hear the other side. It is time for both students and adults to hear the other side — to hear the things that are no longer being taught today. Do all you can to vaccinate your family from the unrelenting attacks on those who contributed to make America a special and unique nation.

In God We Trust

On July 30, 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower signed legislation1 establishing “In God We Trust” as America’s national motto.2 As religious rights of conscience continue to be attacked, this is a good time to remember our national motto and renew our efforts to defend our religious rights.

The idea of America as a Christian nation has often been scoffed at by modern academia,3 religious leaders,4 and others.5 However, past Americans have acknowledged that America is a Christian nation and that the rights of religious conscience should be protected.

The United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling declaring America to be a Christian nation,6 and hundreds of other American courts have acknowledged the same. In fact, Justice David Brewer, a member of that Court said:

in-god-we-trust-1[I]n what sense can [America] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. . . . Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. . . . Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world.7

Secretary of the Treasury Salmon Chase,8 when looking into what should be printed on the currency of the nation, acknowledged:

in-god-we-trust-2No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition.9

There are many reasons that America has long been seen as such an exceptional nation — but those reasons are tied to the religious beliefs and the moral principles of the people that established America. On the anniversary of the national motto, it’s appropriate to recognize these religious beliefs and moral principles.

in-god-we-trust-3As George Washington told the nation when he left the presidency:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens.10


Endnotes

1 “Joint Resolution to Establish a National Motto of the United States,” July 30, 1956, here.
2 “36 U.S. Code § 302 – National motto,” here.
3 Kevin M. Kruse, “A Chrsitian Nation? Since When?” The New York Times, March 14, 2015; Richard White, “One Nation Under Gods,” Boston Review, March 22, 2017.
4 David Vesely, “Is America a Christian Nation? Columbus’ Vision,” Green Bay Press Gazette, April 28, 2016.
5 Shane Idelman, “Is America a Christian Nation? Fact vs. Fiction,” Charisma News, August 14, 2015.
6 David Barton, “Is America a Christian Nation?” WallBuilders.
7 Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892).
8 David J. Brewer, The United States a Christian Nation (Philadelphia: The John C. Winston Company, 1905), 12.
9 “Salmon P. Chase (1861-1864),” US Department of the Treasury, accessed November 14, 2023.
10 Salmon P. Chase to James Pollock, November 20, 1861, Thirty-Fourth Annual Report of the Director of the Mint to the Secretary of the Treasury (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1897), 107.

John Dickinson

Proclamation – Sabbath Day – 1782, Pennsylvania

John Dickinson (1732-1808) was a lawyer. He served in the Pennsylvania Assembly (1762, 1764), was a delegate to the Stamp Act Congress (1765); and was a member of the Continental Congress (1774-1776, 1779). He served as president of Pennsylvania (1782-1785) and was a signer of the Constitution (1787). Dickinson was also a brigadier general of the Pennsylvania Militia during the Revolution.

This proclamation was issued by John Dickinson as president of Pennsylvania on November 20, 1782 asking the people to observe the Lord’s Day and continue worshiping God.


proclamation-sabbath-day-1782-pennsylvania-1
By the President and Supreme  Executive Council of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
A Proclamation.

As the best and greatest of Beings commanded mankind into existence with a capacity for happiness, bestowing upon them understanding and many “good gifts“; so when they, by an abuse of the blessings thus intrusted, had involved themselves in guilt and misery, his compassion was extended towards them, and in “his tender mercies,” not  only “seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night,” were continued unto them, but “the eternal purposes” were revealed, and the heavenly treasuries opened, to restore the human race to the transcendent privilege from which by transgression they were fallen: AND in this “marvelous work,” the laws of righteousness have been with such infinite wisdom adjusted, and united to the obligation of nature, that while they jointly tended to promote the felicity of men in a future state, they evidently cooperate to advance their welfare in the present, and to offend against the sanctions of revelation, of the dictates of reason and conscience, is suredly to betray the joys of this life, as well as those of another.

Wherefore, as we are entirely persuaded that just impressions of the deity are the great supports of morality, AND As the experience of ages demonstrates, that regularity of manners is essential to the tranquility and prosperity of societies, AND the assistance of the Almighty, on which we rely, to establish the inestimable blessings our afflicted country is contending for, cannot be expected without an observance of his holy laws, We esteem it our principal and indispensable duty to endeavor, as much as we can, that a sense of these interesting truths may prevail in the hearts and appear in the lives of the inhabitants of this state; And Therefore have thought proper to issue this Proclamation, sincerely desiring that they seriously meditating on the many signal and unmerited  benefits of public and private import conferred upon them,  the affecting invitations  and munificent promises of divine goodness, and the “terrors set in array” against disobedient, may be urged to exert themselves in avoiding, discountenancing, and suppressing all vice, profaneness and immorality, and feeling a due gratitude, love, and veneration for their most gracious, all-wise, and omnipotent Benefactor, Sovereign, and Judge, and correspondent temper of resignation to the dispensations of his Supreme Government, may become a people “trusting in him, in whom they live and move and doing good.”

And to the intent that these desirable ends may be forwarded, all persons are herby fervently exhorted, to observe the Lord’s Day, commonly called Sunday, and thereon constantly to attend the worship of GOD, as a service pleasing to him who is, “a hearer of prayer,” and condescends to “inhabit the praises of his people,” and profitable to themselves; a neglect of which duty has, in multitude of instances, been the beginning of a deviation into the ways of presumption, that at length have led into the deepest distresses and severest sorrows:

And As the education of youth is of so much moment to themselves and to the commonwealth, which cannot flourish unless that important point be diligently regarded, the sentiments, dispositions, and habits begin then generally formed that pervade the rest of their lives, all parents, guardians, masters, and tutors are herby strenuously called upon, to discharge the high trust committed to them, and for which they must account, by a faithful attention; that those under their care may be nurtured in piety, filial reverence, submission to superiors in age or station, modesty, sincerity, benevolence, temperance,  industry, consistency of behavior, and frugality regulated by an humble reliance on Providence, and a kind respect for others; that their inexperienced minds may be by wholesome instructions fully convinced, that whatever employment they are designed for, virtue will be a chief promoter of success, and irregularity of conduct the greatest obstacle to it; that the intellectual faculties are aided by moral improvements, but weakened by illicit courses; and in brief, that Religion is the fiend of their peace, health and happiness; and that to displease their Maker, or trespass against their neighbor, is inevitably to inure themselves.

AND we expect and hereby require, that all well disposed persons, and especially those in places of authority, will by their conversation and demeanor encourage and promote piety and virtue, and to their utmost contribute to the rendering these qualities truly laudable and honorable, and the contrary practices justly shameful and contemptible; that thus the  influence of good men, and the dignity of the laws, may be combined in repressing the follies and insolencies of scorners and profligates, in directing the weak and thoughtless, and in preserving them from the pernicious contagion of evil examples; AND for further promoting such reformation, it is hereby enjoined, that all magistrates, and others whom it may concern, be very vigilant and exact in discovering, prosecuting, and punishing all persons who shall be guilty of profanation of the Lord’s Day, commonly called Sunday, blasphemy, profane swearing or cursing, drunkenness, lewdness, or other dissolute or immoral practices; that they suppress all gaming houses, and other disorderly houses, that they put in execution the act of General Assembly, entitled, “An Act for the suppression of Vice and Immorality,” and all other laws now in force for the punishing and suppressing any vice, profaneness or immorality: AND for the more effectual proceeding herein, all Judges and Justice, having cognizance in the premises, are directed to give strict charges at their respective Courts and Sessions, for the due prosecution and punishment of all who shall presume to offend in any of the kinds aforesaid; and also of all  such as, contrary to their duty, shall be remiss or negligent in putting the laws in execution: And that they do at their respective  Courts and Sessions cause this Proclamation to be publicly read, immediately before the charge is given: AND every Minister of the Gospel is requested strongly to inculcate in the respective congregations where they officiate, a love of piety and virtue, and an abhorrence of vice, profaneness, and immorality.

Given in council, under the hand of the President, and the Seal of the State, at Philadelphia, this twentieth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty two.

John Dickinson.

Attest.
T. Matlack,,  Secretary.

God Save the Commonwealth.

Sermons by Chaplains

American War for Independence Chaplains
 

Thomas Allen (1743-1810)

Thomas Allen volunteered as a chaplain during the revolutionary war and took up arms in the Battle of Bennington.

 

Manasseh Cutler (1742-1823)

Manasseh Cutler served as military chaplain for multiple American units during the Revolutionary War.

 

Timothy Dwight (1752-1817)

Timothy Dwight served as a chaplain in a Connecticut brigade and later became the president of Yale College.

 

Samuel Spring (1746-1819)

Samuel Spring served as a chaplain during the Revolutionary War (1775-1776) and carried a wounded Aaron Burr from the field during the Battle of Quebec.

 

Nathan Strong (1748-1816)

Nathan Strong became a chaplain in the patriot army during the American Revolution, and was a strong supporter of the American cause. He later was a chief founder and a manager of the Connecticut Missionary Society and was involved in the “Connecticut Evangelical Magazine.”

 

Benjamin Trumbull (1735-1820)

Benjamin Trumbull was a chaplain during the Revolutionary War and served as a minster for almost 60 years.

 

Samuel West (1730-1807)

Samuel West served as a chaplain during the Revolutionary War, joining just after the Battle of Bunker Hill. He later was a member of the Massachusetts state constitutional convention and a member of the Massachusetts convention that adopted the U.S. Constitution.

 

Civil War
John W. Sayers
John W. Sayers served as the chaplain for Camp Geary at Gettysburg in 1883 and delivered sermons as the Pennsylvania “post” chaplain of the Grand Army of the Republic (an organization of Union veterans) from 1894-1899.

Miscellaneous

 

 

Congressional Records on Chaplains

Below are several documents from Congressional records relating to pay for U.S. Army Chaplains. There is a “Memorial of Chaplains in the U.S. Army” dated January 17, 1862. Also, a “Letter from the Secretary of War” relating to pay for chaplains dated June 19, 1862. Finally, a “General Order” relating to pay for chaplains dated October 6, 1862.


 

congressional-records-on-chaplains-1 congressional-records-on-chaplains-2


congressional-records-on-chaplains-3 congressional-records-on-chaplains-4 congressional-records-on-chaplains-5


congressional-records-on-chaplains-6 congressional-records-on-chaplains-7

 

Proclamation – Thanksgiving Day – 1795


This is the text of a proclamation for a day of Public Thanksgiving and Prayer, issued by George Washington when he served as President. It was published in the Columbian Centinel on January 1, 1795. (See another national Thanksgiving proclamation issued by George Washington in 1789.)


proclamation-thanksgiving-day-1795-1
Published
BY AUTHORITY,

A PROCLAMATION:
By the PRESIDENT of the UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA.
proclamation-thanksgiving-day-1795-2

When we review the calamities, which afflict so many other nations, the present condition of the United States affords much matter of consolation and satisfaction. Our exemption hitherto from foreign war – an increasing prospect of the continuance of that exemption – the great degree of internal tranquility we have enjoyed – the recent confirmation of that tranquility by the suppression of an insurrection which so wantonly threatened it – the happy course of public affairs in general – the unexampled prosperity of all classes of our citizens; are circumstances which peculiarly mark our situation with indications of the Divine beneficence towards us. In such a state of things it is, in an especial manner, our duty as people, with devout reverence and affectionate gratitude, to acknowledge our many and great obligations to Almighty God and to implore Him to continue and confirm the blessings we experience.

Deeply penetrated with this sentiment, I, George Washington, President of the United States, do recommend to all religious societies and denominations, and to all persons whomsoever, within the United States, to set apart and observe Thursday, the nineteenth day of February next, as a day of public thanksgiving and prayer: and on that day to meet together and render their sincere and hearty thanks to the great Ruler of nations for the manifold and signal mercies which distinguish our lot as a nation. particularly for the possession of constitutions of government which unite and, by their union, establish liberty with order; for the preservation of peace, foreign and domestic; and for the seasonable control, which has been given to a spirit of disorder, in the suppression of the late insurrection; and generally for the prosperous course of our affairs, public and private; and, at the same time, humbly and fervently to beseech the kind Author of these blessings. graciously to prolong them to us – to imprint on our hearts a deep and solemn sense of our obligations to Him for them – to teach us rightly to estimate their immense value – to preserve us from the arrogance of prosperity and from hazarding the advantages we enjoy by delusive pursuits – to dispose us to merit the continuance of His favors by not abusing them, by our gratitude for them, and by a correspondent conduct as citizens and as men – to render this country, more and more, a propitious asylum for the unfortunate of other countries – to extend among us true and useful knowledge – to diffuse and establish habits of sobriety, order, morality, and piety – and, finally, to impart all blessings we possess or ask for ourselves, to the whole family of mankind.

In testimony whereof, I have caused the seal of the United States of America, to be affixed to these presents, and signed the same with my hand. Done, at the city of Philadelphia, the first day of January, 1795, and of the independence of the United States of America, the nineteenth.

Go Washington,
President of the United States

EDMUND RANDOLPH, Secretary of State.

The Separation of Church and State

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

The election of Jefferson – America’s first Anti-Federalist President – elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.

Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:

Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.1

However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for “the free exercise of religion”:

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights.2

In short, the inclusion of protection for the “free exercise of religion” in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone’s religious practice caused him to “work ill to his neighbor.”

Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:

[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Kentucky Resolution, 17983
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 18054
[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 18085
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 18086

Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:

It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion.7

Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination – a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly.8

Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.

Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:

Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem.9

Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.

By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.”10 That is, “natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.

So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?11

Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case – the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today’s Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson’s entire letter and then concluded:

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added)12

That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”:

[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.13

With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government “to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.”

That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People), identified actions into which – if perpetrated in the name of religion – the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.

Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were “subversive of good order” and were “overt acts against peace.” However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospel” – whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.

Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given – as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter – words clearly divorced from their context – have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.

For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the “power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.

One further note should be made about the now infamous “separation” dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment – as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.

In summary, the “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.


Endnotes

1 Letter of October 7, 1801, from Danbury (CT) Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, from the Thomas Jefferson Papers Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.
2 Id.
3 The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, ed. John P. Foley (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), 977; Documents of American History, ed. Henry S. Cummager (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1948), 179.
4 March 4, 1805, Annals of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852), Eighth Congress, Second Session, 78; James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), I:379.
5 Thomas Jefferson, March 4, 1805, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Albert Ellery Bergh (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), I:379.
6 Thomas Jefferson to the Rev. Samuel Millar, January 23, 1808, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Thomas Jefferson Randolph (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), IV:103-104.
7 Jefferson to Noah Webster, December 4, 1790, Writings, VIII:112-113.
8 Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800, Writings, III:441.
9 Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, January 1, 1802, Writings, XVI:281-282.
10 Richard Hooker, The Works of Richard Hooker (Oxford: University Press, 1845), I:207.
11 Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), 237.
12 Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1878).
13 Reynolds at 163.

Sample Letters to the Editor

We receive numerous requests from across the country to answer various editorials and letters-to-the-editor. The subject usually involves the religious persuasions of the Founding Fathers, the “separation of church and state,” the “Religious Right” & theocracy, etc. The following are but a few of many possible replies to such editorials. (Note: Unfortunately, we do not have the resources to respond to individual editorials or articles from newspapers all across the U.S., and we have found it is typically much more effective if local people respond to editorials in their own community. David Barton’s book, Original Intent, and the Resources section of our website contain information that is very useful in successfully refuting the vast majority of negative editorials encountered.)


“The Founding Fathers & Deism”

I notice that your newspaper has an ongoing debate concerning the religious nature of the Founding Fathers. A recent letter claimed that most of the Founding Fathers were deists, and pointed to Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Hamilton, and Madison as proof. After making this charge, the writer acknowledged the “voluminous writings” of the Founders, but it appears that they not read those writings herself. However, this is no surprise since the U. S. Department of Education claims that only 5 percent of high schools graduates know how to examine primary source documentation.

Interestingly, the claims in this recent letter to the editor are characteristic of similar claims appearing in hundreds of letters to the editor across the nation. The standard assertion is that the Founders were deists. Deists? What is a deist? In dictionaries like Websters, Funk & Wagnalls, Century, and others, the terms “deist,” “agnostic,” and “atheist” appear as synonyms. Therefore, the range of a deist spans from those who believe there is no God, to those who believe in a distant, impersonal creator of the universe, to those who believe there is no way to know if God exists. Do the Founders fit any of these definitions?

None of the notable Founders fit this description. Thomas Paine, in his discourse on “The Study of God,” forcefully asserts that it is “the error of schools” to teach sciences without “reference to the Being who is author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin.” He laments that “the evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching [science without God] has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism.” Paine not only believed in God, he believed in a reality beyond the visible world.

In Benjamin Franklin’s 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach “the necessity of a public religion . . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.” Consider also the fact that Franklin proposed a Biblical inscription for the Seal of the United States; that he chose a New Testament verse for the motto of the Philadelphia Hospital; that he was one of the chief voices behind the establishment of a paid chaplain in Congress; and that when in 1787 when Franklin helped found the college which bore his name, it was dedicated as “a nursery of religion and learning” built “on Christ, the Corner-Stone.” Franklin certainly doesn’t fit the definition of a deist.

Nor does George Washington. He was an open promoter of Christianity. For example, in his speech on May 12, 1779, he claimed that what children needed to learn “above all” was the “religion of Jesus Christ,” and that to learn this would make them “greater and happier than they already are”; on May 2, 1778, he charged his soldiers at Valley Forge that “To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian”; and when he resigned his commission as commander in-chief of the military on June 8, 1783, he reminded the nation that “without a humble imitation” of “the Divine Author of our blessed religion” we “can never hope to be a happy nation.” Washington’s own adopted daughter declared of Washington that you might as well question his patriotism as to question his Christianity.

Alexander Hamilton was certainly no deist. For example, Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great: (1) Christianity, and (2) a Constitution formed under Christianity. Only Hamilton’s death two months later thwarted his plan of starting a missionary society to promote Christian government. And at the time he did face his death in his duel with Aaron Burr, Hamilton met and prayed with the Rev. Mason and Bishop Moore, wherein he reaffirmed to him his readiness to face God should he die, having declared to them “a lively faith in God’s mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of the death of Christ.” At that time, he also partook of Holy Communion with Bishop Moore.

The reader, as do many others, claimed that Jefferson omitted all miraculous events of Jesus from his “Bible.” Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson’s own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a “Bible,” but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”). What Jefferson did was to take the “red letter” portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality. And as President of the United States, Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided—at the government’s expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians. In fact, Jefferson himself declared, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, not a deist.

James Madison trained for ministry with the Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, and Madison’s writings are replete with declarations of his faith in God and in Christ. In fact, for proof of this, one only need read his letter to Attorney General Bradford wherein Madison laments that public officials are not bold enough about their Christian faith in public and that public officials should be “fervent advocates in the cause of Christ.” And while Madison did allude to a “wall of separation,” contemporary writers frequently refuse to allow Madison to provide his own definition of that “wall.” According to Madison, the purpose of that “wall” was only to prevent Congress from passing a national law to establish a national religion.

None of the Founders mentioned fit the definition of a deist. And as is typical with those who make this claim, they name only a handful of Founders and then generalize the rest. This in itself is a mistake, for there are over two hundred Founders (fifty-five at the Constitutional Convention, ninety who framed the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, and fifty-six who signed the Declaration) and any generalization of the Founders as deists is completely inaccurate.

The reason that such critics never mention any other Founders is evident. For example, consider what must be explained away if the following signers of the Constitution were to be mentioned: Charles Pinckney and John Langdon—founders of the American Bible Society; James McHenry—founder of the Baltimore Bible Society; Rufus King—helped found a Bible society for Anglicans; Abraham Baldwin—a chaplain in the Revolution and considered the youngest theologian in America; Roger Sherman, William Samuel Johnson, John Dickinson, and Jacob Broom—also theological writers; James Wilson and William Patterson—placed on the Supreme Court by President George Washington, they had prayer over juries in the U. S. Supreme Court room; and the list could go on. And this does not even include the huge number of thoroughly evangelical Christians who signed the Declaration or who helped frame the Bill of Rights.

Any portrayal of any handful of Founders as deists is inaccurate. (If this group had really wanted some irreligious Founders, they should have chosen Henry Dearborne, Charles Lee, or Ethan Allen). Perhaps critics should spend more time reading the writings of the Founders to discover their religious beliefs for themselves rather than making such sweeping accusations which are so easily disproven.

(For more on this topic see: Thomas Paine Criticizes the Current Public School Science Curriculum, Franklin’s Appeal for Prayer at the Constitutional Convention, Was George Washington a Christian?, The Founders and Public Religious Expression, & James Madison and Religion in Public)


“Thomas Jefferson & the ‘wall of separation between
church and state.’”

In a recent letter on religion, the writer put supporters of public religious expression on one side and Thomas Jefferson on the other. This is logical given what most know about Jefferson’s “wall of separation between church and state.”

Jefferson penned that phrase to reassure the Danbury (CT) Baptist Association that because of separation of church and state, the government would never interfere with their public religious expressions. For the next 150 years, federal courts followed Jefferson’s intent and attached his separation metaphor to the Free Expression Clause of the First Amendment, thus consistently upholding public religious expressions. However, in 1947, the Supreme Court reversed itself and began applying the phrase to the Establishment Clause instead, thus causing federal courts to remove rather than preserve public religious expressions.

The proof is abundant that this was not Jefferson’s intent. For example, two days after Jefferson wrote his separation letter, he attended worship services in the U. S. Capitol where he heard the Rev. John Leland preach a sermon. (As President of the Senate, Jefferson had personally approved the use of the Capitol Building for Sunday worship services.) The many diaries of Members of Congress during that time confirm that during Jefferson’s eight years, he faithfully attended church services in the Capitol. In fact, he even ordered the Marine Band to play the worship services there. Jefferson also authorized weekly worship services at the War Department and the Treasury Building.

And on December 23, 1803, Jefferson’s administration negotiated – and the Senate ratified – a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that stated “the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars for the support of a priest” to minister to the Indians (i.e., federal funds for Christian evangelism!) Jefferson also signed presidential documents, closing them with the appellation, “In the Year of our Lord Christ.” There are many similar surprising facts about Jefferson that are fully documented historically, but that have been ignored for the past 50 years.

So would religious conservatives and Thomas Jefferson really be on opposite sides of the church/state issue? Probably, for I doubt that conservatives would agree with using federal dollars for evangelization.

(For more on this topic see: The Separation of Church and State & Letters Between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson)


“Theocracy”

In a recent letter, the writer took the same position as Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) and parroted AU’s offensive mantra, associating a theocracy or theocratic state with the “Religious Right.” Such claims are patently false.

First, to have a theocracy in America, the Constitution must be replaced with a totalitarian dictator who speaks on God’s behalf (i.e., a revival of “the Divine Right of Kings” doctrine). I challenge AU, or anyone else to identify which part of the “Religious Right” is calling for such a government.

Second, the “Religious Right” leaders are calling for an increased respect for the Constitution and its actual wording, urging citizens to exercise their constitutional right to vote. The real “crime” of these leaders is not that they want a theocracy (which they don’t) but that they rightfully want legislators to make national policy instead of judges. Should that occur, AU or groups like them could not win another battle, for Americans overwhelmingly reject their policies (e.g., “under God” in the Pledge – a phrase opposed by AU but supported by 87% of Americans).

The rabid opposition to public religious expressions is often irrational, In fact, a New Jersey bill proposing that students begin each day by reciting the first 56 words from the Declaration of Independence was loudly denounced as “a thinly-veiled attempt to put prayer in schools” – the first step on the road to a – you guessed it – “theocracy!” Reading the actual wording of the Declaration of Independence leads to a theocracy??? It is time for that term to become anathema in public discourse.

During the Civil Rights Era, we gradually learned that if certain pejoratives were invoked, the individual doing so was a racist. Similarly, today we need to learn that when the emotive and pejorative term “theocracy!” is invoked, it is usually by an intolerant secularist who wants all public religious expressions expunged from society.

(For more on this topic see: A Tale of Two Constitutions & Impeachment of Federal Judges)

 

* This article concerns a historical issue and may not have updated information.

In Hoc Anno Domini

Wall Street Journal

December 24, 2007; Page A10

When Saul of Tarsus set out on his journey to Damascus the whole of the known world lay in bondage. There was one state, and it was Rome. There was one master for it all, and he was Tiberius Caesar. Everywhere there was civil order, for the arm of the Roman law was long. Everywhere there was stability, in government and in society, for the centurions saw that it was so.

But everywhere there was something else, too. There was oppression — for those who were not the friends of Tiberius Caesar. There was the tax gatherer to take the grain from the fields and the flax from the spindle to feed the legions or to fill the hungry treasury from which divine Caesar gave largess to the people. There was the impressor to find recruits for the circuses. There were executioners to quiet those whom the Emperor proscribed. What was a man for but to serve Caesar?

There was the persecution of men who dared think differently, who heard strange voices or read strange manuscripts. There was enslavement of men whose tribes came not from Rome, disdain for those who did not have the familiar visage. And most of all, there was everywhere a contempt for human life. What, to the strong, was one man more or less in a crowded world?

Then, of a sudden, there was a light in the world, and a man from Galilee saying, Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.

And the voice from Galilee, which would defy Caesar, offered a new Kingdom in which each man could walk upright and bow to none but his God. Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. And he sent this gospel of the Kingdom of Man into the uttermost ends of the earth.

So the light came into the world and the men who lived in darkness were afraid, and they tried to lower a curtain so that man would still believe salvation lay with the leaders.

But it came to pass for a while in divers places that the truth did set man free, although the men of darkness were offended and they tried to put out the light. The voice said, Haste ye. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness come upon you, for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.

Along the road to Damascus the light shone brightly. But afterward Paul of Tarsus, too, was sore afraid. He feared that other Caesars, other prophets, might one day persuade men that man was nothing save a servant unto them, that men might yield up their birthright from God for pottage and walk no more in freedom.

Then might it come to pass that darkness would settle again over the lands and there would be a burning of books and men would think only of what they should eat and what they should wear, and would give heed only to new Caesars and to false prophets. Then might it come to pass that men would not look upward to see even a winter’s star in the East, and once more, there would be no light at all in the darkness.

And so Paul, the apostle of the Son of Man, spoke to his brethren, the Galatians, the words he would have us remember afterward in each of the years of his Lord:
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

This editorial was written in 1949 by the late Vermont Royster and has been published annually since.

Church in the U.S. Capitol

Many people are surprised to learn that the United States Capitol regularly served as a church building; a practice that began even before Congress officially moved into the building and lasted until well after the Civil War. Below is a brief history of the Capitol’s use as a church, and some of the prominent individuals who attended services there.
church-in-the-u-s-capitol-1
The cornerstone of the Capitol was laid by President George Washington in 1793., but it was not until the end of 1800 that Congress actually moved into the building. According to the congressional records for late November of 1800, Congress spent the first few weeks organizing the Capitol rooms, committees, locations, etc. Then, on December 4, 1800, Congress approved the use of the Capitol building as a church building. 1

The approval of the Capitol for church was given by both the House and the Senate, with House approval being given by Speaker of the House, Theodore Sedgwick, and Senate approval being given by the President of the Senate, Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, Jefferson’s approval came while he was still officially the Vice- President but after he had just been elected President.

Significantly, the Capitol building had been used as a church even for years before it was occupied by Congress. The cornerstone for the Capitol had been laid on September 18, 1793; two years later while still under construction, the July 2, 1795, Federal Orrery newspaper of Boston reported:
church-in-the-u-s-capitol-15

City of Washington, June 19. It is with much pleasure that we discover the rising consequence of our infant city. Public worship is now regularly administered at the Capitol, every Sunday morning, at 11 o’clock by the Reverend Mr. Ralph. 2

The reason for the original use of the Capitol as a church might initially be explained by the fact that there were no churches in the city at that time. Even a decade later in 1803, U. S. Senator John Quincy Adams confirmed: “There is no church of any denomination in this city.” 3 The absence of churches in Washington eventually changed, however. As one Washington citizen reported: “For several years after the seat of government was fixed at Washington, there were but two small [wooden] churches. . . . Now, in 1837 there are 22 churches of brick or stone.” 4 Yet, even after churches began proliferating across the city, religious services still continued at the Capitol until well after the Civil War and Reconstruction.

church-in-the-u-s-capitol-4 church-in-the-u-s-capitol-5 Jefferson attended church at the Capitol while he was Vice President 5 and also throughout his presidency. The first Capitol church service that Jefferson attended as President was a service preached by Jefferson’s friend, the Rev. John Leland, on January 3, 1802. 6 Significantly, Jefferson attended that Capitol church service just two days after he penned his famous letter containing the “wall of separation between church and state” metaphor.

U. S. Rep. Manasseh Cutler, who also attended church at the Capitol, recorded in his own diary that “He [Jefferson] and his family have constantly attended public worship in the Hall.” 7 Mary Bayard Smith, another attendee at the Capitol services, confirmed: “Mr. Jefferson, during his whole administration, was a most regular attendant.” 8 She noted that Jefferson even had a designated seat at the Capitol church: “The seat he chose the first Sabbath, and the adjoining one (which his private secretary occupied), were ever afterwards by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him and his secretary.” 9 Jefferson was so committed to those services that he would not even allow inclement weather to dissuade him; as Rep. Cutler noted: “It was very rainy, but his [Jefferson’s] ardent zeal brought him through the rain and on horseback to the Hall.” 10 Other diary entries confirm Jefferson’s attendance in spite of bad weather. 11

church-in-the-u-s-capitol-6In addition to Mary Bayard Smith and Congressman Manasseh Cutler, others kept diaries of the weekly Capitol church services including Congressman Abijah Bigelow and statesman John Quincy Adams. (Adams served in Washington first as a Senator, then a President, and then as a Representative; and his extensive diaries describe the numerous church services he attended at the Capitol across a span of decades.) Typical of Adams’ diary entries while a U. S. Senator under President Jefferson were these :

Attended public service at the Capitol where Mr. Rattoon, an Episcopalian clergyman from Baltimore, preached a sermon. 12

[R]eligious service is usually performed on Sundays at the Treasury office and at the Capitol. I went both forenoon and afternoon to the Treasury. 13

church-in-the-u-s-capitol-7 Jefferson was not the only President to attend church at the Capitol. His successor, James Madison, also attended church at the Capitol. 14 However, there was a difference in the way the two arrived for services. Observers noted that Jefferson arrived at church on horseback 15 (it was 1.6 miles from the White House to the Capitol). However, Madison arrived for church in a coach and four. In fact, British diplomat Augustus Foster, who attended services at the Capitol, gave an eloquent description of President Madison arriving at the Capitol for church in a carriage drawn by four white horses.

From Jefferson through Abraham Lincoln, many presidents attended church at the Capitol; and it was common practice for Members of Congress to attend those services. For example, in his diary entry of January 9, 1803, Congressman Cutler noted: “Attended in the morning at the Capitol. . . . Very full assembly. Many of the Members present.” 16 The church was often full “so crowded, in fact, one attendee reported that since “the floor of the House offered insufficient space, the platform behind the Speaker’s chair, and every spot where a chair could be wedged in” was filled. 17 U. S. Representative John Quincy Adams (although noting that occasionally the “House was full, but not crowded” 18) also commented numerous times on the overly-crowded conditions at the Capitol church. In his diary entry for February 28, 1841, he noted: “I rode with my wife, Elizabeth C. Adams, and Mary, to the Capitol, where the Hall of the House of Representatives was so excessively crowded that it was with extreme difficulty that we were enabled to obtain seats.” 19 Why did so many Members attend Divine service in the Hall of the House? Adams explained why he attended: “I consider it as one of my public duties- as a representative of the people- to give my attendance every Sunday morning when Divine service is performed in the Hall.” 20

church-in-the-u-s-capitol-8Interestingly, the Marine Band participated in the early Capitol church services. According to Margaret Bayard Smith, who regularly attended services at the Capitol, the band, clad in their scarlet uniforms, made a “dazzling appearance” as they played from the gallery, providing instrumental accompaniment for the singing. 21 The band, however, seemed too ostentatious for the services and “the attendance of the marine-band was soon discontinued.” 22

From 1800 to 1801, the services were held in the north wing; from 1801 to 1804, they were held in the “oven” in the south wing, and then from 1804 to 1807, they were again held in the north wing. From 1807 to 1857, services were held in what is now Statuary Hall. By 1857 when the House moved into its new home in the extension, some 2,000 persons a week were attending services in the Hall of the House. 23 Significantly, even though the U. S. Congress began meeting in the extension on Wednesday, December 16, 1857, the first official use of the House Chamber had occurred three days earlier, when “on December 13, 1857, the Rev. Dr. George Cummins preached before a crowd of 2,000 worshipers in the first public use of the chamber. Soon thereafter, the committee recommended that the House convene in the new Hall on Wednesday, December 16, 1857.” 24 However, regardless of the part of the building in which the church met, the rostrum of the Speaker of the House was used as the preacher’s pulpit; and Congress purchased the hymnals used in the service.

The church services in the Hall of the House were interdenominational, overseen by the chaplains appointed by the House and Senate; sermons were preached by the chaplains on a rotating basis, or by visiting ministers approved by the Speaker of the House. As Margaret Bayard Smith, confirmed: “Not only the chaplains, but the most distinguished clergymen who visited the city, preached in the Capitol” 25 and “clergymen, who during the session of Congress visited the city, were invited by the chaplains to preach.” 26

In addition to the non-denominational service held in the Hall of the House, several individual churches (such as Capitol Hill Presbyterian, the Unitarian Church of Washington, First Congregational Church, First Presbyterian Church, etc.) met in the Capitol each week for their own services; there could be up to four different church services at the Capitol each Sunday.

church-in-the-u-s-capitol-9
The Library of Congress provides an account of one of those churches that met weekly at the Capitol: “Charles Boynton (1806-1883) was in 1867 Chaplain of the House of Representatives and organizing pastor of the First Congregational Church in Washington, which was trying at that time to build its own sanctuary. In the meantime, the church, as Boynton informed potential donors, was holding services- ˜at the Hall of Representatives’ where- ˜the audience is the largest in town. . . . nearly 2000 assembled every Sabbath’ for services, making the congregation in the House the ˜largest Protestant Sabbath audience then in the United States.’ The First Congregational Church met in the House from 1865 to 1868.” 27

church-in-the-u-s-capitol-10 With so many services occurring, the Hall of the House was not the only location in the Capitol where church services were conducted. John Quincy Adams, in his February 2, 1806, diary entry, describes an overflow service held in the Supreme Court Chamber, 28 and Congressman Manasseh Cutler describes a similar service in 1804. 29 (At that time, the Supreme Court Chamber was located on the first floor of the Capitol.) Services were also held in the Senate Chamber as well as on the first floor of the south wing.

Church In The Capitol Milestones

* 1806. On January 12, 1806, Dorothy Ripley (1767-1832) became the first woman to preach before the House. One female attendee had noted: “Preachers of every sect and denomination of Christians were there admitted- Catholics, Unitarians, Quakers, with every intervening diversity of sect. Even women were allowed to display their pulpit eloquence in this national Hall.” 30 In attendance at that service were President Thomas Jefferson and Vice President Aaron Burr. Ripley conducted the lengthy service in a fervent, evangelical, camp-meeting style.

church-in-the-u-s-capitol-11 * 1826. On January 8, 1826, Bishop John England (1786-1842) of Charleston, South Carolina (Bishop over North and South Carolina and Georgia) became the first Catholic to preach in the House of Representatives. Of that service, President John Quincy Adams (a regular attendee of church services in the Capitol) noted: Walked to the Capitol and heard the Bishop of Charleston, [John] England -” an Irishman. He read a few prayers and then delivered an extemporaneous discourse of nearly two hours’ duration. . . . He closed by reading an admirable prayer. He came and spoke to me after the service and said he would call and take leave of me tomorrow. The house was overflowing, and it was with great difficulty that I obtained a seat. 31

church-in-the-u-s-capitol-12 * 1827. In January 1827, Harriet Livermore (1788-1868) became the second woman to preach in the House of Representatives. (Three of her immediate family members: ” her father, grandfather, and uncle” had been Members of Congress. Her grandfather, Samuel Livermore, was a Member of the first federal Congress and a framer of the Bill of Rights; her uncle was a Member under Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison; her father was a Member under President James Monroe.) The service in which she preached was not only attended by President John Quincy Adams but was also filled with Members of Congress as well as the inquisitive from the city. As Margaret Bayard Smith noted, “curiosity rather than piety attracted throngs on such occasions.” 32 Livermore spoke for an hour and a half, resulting in mixed reactions; some praised her and were even moved to tears by her preaching, some dismissed her. Harriet Livermore preached in the Capitol on four different occasions, each attended by a different President.

church-in-the-u-s-capitol-13 church-in-the-u-s-capitol-14 * 1865. On February 12, 1865, Henry Highland Garnet (1815- 1882) became the first African American to speak in Congress. Two weeks earlier, on January 31, 1865, Congress had passed the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, and Garnet was invited to preach a sermon in Congress to commemorate that event. In his sermon, Garnet described his beginnings: ‘I was born among the cherished institutions of slavery. My earliest recollections of parents, friends, and the home of my childhood are clouded with its wrongs. The first sight that met my eyes was my Christian mother enslaved.” 33 His family escaped to the North; he became a minister, abolitionist, temperance leader, and political activist. He recruited black regiments during the Civil War and served as chaplain to the black troops of New York. In 1864, he became the pastor of the Fifteenth Street Presbyterian Church in Washington, D. C. (where he served at the time of this sermon). He later became president of Avery College and was made Minister to Liberia by President Ulysses S. Grant.

(For more information on this topic please see “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic: Religion and the Federal Government (Part 2)” on the Library of Congress website.)


Endnotes

1 Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1853), 797, Sixth Congress, December 4, 1800.

2 Federal Orrery, Boston, July 2, 1795, 2.

3 John Quincy Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott and Company, 1874), I:268, October 30, 1803.

4 Mrs. Samuel Harrison Smith (Margaret Bayard), The First Forty Years of Washington Society, Galliard Hunt, editor (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906), 16.

5 Bishop Claggett’s (Episcopal Bishop of Maryland) letter of February 18, 1801, reveals that, as vice- President, Jefferson went to church services in the House. Available in the Maryland Diocesan Archives.

6 William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), II:66, letter to Joseph Torrey, January 4, 1802. Cutler meant that Jefferson attended church on January 3, 1802, for the first time as President. Bishop Claggett’s letter of February 18, 1801, already revealed that as Vice-President, Jefferson went to church services in the House.

7 Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, II:119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 12, 1802 (II:113).

8 Smith, The First Forty Years, 13.

9 Smith, The First Forty Years, 13.

10 Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, II:119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 26, 1802 (II:114).

11 Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, II:114, December 26, 1802.

12 John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, I:268, October 30, 1803.

13 John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, I:265, October 23, 1803.

14 Abijah Bigelow to Hannah Bigleow, December 28, 1812. “Letters of Abijah Bigleow, Member of Congress, to his Wife,” Proceedings, 1810-1815, American Antiquarian Society (1930), 168.

15 See, for example, Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, II:119, from a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803.

16 Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, II:116, January 9, 1803.

17 Smith, The First Forty Years, 14.

18 See, for example, John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, VII:437-438, February 17, 1828; XI:160-161, May 22, 1842; and others.

19 John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, X:434, February 28, 1841.

20 John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, XI:169, June 5, 1842.

21 Smith, The First Forty Years, 14.

22 Smith, The First Forty Years, 16.

23 James Hutson (Chief of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress), Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1998), 91.

24 William C. Allen (Architectural Historian of the Capitol), A History of the United States Capitol, A Chronicle of Design, Construction, and Politics (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 2001), 271.

25 Smith, The First Forty Years, 14.

26 Smith, The First Forty Years, 15.

27 Fundraising brochure, Charles B. Boynton. Washington, D.C.: November 1, 1867, Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress; available at Library of Congress at https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.

28 Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, 90.

29 From the Library of Congress, at https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.

30 Smith, The First Forty Years, 15.

31 John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, VII:102, January 8, 1826.

32 Smith, The First Forty Years, 15.

33 Henry Highland Garnet, Memorial Discourse (Philadelphia: Joseph M. Wilson, 1865), 73.