The Importance of Voting and Christian Involvement in the Political Arena

John Adams

We electors have an important constitutional power placed in our hands; we have a check upon two branches of the legislature . . . the power I mean of electing at stated periods [each] branch. . . . It becomes necessary to every [citizen] then, to be in some degree a statesman, and to examine and judge for himself of the tendency of political principles and measures. Let us examine, then, with a sober, a manly . . . and a Christian spirit; let us neglect all party [loyalty] and advert to facts; let us believe no man to be infallible or impeccable in government any more than in religion; take no man’s word against evidence, nor implicitly adopt the sentiments of others who may be deceived themselves, or may be interested in deceiving us.1


Samuel Adams

Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual – or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.2

Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of unexceptionable characters. The public cannot be too curious concerning the character of public men.3


Matthias Burnett

Consider well the important trust . . . which God . . . [has] put into your hands. . . . To God and posterity you are accountable for [your rights and your rulers]. . . . Let not your children have reason to curse you for giving up those rights and prostrating those institutions which your fathers delivered to you. . . . [L]ook well to the characters and qualifications of those you elect and raise to office and places of trust. . . . Think not that your interests will be safe in the hands of the weak and ignorant; or faithfully managed by the impious, the dissolute and the immoral. Think not that men who acknowledge not the providence of God nor regard His laws will be uncorrupt in office, firm in defense of the righteous cause against the oppressor, or resolutly oppose the torrent of iniquity. . . . Watch over your liberties and privileges – civil and religious – with a careful eye.4


Frederick Douglass

I have one great political idea. . . . That idea is an old one. It is widely and generally assented to; nevertheless, it is very generally trampled upon and disregarded. The best expression of it, I have found in the Bible. It is in substance, “Righteousness exalteth a nation; sin is a reproach to any people” [Proverbs 14:34]. This constitutes my politics – the negative and positive of my politics, and the whole of my politics. . . . I feel it my duty to do all in my power to infuse this idea into the public mind, that it may speedily be recognized and practiced upon by our people.5


Charles Finney

[T]he time has come that Christians must vote for honest men and take consistent ground in politics or the Lord will curse them. . . . Christians have been exceedingly guilty in this matter. But the time has come when they must act differently. . . . Christians seem to act as if they thought God did not see what they do in politics. But I tell you He does see it – and He will bless or curse this nation according to the course they [Christians] take [in politics].6


James Garfield

Now more than ever the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. . . . [I]f the next centennial does not find us a great nation . . . it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.7


Francis Grimke

If the time ever comes when we shall go to pieces, it will . . . be . . . from inward corruption – from the disregard of right principles . . . from losing sight of the fact that “Righteousness exalteth a nation, but that sin is a reproach to any people” [Proverbs 14:34]. . . .[T]he secession of the Southern States in 1860 was a small matter with the secession of the Union itself from the great principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, in the Golden Rule, in the Ten Commandments, in the Sermon on the Mount. Unless we hold, and hold firmly to these great fundamental principles of righteousness…our Union…will be “only a covenant with death and an agreement with hell.”8


Alexander Hamilton

A share in the sovereignty of the state, which is exercised by the citizens at large, in voting at elections is one of the most important rights of the subject, and in a republic ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law.9


John Jay

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.10

The Americans are the first people whom Heaven has favored with an opportunity of deliberating upon and choosing the forms of government under which they should live.11


Thomas Jefferson

The elective franchise, if guarded as the ark of our safety, will peaceably dissipate all combinations to subvert a Constitution, dictated by the wisdom, and resting on the will of the people.12

[T]he rational and peacable instrument of reform, the suffrage of the people.13

[S]hould things go wrong at any time, the people will set them to rights by the peaceable exercise of their elective rights.14


William Paterson

When the righteous rule, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.15


William Penn

Governments, like clocks, go from the motion men give them; and as governments are made and moved by men, so by them they are ruined too. Wherefore governments rather depend upon men than men upon governments. Let men be good and the government cannot be bad. . . . But if men be bad, let the government be never so good, they will endeavor to warp and spoil it to their turn. . . .[T]hough
good laws do well, good men do better; for good laws may want [lack] good men and be abolished or invaded by ill men; but good men will never want good laws nor suffer [allow] ill ones.16


Daniel Webster

Impress upon children the truth that the exercise of the elective franchise is a social duty of as solemn a nature as man can be called to perform; that a man may not innocently trifle with his vote; that every elector is a trustee as well for others as himself and that every measure he supports has an important bearing on the interests of others as well as on his own.17


Noah Webster

In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate – look to his character. . . . When a citizen gives his suffrage to a man of known immorality he abuses his trust; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor, he betrays the interest of his country.18

When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, “just men who will rule in the fear of God.” The preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be sqandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.19


John Witherspoon

Those who wish well to the State ought to choose to places of trust men of inward principle, justified by exemplary conversation. . . .[And t]he people in general ought to have regard to the moral character of those whom they invest with authority either in the legislative, executive, or judicial branches.20


Endnotes

1 John Adams as ‘U’ to the Boston Gazette, August 29, 1763, The Papers of John Adams, ed. Robert J. Taylor (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1977), 1:81.
2 Samuel Adams in the Boston Gazette, April 16, 1781, The Writings of Samuel Adams, ed. Harry Alonzo Cushing (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1907), IV:256.
3 Samuel Adams to James Warren, November 4, 1775, Writings of Samuel Adams, ed. Cushing (1907), III:236-237.
4 Matthias Burnett, An Election Sermon, Preached at Hartford, on the Day of the Anniversary Election, May 12, 1803 (Hartford: Printed by Hudson & Goodwin, 1803), 27-28.
5 Frederick Douglass speech delivered at Ithaca, New York, October 14th, 1852, The Frederick Douglass Papers, ed. John Blassingame (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), 2:397.
6 Charles G. Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1868), 281-282.
7 James A. Garfield, “A Century of Congress,” July, 1877, The Works of James Abram Garfield, ed. Burke Hinsdale (Boston: James R. Osgood and Company, 1883), II:486, 489.
8 Rev. Francis J. Grimke, from “Equality of Right for All Citizens, Black and White, Alike,” March 7, 1909, published in Masterpieces of Negro Eloquence, ed. Alice Moore Dunbar (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 2000), 246-247.
9 Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Harold C. Syrett (New York, Columbia University Press, 1962), III:544-545.
10 John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, ed. Henry P. Johnston (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), IV:365.
11 John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, ed. Henry P. Johnston (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), I:161.
12 Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Albert Bergh (Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), 10:235.
13 Thomas Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Paul Leicester Ford (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905), 12:136.
14 Thomas Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Paul Leicester Ford (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905), 10:245.
15 Supreme Court Justice William Paterson reminding his fellow justices of Proverbs 29:2. United States Oracle (Portsmouth, NH), May 24, 1800.
16 William Penn quoted from: Thomas Clarkson, Memoirs of the Private and Public Life of William Penn (London: Richard Taylor and Co., 1813), I:303.
17 Daniel Webster Remarks at a Receiption to the Ladies of Richmond, Virginia, October 5, 1840, The Works of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1853), II:108.
18 Noah Webster, Letters to a Young Gentleman Commencing His Education to which is subjoined a Brief History of the United States (New Haven: S. Converse, 1823), 18, 19.
19 Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), 336-337.
20 John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), IV:266, 277.

Proclamation – America Seeks God in a Time of War – 1777

In light of America’s current war in Iraq and ongoing war against terrorism, the actions of our Founding Fathers in times of war are instructive. This is the text of the first national day of thanksgiving in America (set for December 18, 1777), declared by the Continental Congress on November 1, 1777:

IN CONGRESS

November 1, 1777

FORASMUCH as it is the indispensable Duty of all Men to adore the superintending Providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with Gratitude their Obligation to him for benefits received, and to implore such farther Blessings as they stand in Need of; And it having pleased him in his abundant Mercy not only to continue to us the innumerable Bounties of his common Providence, but also to smile upon us in the Prosecution of a just and necessary War, for the Defence and Establishment of our unalienable Rights and Liberties; particularly in that he hath been pleased in so great a Measure to prosper the Means used for the Support of our Troops and to crown our Arms with most signal success:

It is therefore recommended to the legislative or executive powers of these United States, to set apart THURSDAY, the eighteenth Day of December next, for Solemn Thanksgiving and Praise; That with one Heart and one Voice the good People may express the grateful Feelings of their Hearts, and consecrate themselves to the Service of their Divine Benefactor; and that together with their sincere Acknowledgments and Offerings, they may join the penitent Confession of their manifold Sins, whereby they had forfeited every Favour, and their humble and earnest Supplication that it may please GOD, through the Merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of Remembrance; That it may please him graciously to afford his Blessing on the Governments of these States respectively, and prosper the public Council of the whole; to inspire our Commanders both by Land and Sea, and all under them, with that Wisdom and Fortitude which may render them fit Instruments, under the Providence of Almighty GOD, to secure for these United States the greatest of all human blessings, INDEPENDENCE and PEACE; That it may please him to prosper the Trade and Manufactures of the People and the Labour of the Husbandman, that our Land may yet yield its Increase; To take Schools and Seminaries of Education, so necessary for cultivating the Principles of true Liberty, Virtue and Piety, under his nurturing Hand, and to prosper the Means of Religion for the promotion and enlargement of that Kingdom which consisteth “in Righteousness, Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost.”

And it is further recommended, that servile Labour, and such Recreation as, though at other Times innocent, may be unbecoming the Purpose of this Appointment, be omitted on so solemn an Occasion.

Extract from the Minutes,

Charles Thomson, Secr.

[This proclamation can be found in: Journals of the American Congress From 1774 to 1788 (Washington: Way and Gideon, 1823), Vol. II, pp. 309-310]


This is text excerpted from a national fast declared by the Continental Congress on March 16, 1776:

IN CONGRESS

In times of impending calamity and distress; when the liberties of America are imminently endangered by the secret machinations and open assaults of an insidious and vindictive administration, it becomes the indispensable duty of these hitherto free and happy colonies, with true penitence of heart, and the most reverent devotion, publickly to acknowledge the over ruling providence of God; to confess and deplore our offences against him; and to supplicate his interposition for averting the threatened danger, and prospering our strenuous efforts in the cause of freedom, virtue, and posterity. . . .

Desirous, at the same time, to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God’s superintending providence, and of their duty, devoutly to rely, in all their lawful enterprizes, on his aid and direction, Do earnestly recommend, that Friday, the Seventeenth day of May next, be observed by the said colonies as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure, and, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness; humbly imploring his assistance to frustrate the cruel purposes
of our unnatural enemies;

. . . that it may please the Lord of Hosts, the God of Armies, to animate our officers and soldiers with invincible fortitude, to guard and protect them in the day of battle, and to crown the continental arms, by sea and land, with victory and success: Earnestly beseeching him to bless our civil rulers, and the representatives of the people, in their several assemblies and conventions; to preserve and strengthen their union, to inspire them with an ardent, disinterested love of their country; to give wisdom and stability to their counsels; and direct them to the most efficacious measures for establishing the rights of America on the most honourable and permanent basis—That he would be graciously pleased to bless all his people in these colonies with health and plenty, and grant that a spirit of incorruptible patriotism, and of pure undefiled religion, may universally prevail; and this continent be speedily restored to the blessings of peace and liberty, and enabled to transmit them inviolate to the latest posterity. And it is recommended to Christians of all denominations, to assemble for public worship, and abstain from servile labour on the said day.

[Source: Journals of the American Congress From 1774 to 1788 (Washington: Way and Gideon, 1823), Vol. I, pp. 286-287]


Biblical Christianity: The Origin of the Rights of Conscience

Overview

Significantly, 1 Timothy 1:5 declares that the goal of the entirety of everything taught in the Scriptures is threefold:

The goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and a sincere faith.

Significantly, the three are inseparable, and without a good conscience, there will not be either a sincere faith or a pure heart. It is therefore not surprising that developing, maintaining, and living according to a good conscience is referenced more than thirty times in the New Testament (cf. Acts 24:16, 1 Timothy 1:19, 3:9, 1 Peter 3:16, 21, Romans 13:5, 2 Corinthians 4:2, etc.).

In fact, 1 Corinthians 8:4-12 flatly states that if a Christian views something as a matter of conscience – if the inner voice that God has placed within him or her tells them that something is sin to them – they are not to violate their conscience; and if anyone makes them do so, then they “sin against Christ.” (This message is repeated in Romans 1:1-23, 1 Corinthians 10:28-32, and elsewhere.) Few subjects in the Bible are stressed as strongly as that of maintaining a pure conscience – of preserving the conviction that one will answer directly to God for what his religious faith requires him to do, or refrain from doing.

Strikingly, only nations who respect Biblical teachings and traditions offer protection for the rights of religious conscience. Secular and non-Biblical nations, and those with state-established churches (such as those that predominated in England and Europe at the time of the American Founding), do not allow rights of conscience but instead demand conformity, which often requires governmental punishment coercion concerning religious beliefs, which violates the Scriptures.

Christ Himself established religious non-coercion as the standard. His approach was so voluntary that He even directed His disciples that when they presented the Gospel to others, if someone was interested, then they could stay and share the message with them; but if someone did not want to hear, then they were to leave the area and not force the issue (Luke 10:8-12). There was absolutely no coercion. It was also this way with Paul and the other Apostles: in every case; hearers then chose whether or not to follow Christianity; there was never any penalty, pressure, or force levied against them.

As John Quincy Adams noted, Jesus Christ “came to teach and not to compel. His law was a Law of Liberty. He left the human mind and human action free.”1 Two generations later, legal writer Stephen Cowell (1800-1872) similarly avowed:

Nonconformity, dissent, free inquiry, individual conviction, mental independence, are forever consecrated by the religion of the New Testament as the breath of its own life – the conditions of its own existence on the earth. The book is a direct transfer of human allegiance in things spiritual from the civil and ecclesiastical powers to the judgment and conscience of the individual.2

And several generations after that, President Franklin D. Roosevelt continued to affirm the same truth, noting: “We want to do it the voluntary way – and most human beings in all the world want to do it the voluntary way. We do not want to have the way imposed. . . . That would not follow in the footsteps of Christ.”3

From the beginning, America faithfully observed these principles, refusing to apply government coercion or conformity to the religious beliefs and practices of individuals. But today, this is dramatically and rapidly changing, with government routinely requiring people of faith to violate their religious conscience, particularly on social issues such as those surrounding aspects of sexuality, whether the taking of unborn human life, contraception, or requiring participation in homosexual nuptials, affirmation of transgenderism, and other major sexual elements of the LGBT agenda.

The American Experience on Religious Conscience

Colonial Era

Many of the early colonists who came to America were familiar with the Bible teachings on conscience and brought them to America, where they took root and grew to maturity at a rapid rate, having been planted in virgin soil completely uncontaminated by the religious apostasy and routine violations of the rights of conscience that had characterized the previous millennia. Hence, Christianity as practiced in America became the world’s single greatest historical force in securing non-coercion, religious toleration, and the rights of conscience.

For example, in 1640, the Rev. Roger Williams established Providence (the city that became the center of the Rhode Island colony), declaring:

We agree, as formerly hath been the liberties of the town, so still, to hold forth liberty of conscience.4

Similar language and protections were also included in subsequent American documents, including the 1649 Maryland “Toleration Act,”5 the 1663 charter for Rhode Island,6 the 1664 Charter for Jersey,7 the 1665 Charter for Carolina,8 the 1669 Constitutions of Carolina,9 the 1676 charter for West Jersey,10 the 1701 charter for Delaware,11 the 1682 frame of government for Pennsylvania,12 and many others. As John Quincy Adams affirmed, “The transcendent and overruling principle of the first settlers of New England was conscience.”13

Revolutionary Era

In 1775 (a year before our official separation from Great Britain), Commander-in-Chief George Washington addressed Continental soldiers and from the beginning charged them:

While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious of violating the rights of conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men and to Him only in this case they are answerable.14

With America’s official break from Great Britain in 1776, the states created their very first state constitutions and specifically secured the religious toleration, non-coercion, and the rights of conscience. For example, the 1776 constitution of Virginia declared:

[R]eligion . . . can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force and violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience.15

The 1776 Constitution of New Jersey similarly protected the rights of conscience,16 causing Governor William Livingston (a signer of the U. S. Constitution) to happily proclaim:

Consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation. . . . In contrast with this spiritual tyranny, how beautiful appears our catholic [expansive] constitution in disclaiming all jurisdiction over the souls of men, and securing (by a never-to-be-repealed section) the voluntary, unchecked, moral suasion of every individual – and his own self-directed intercourse with the Father of Spirits!17

When New York’s first constitution (1777) likewise protected the rights of conscience,81 Governor John Jay (an author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court) similarly rejoiced that:

Adequate security [under our constitution] is also given to the rights of conscience and private judgment. They are by nature subject to no control but that of Deity, and in that free situation they are now left. Every man is permitted to consider, to adore, and to worship his Creator in the manner most agreeable to his conscience.19

Similar clauses securing the rights of religious conscience also appeared in many other early state constitutions, including that of Delaware (1776),20 North Carolina (1776),21 Pennsylvania (1776),22 Vermont (1777),23 South Carolina (1778),24 Massachusetts (1780),25 New Hampshire (1784),26 etc. Today, the safeguards for the rights of conscience explicitly appear in forty-five state constitutions, and by inference in the other five.27

Federal Era

In 1788 following the ratification of the federal Constitution, six states submitted proposals for a Bill of Rights,28 with several specifically recommending national language that “all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience.”29 Although the word “conscience” did not ultimately appear in the final language of the religion clauses of the First Amendment, those who framed that Amendment believed that by preventing the government from establishing a national religion and by guaranteeing to the people their “free exercise of religion,” that the rights of conscience had been fully secured30 – a fact affirmed by President Thomas Jefferson when he penned his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists assuring them that the First Amendment was an “expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience.”31 Subsequent constitutional commentaries reiterated that the First Amendment did indeed protect the rights of conscience.32

Founding Fathers

In addition to the several Founders already mentioned, here are a few more unequivocal declarations regarding the constitutional duty of official to protect and defend the rights of religious conscience:

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. . . . Conscience is the most sacred of all property.33 JAMES MADISON

No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.34 It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself to resist invasions of it in the case of others, or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.35 Our rulers can have no authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted – we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God.36 THOMAS JEFFERSON

[T]he consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation. . . . For what business, in the name of common sense, has the magistrate (distinctly and singly appointed for our political and temporal happiness) with our religion, which is to secure our happiness spiritual and eternal? . . . [T]he state [does not] have any concern in the matter. For in what manner doth it affect society . . . in what outward form we think it best to pay our adoration to God?37 WILLIAM LIVINGSTON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION

Modern Era

As a result of the conscience protections long provided in American history and law, government exemptions are routinely granted to those whose religious faith requires them to participate in, or refrain from activities that violate their religious conscience. For example:

  • Pacifists and conscientious objectors are not forced to fight in wars;38
  • Jehovah’s Witnesses are not required to say the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools;39
  • The Amish are not required to complete the standard compulsory twelve years of education;40
  • Christian Scientists are not forced to have their children vaccinated or undergo medical procedures often required by state laws;41
  • Muslim and Jewish men are not required to shave their beards in jobs that otherwise require employees to be clean-shaven;42
  • Seventh-Day Adventists cannot be penalized for refusing to work at their jobs on Saturday;43

and there are additional examples.

Conclusion

Clearly, protection for the inalienable rights of religious conscience is deeply embedded into the fabric of American governmental policy. But as currently demonstrated in countless nations around the world, and now in America, when secularism or any other non-Biblical philosophy becomes dominant in its culture, a loss of legal protections for religious rights is usually one of the first casualties of the change.

Today in America, to seek to provide protection for the traditional rights of religious conscience is now regularly denounced as discriminatory.44 The LGBT movement, and those in government aligned with it, disdain the rights of religious conscience and instead use the power, penalties, and full force of the law to coerce all others to embrace and participate in affirming their views, including Christian bakers,45 florists,46 photographers,47 churches,48 homeowners,49 pastors,50 clerks,51 business owners,52 officials,53 religious schools,54 military personnel,55 sportscasters,56 and others.57

Our Framers recognized that if religious liberties and our civil liberties were inseparable – that if our religious liberties were diminished, our civil liberties would soon follow. As Joseph Story (a “Father of American Jurisprudence,” placed on the Supreme Court by President James Madison) pointed out:

There is not a truth to be gathered from history more certain or more momentous than this: that civil liberty cannot long be separated from religious liberty without danger, and ultimately without destruction to both. Wherever religious liberty exists, it will, first or last, bring in and establish political liberty.58

Signer of the Declaration John Witherspoon concurred:

There is not a single instance in history in which civil liberty was lost and religious liberty preserved entire. . . . God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both.59

And Jedidiah Morse (a pastor, educator, and historian of the American Revolution, appointed by the federal government to document the condition of Indian affairs) agreed:

All efforts made to destroy the foundations of our Holy Religion ultimately tend to the subversion also of our political freedom and happiness. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation . . . in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom.60

Secularism produces an antipathy toward religion and religious rights, when ultimately diminish our civil rights. In fact, after President Obama announced that America no longer should be viewed as a Christian nation,61 he then announced that he was rescinding the traditional religious rights of conscience for those working in the medical profession.62 Historically, governmental protection for religious rights is the only sure indicator of protection for other non-religious civil rights.


Endnotes

1 John Quincy Adams, A Discourse on Education Delivered at Braintree, Thursday, October 24th, 1839 (Boston: Perkins & Marvin, 1840), 18.

2 Stephen Colwell, Politics for American Christians: A Word upon our Example as a Nation, our Labour, our Trade, Elections, Education, and Congressional Legislation (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo & Co. 1852), 82, Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine, for 1844 (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1844), 752, “The Politics of the New Testament,” December 1844.

3 “Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Christmas Greeting to the Nation,” The American Presidency Project, December 24, 1940.

4 The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters and Other Organic Laws, ed. Francis Newton Thorpe (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1909), VI:3205-3207, “Plantation Agreement at Providence – August 27-September 6, 1640.”

5 William MacDonald, Select Charters and Other Documents Illustrative of American History 1606-1775 (New York: MacMillan Company, 1899), 104-106, “Maryland Toleration Act,” April 1649.

6 <a href=”https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015001567794;view=1up;seq=27″ target=”“blank”” rel=”noopener”>Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), VI:3211, “Charter of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations-1663.”

7 Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), V:2537, “The Concession and Agreement of the Lords Proprietors of the Province of New Caesarea, or New Jersey, 1664.”

8 Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), V:2771, “Charter of Carolina – 1665.”

9 Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), V:2785, “The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina – 1669.”

10 Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), V:2549, “The Charter or Fundamental Laws of West New Jersey, Agreed Upon – 1676.”

11 Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), I:558, “Charter of Delaware – 1701.”

12 Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), V:3063, “Frame of Government of Pennsylvania, May 5, 1682.”

13 John Quincy Adams, A Discourse on Education Delivered at Braintree, Thursday, October 24th, 1839 (Boston: Perkins & Marvin, 1840), 28.

14 George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1931), 3:492, to Benedict Arnold, September 14, 1775.

15 The American’s Guide: Comprising the Declaration of Independence; the Articles of Confederation; the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitutions of the Several States Composing the Union (Philadelphia: Hogan & Thompson, 1835), 180, 1776 Constitution: Bill of Rights, No. 16.

16 Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), V:2597, “Constitution of New Jersey – 1776.”

17 William Livingston, The Papers of William Livingston, ed. Carl E. Prince (Trenton: New Jersey Historical Commission, 1980), 2:235, 237, article under the name “Cato,” originally published in the New Jersey Gazette on February 18, 1778.

18 Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), V:2636-2637, “Constitution of New York – 1777.”

19 William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833), I:82, John Jay’s charge to the grand jury during the first term of the New York state Supreme Court.

20 Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (New York: E. Oswald, 1786), 129.

21 Constitutions (1786), 185.

22 Constitutions (1786), 109.

23 Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), VI:3740.

24 Constitutions (1786), 215.

25 Constitutions (1786), 11-12.

26 Constitutions (1786), 4.

27 Forty-five state constitutions contain explicit language specifically singling out the rights of conscience. Five other states – Alaska, Hawaii, Louisiana, Montana, and South Carolina – use similar language to the U.S. Constitution (“make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”). As is seen in the subsequent section, the Founding Fathers believed that this language provided specific protection for the rights of conscience.

28 Those states initially included Massachusetts, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, and North Carolina; two years later in 1790, Rhode Island submitted its proposals. See Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington: 1836), I:322-333.

29 Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1950), 1:600-610. New Hampshire recommended an amendment stating that “Congress shall make no law touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.”

30 The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, ed. Joseph Gales (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1834), I:757-796, August 15, 1789 to August 21, 1789.

31 Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. H. A. Washington (Washington D.C.: Taylor & Maury, 1854), VIII:113, “Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen S. Nelson, A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut,” January 1, 1802.

32 See, for example, Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: Hilliard, Gray, and Company, 1833), I:701, § 990-991:

The rights of conscience are, indeed, beyond the just reach of any human power. They are given by God, and cannot be encroached upon by human authority, without a criminal disobedience of the precepts of natural, as well as revealed religion. The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus sought to cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and the power of subverting the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age.

St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries: with Notes of Reference, to the Constitution and Laws, of the Federal Government of the United States; and of the Commonwealth of Virginia (Philadelphia: William Young Birch and Abraham Small: 1803), I:489, “Appendix: Note G. Of the Right of Conscience; and Of the Freedom of Speech and Of The Press”:

Liberty of conscience in matters of religion consists in the absolute and unrestrained exercise of our religious opinion, and duties, in that mode which our own reason and conviction dictate, without the control or intervention of any human power or authority whatsoever. This liberty though made a part of our constitution, and interwoven in the nature of man by his Creator, so far as the arts of fraud and terrors of violence have been capable of abridging it, hath been the subject of coercion by human laws in all ages and in all countries as far as the annals of mankind extend.

James Wilson, Thomas McKean [Wilson and McKean both signed the Declaration of Independence, and Wilson was a signer of the Constitution and an original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court], Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States of America (London: 1791), II:61:

In the third place we are told, that there is no security for the rights of conscience. I ask the honorable gentleman, what part of this system puts it in the power of Congress to attack those rights? When there is no power to attack, it is idle to prepare the means of defense.

And others.

33 James Madison, The Writings of James Madison, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1906), VI:102, “Property,” originally published in The National Gazette on March 29, 1792.

34 Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. H. A. Washington (New York: Biker, Thorne, & Co., 1854), VIII:147, to the Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church at New London, CT on February 4, 1809.

35 Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, ed. Thomas Jefferson Randolph (Charlottesville: F. Carr, an Co., 1829), III:507, to Benjamin Rush on April 21, 1803.

36 Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (London: John Stockdale, 1787), 265, “Query XVII: The different religions received into that state?”

37 William Livingston, Papers, ed. Prince (1980), 2:235, 237, article under the name “Cato,” originally published in the New Jersey Gazette on February 18, 1778; Hezekiah Niles, Principles and Acts of the Revolution in America: Or, An Attempt to Collect and Preserve Some of the Speeches, Orations, & Proceedings (Baltimore: William Ogden Niles, 1822), 306-307, “Remarks on liberty of conscience, ascribed to his excellency William Livingston, governor of New Jersey, 1778”; B. F. Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, Developed in the Official and Historical Annals of the Republic (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), 162-163, from William Livingston.

38 United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965).

39 West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

40 Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

41 See, for example, “Parents claim religion to avoid vaccines for kids,” NBCNews, October 17, 2007; “Vaccination Exemptions,” College of Physicians of Philadelphia (accessed on May 9, 2016).

42 Potter v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 01-1189 (D.D.C. Sept. 28, 2007).

43 Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission of Florida, 480 U.S. 136 (1987); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 409 (1963).

44 See, for example, Adam Serwer, “Arizona passes law allowing discrimination,” MSNBC, February 21, 2014; Paresh Dave, “Miss. governor signs religious freedom bill; civil rights groups dismayed,” Los Angeles Times, April 4, 2014; Chris Johnson, “Georgia Senate passes religious discrimination bill,” Washington Blade, March 5, 2015; Tony Cook, “Gov. Mike Pence signs ‘religious freedom’ bill in private,” IndyStar, April 2, 2015; Monica Davey, “Indiana and Arkansas Revise Rights Bills, Seeking to Remove Divisive Parts,” The New York Times, April 2, 2015; Timothy Holbrook, “Georgia, North Carolina bills are about LGBT discrimination. Period,” CNN, March 28, 2016; Marina Fang, “Tennessee Legislature Resurrects Discriminatory Transgender Bathroom Bill,” Huffington Post, April 6, 2016.

45 See, for example, Ken Klukowski, “Baker Faces Prison for Refusing to Bake Same-Sex Wedding Cake,” Breitbart, December 12, 2013; Chris Enloe, “‘Sweet Cakes’ Owners’ Bank Accounts Seized as Damages for Refusing to Bake Wedding Cake for Lesbian Couple,” The Blaze, December 29, 2015.

46 See, for example, Danny Burk, “A florist loses religious freedom, and much more,” CNN, February 20, 2015.

47 See, for example, Ken Klukowski, “New Mexico Court: Christian Photographer Cannot Refuse Gay-Marriage Ceremony,” Breitbart, August 22, 2013; Kristine Marsh, “Gays Force San Francisco Wedding Photographers to Close Shop,” MRC NewsBusters, November 21, 2014; Samuel Smith, “Christian Videographer Faces Legal Action After Refusing to Work Lesbian Wedding, Says It’s Against Her Biblical Beliefs,” Christian Post, March 18, 2015.

48 See, for example, Molly Montag, “Group asks IRS to investigate Cornerstone Church,” Sioux City Journal, October 1, 2010; “Southern Baptists draw distance from harsh anti-gay rhetoric, yet hold to convictions,” Baptist Press, May 24, 2012.

49 See, for example, Andrea Peyser, “Couple fined for refusing to host same-sex wedding on their farm,” New York Post, November 10, 2014.

50 See, for example, Todd Starnes, “Fired for preaching: Georgia dumps doctor over church sermons,” Fox News, April 20, 2016; Natalie Jennings, “Louie Giglio pulls out of inauguration over anti-gay comments,” The Washington Post, January 10, 2013.

51 See, for example, Allan Smith, “Anti-gay-marriage Kentucky clerk jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses,” Business Insider, September 3, 2015; Jim Douglas, “Hood County is focal point of same-sex debate,” WFAA, July 1, 2015.

52 See, for example, Katie Zezima, “Couple Sues a Vermont Inn for Rejecting Gay Wedding,” The New York Times, July 19, 2011; Billy Hallowell, “Lesbian Couple Wins Discrimination Lawsuit Against Religious Bed and Breakfast Owner Who Denied Them a Room,” The Blaze, April 16, 2013; Justin Moyer, “Kentucky T-shirt printer that wouldn’t make gay pride shirts vindicated by court,” The Washington Post, April 28, 2015; Charlie Butts, “Iowa couple fined for refusing gay wedding: ‘We are still here’,” OneNewsNow, June 3, 2015.

53 See, for example, Kathleen Gilbert, “San Diego firefighters victorious in suit against forced participation in gay pride parade,” Life Site News, January 28, 2011; Eryn Sun, “Court Affirms CDC’s Firing of Counselor Over Same-Sex Advice,” Christian Post, February 8, 2012; Ryan T. Anderson, “Atlanta Fire Chief Fired for Expressing Christian Beliefs,” The Daily Signal, January 8, 2015; “Utah officer who objected to role in gay pride parade says he was unfairly labeled a bigot,” Fox News, February 25, 2015; Randy Ludlow, “Ohio judges who perform weddings must marry same-sex couples,” The Columbus Dispatch, August 11, 2015.

54 See, for example, “Evangelical College Gay Rights Stand Causes Uproar,” NewsMax, November 2, 2014; “Gay Teacher Files Sex Discrimination Claim Against Georgia School,” NPR, July 9, 2014; “Lesbian teacher who was fired for becoming pregnant sues Catholic school for discrimination,” Daily Mail, August 22, 2014.

55 See, for example, Todd Starnes, “Fox Exclusive: Airman Faces Punishment for her Religious Beliefs,” Fox News, August 6, 2013; Kirsten Anderson, “Air Force Sergeant claims he was fired for refusing to endorse gay ‘marriage’: faces court martial,” Life Site News, September 10, 2013; “Navy Threatens To End 19-Year Career Of Decorated Chaplain Who Served Navy SEAL Teams, According To Liberty Institute,” PR Newswire, March 9, 2015.

56 See, for example, Melissa Barnhart, “Fox Sports Southwest Charged With Discrimination for Firing Craig James Over Homosexuality Remarks,” Christian Post, March 7, 2014; Ahiza Garcia, “‘I’m not transphobic,’ says ex-ESPN analyst Curt Schilling,” CNN Money, April 22, 2016.

57 See, for example, “Missouri school sued by student who refused to support gay adoptions,” USA Today, November 2, 2006; Paul Strand, “University Employee Punished over Marriage Petition,” CBN News, October 18, 2012; Billy Hallowell, “Christian Product Engineer Claims Ford Motor Fired Him for Voicing His Bible-Based Opposition to the Company’s Promotion of ‘Pro-Homosexual Ideas’ — Now He’s Fighting Back,” The Blaze, January 28, 2015.

58 Joseph Story, A Discourse Pronounced at the Request of the Essex Historical Society, on the 18th of September, 1828, in Commemoration of the First Settlement of Salem, in the State of Massachusetts (Boston: Hilliard, Gray, Little, and Wilkins, 1828), 46.

59 John Witherspoon, The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men. A Sermon, Preached at Princeton, on the 17th of May, 1776. Being the General Fast appointed by the Congress through the United Colonies (Philadelphia: 1777), 27-28, 38.

60 Jedidiah Morse, A Sermon, Exhibiting the Present Dangers and Consequent Duties of the Citizens of the United States of America. Delivered at Charlestown. April 25, 1799, The Day of the National Fast (MA: Printed by Samuel Etheridge, 1799), 9.

61 Aaron Klein, “Obama: America is ‘no longer Christian’,” WorldNetDaily, June 22, 2008. See also David Brody, The Brody File, “Exclusive: Barack Obama E-mails the Brody File,” CBN News, July 29, 2007; “Obama says U.S., Turkey can be model for world,” CNN, April 6, 2009.

62 See, for example, Rob Stein, “Obama Plans to Roll Back ‘Conscience’ Rule Protecting Health Workers Who Object to Some Types of Care,” The Washington Post, February 28, 2009; Saundra Young, “White House set to reverse health care conscience clause,” CNN, February 27, 2009; Rob Stein, “Obama administration replaces controversial ‘conscience’ regulation for health-care workers,” The Washington Post, February 18, 2011.

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

Treaty of Tripoli

Founded on the Christian Religion?

A line from this treaty embodies the counter charge most frequently invoked (and most heavily relied upon) by critics in their attempt to disprove what history overwhelmingly documents. Asserting that America never was a Christian nation, they invoke a clause from Article XI of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli that declared:

The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion . . .

On its face, that clause appears to be nondebatable and final, but what the critics fail to acknowledge is that they have lifted eighteen words out of a sentence that is eighty-one words long, thereby appearing to make it say something that it does not say when replaced in the full sentence. Significantly (and much to the chagrin of the critics), when the borrowed segment is placed back into the full sentence, and when the full sentence is placed back into the full treaty, and then when the circumstances that caused the writing of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli are presented, the portion of a line that they invoke actually strengthens rather than weakens the claim that America was a Christian nation.

Barbary Powers War

The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli was one of several negotiated with during the “Barbary Powers War,” a war against Muslim terrorists that began toward the end of the Revolutionary War and continued through the Presidencies of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.1 During America’s original “War on Terror,” five Muslim countries (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, Tripoli, and Turkey) were making indiscriminate terrorist attacks against what they claimed to be five “Christian” nations (England, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United States). The conflict so escalated that in 1801, Tripoli formally declared war against the United States,2 thus constituting America’s first official war as an established independent nation.

The Barbary Powers (called Barbary “Pirates” by most Americans) attacked American merchant ships (but not naval ships) wherever they found them. (Prior to the Revolution, American shipping had been protected by the British navy, and during the Revolution by the French navy; but after the Revolution, there was no protection, for America lacked a navy of its own.) These unprotected American merchant ships, built for carrying cargoes rather than for fighting, were easy prey for the warships of the Barbary Powers.

The cargo of these ships was seized as loot and their “Christian” seamen3 were enslaved in retaliation for what Muslims claimed that Christians had done to them (e.g., during the Crusades, Ferdinand and Isabella’s expulsion of Muslims from Granada,4 etc.). So regular were the attacks that in 1793, Algiers alone seized ten American merchant ships and enslaved more then one hundred sailors, holding them for sell or ransom.5

Barbary Powers Treaties

In an attempt to secure a release of the kidnapped seamen and a guarantee of unmolested shipping in the Mediterranean, President Washington dispatched envoys to negotiate terms with those Muslim nations.6 They reached several treaties of “Peace and Amity” with the Muslim Barbary7 powers to ensure “protection” of American commercial ships sailing in the Mediterranean,8 but because America had no navy and no threat of any power against the Muslims, the terms of the treaties were particularly unfavorable for America.

Sometimes she was required to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars (tens of millions in today’s money) of “tribute” (i.e., official extortion) to each Muslim country to receive a “guarantee” of no attacks. Sometimes the Muslims also demanded additional “considerations” – such as building and providing a warship as a “gift” to Tripoli,9 a “gift” frigate to Algiers,10 paying $525,000 to ransom captured American seamen from Algiers,11 etc.

In those treaties, America inserted various declarations attempting to convince the Muslims that as Christians, we were not pursuing a “jihad” against them – that we were engaged in a war on the basis of our religion or theirs. For example, in the 1784 treaty negotiated by Thomas Jefferson and John Adams that eventually ended Moroccan hostilities against the United States, three separate clauses acknowledged the conflict as being one between Muslim and Christian powers;12 and the 1795 Treaty with Algiers contained similar acknowledgments.13 In fact, a subsequent treaty with Algiers even stipulated what would occur if captured America (or European) Christian seamen escaped from Algiers and found refuge on any of our ships:

If . . . any Christians whatsoever, captives in Algiers, make their escape and take refuge on board any of the ships of war, they shall not be required back again nor shall the consul of the United States or commanders of said ships be required to pay anything for the said Christians. As the government of America has, in itself, no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of any nation, and as the said states have never entered into any voluntary war or act of hostility except in defense of their just rights on the high seas, it is declared by the contracting parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony between the two nations; and the consuls and agents of both nations hall have liberty to celebrate the rites of their respective religions in their own houses.1

No Enmity Against Muslims

America regularly attempted to assure the Muslims that as Christians, we had no religious hatred of them – that we had “no enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility” of the Muslims, and that our substantial differences of “religious opinions shall [n]ever produce an interruption of the harmony between the two nations.” Furthermore, we inserted specific clauses into the treaties to ensure that our Christian diplomats in their Muslim nations could practice their Christian faith, just as their Muslim diplomats in America could practice their Muslim faith.15 Very simply, using multiple clauses, we attempted to reassure them that we were not like the Period II Christian nations that had attacked them simply because they were Muslims; America was not – and never had been – a party to any such religious war.

The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was just one of the many treaties in which each country recognized the religion of the other, and in which America invoked rhetoric designed to prevent a “Holy War” between Christians and Muslims.16 Article XI of that treaty therefore stated:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.17

Christian Religion Clause in 1797 Treaty

Critics end the sentence after the words “Christian religion,” thus placing a period in the middle of a sentence where no punctuation existed in the earliest copy of the treaty that was presented to Congress, stopping the sentence in mid-thought.18 However, when Article XI is read in its entirety and its thought concluded where the punctuation so indicates, then the article simply assures Tripoli that we were not one of the Christian nations with an inherent hostility against Muslims and that we would not allow differences in our “religious opinions” to lead to hostility.

(Significantly, even if Article XI contained nothing more than what the critics cite – i.e., “the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion” – this still would not refute America being a Christian nation since the article only refers to the federal government. Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation, they also included a constitutional prohibition against any official federal establishment of religion. Therefore, if Article XI is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States did not establish the Christian religion, such a statement does not repudiate the fact that America was considered a Christian nation. However, the history of the Treaty, of the treaties negotiated before and after it, and the circumstances of the conflict discounts even that reading.)

Even though clauses such as Article XI in the 1797 treaty clearly demonstrate America’s efforts to distinguish itself from the historical European Christian nations that hated Muslims, the diligent diplomatic efforts proved unsuccessful – especially in the case of Tripoli (today’s Muslim Libya); terroristic attacks against American interests continued largely unabated.

Extortion Payments

The extortion payments became a significant expense for the American government. In fact, in 1795, payments to Algiers, including the ransom payment to free 115 American seamen, totaled nearly one million dollars19 – a full sixteen percent of the entire federal budget for that year!20 And Algiers was just one of the five Barbary Powers. Not surprisingly, American presidents and citizens resented remitting such extortion payments simply to enjoy rights already guaranteed them under international law. Preparations were therefore begun for a military remedy, thus embracing President George Washington’s axiom that:

To be prepared for war is onto the most effectual means of preserving peace.21

In the final year of his presidency, Washington urged Congress to undertake the construction of a U. S. Navy to defend American interests.22 President John Adams vigorously pursued those naval plans, earning him the title of “Father of the American Navy.”23 Nevertheless, Adams shied from a direct military confrontation and instead pursued a more pacific approach to the ongoing Barbary Powers encroachments.

By 1800, however, extortion payments to the Muslim terrorists accounted for twenty percent of the federal budget; so when Thomas Jefferson became President in 1801, he refused further payments and decided that it was time to take military action to end the two-decades-old terrorist attacks. Jefferson took General William Eaton (who had been appointed as “Consul to Tunis” by John Adams in 1799) and elevated Eaton to the post of “US Naval Agent to the Barbary States,” with the assignment to lead an American military expedition against Tripoli. Using the brand new American Navy to transport the U. S. Marines overseas, General Eaton led a successful campaign that freed captured American seaman and crushed the Muslim forces. After five years, in 1805 Tripoli signed a treaty on America’s terms, thus ending their aggressions.

Barbary Powers in the Early 1800s

It is from the Marine’s role in that first War on Terror that the U. S. Marines derive part of the opening line of their hymn: “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli . . .” Two centuries later, the Marines were again ordered into action in that same general region of the world in America’s second “War on Terror,” again fighting Muslim terrorists.

By 1807, Muslim Algiers had resumed attacks against American ships and sailors, and eventually declared war on America, but Jefferson was distracted with efforts to keep from going to war against Great Britain or France.

During the War of 1812

When President Madison took office, he, too, became rapidly preoccupied with the issues that led to the war of the War of 1812, and also was unable to respond with military force against the attacks. With the end of that War, in 1815, Madison dispatched warships and the military against three Muslim nations: Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli. Beginning first with Algiers, America quickly subdued them and brought them to the peace table where in July 1815 they ratified a treaty that freed all Christians and ended future slavery of Christians.24

The American fleet then departed for Tunis, to deal with them; promptly after the Americans departed, Algiers renounced the peace treaty. However, two of the other Christian nations being harassed by Muslim terrorist attacks (the British and the Dutch) brought their fleets against Algiers and attacked and subdued them.

In 1816, Algiers signed a new peace treaty in which the Muslims agreed that “the practice of condemning Christian Prisoners of War to slavery is hereby and forever renounced.”25 Significantly, when the treaty was signed, it acknowledged the date according to both the Christian and Muslim calendars:

Done in duplicate, in the warlike City of Algiers, in the presence of Almighty God, the 28th day of August, in the year of Jesus Christ, 1816, and in the year of the Hegira, 1231, and the 6th day of the Moon Shawal.26

In the meantime, the American fleet and Marines had subdued Tunis, who signed a treaty ending the Christian enslavement and terrorist attacks. The Americans then signed another treaty Algiers in December 1816, replacing the one Algiers had renounced, in which the Muslims agreed to end the slavery of Christians.27 This conflict ran the course of some thirty-two years, and it involved multiple incursions of the American military into the region, remaining there almost seven years, before the attacks against America ebbed.

Parallels Between Wars on Terror

Interestingly, there are many parallels between America’s two Wars on Terror. Perhaps U. S. Army Colonel Brian Birdwell – a decorated veteran of the modern War on Terror, later crucially-burned during the terrorist attack on the Pentagon – best explained the philosophy behind both Wars on Terror. Birdwell noted that America had only two options in the terrorists war of attrition against the United States: continue to deal with the mosquitoes coming out of the Middle East swamp, or go drain the swamp and thus prevent future mosquitoes from coming out of it.

In both 1801 and 2003, America had endured two decades of mosquitoes prior to its decision to go drain the swamp. Many Americans today forget that the 2003 invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was preceded by the 1983 Muslim terrorist attacks on the Beirut Embassy and the Marine Barracks; the 1985 Muslim terrorist attack on TWA flight 847; the 1985 attack on the Achillo Lauro cruise ship; the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centers; the 1996 attacks on the Khobar Towers and multiple African Embassy bombings; the 2000 attack on the U. S. S. Cole, and the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon.

Thousands of Americans across the world had been killed in those earlier two decades of terrorist attacks before America tired of dealing with the mosquitoes and decided to drain the swamp – just as did President Jefferson in 1801 after two decades of similarly harassing attacks.

General William Eaton

Significantly, not only the numerous treaties from the Barbary Powers conflict but also all of the official correspondence from the twenty year conflict leading up first to Jefferson’s and then to Madison’s attack on the Muslim Barbary Powers affirms that it was always viewed by both sides as a conflict between Muslim nations and a Christian one. For example, the writings of General William Eaton both in his early role as a diplomatic envoy under Adams and then in his later role as military theatre commander under Jefferson provide irrefutable testimony of this fact.

Eaton, when writing to President Adam’s Secretary of State, Timothy Pickering, apprised him of why the Muslims would be such dedicated foes:

Taught by revelation that war with the Christians will guarantee the salvation of their souls, and finding so great secular advantages in the observance of this religious duty [i.e., the secular advantage of keeping captured cargoes], their [the Muslims’] inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful.28 (emphasis added)

Eaton also explained why the Muslims found American targets so inviting. For example, when the American cargo ship “Hero” arrived in Tunis, the Muslims immediately noted that the heavy-laden ship was protected by only two tiny four-pound cannons. According to Eaton:

[T]he weak, the crazy situation of the vessel and equipage [armaments] tended to confirm an opinion long since conceived and never fairly controverted among the Tunisians, that the Americans are a feeble sect of Christians.29(emphasis added)

Very simply, this type of weakness invited continued attack – and thus the need (to that point) to negotiate the often extortive treaties to keep peace. Eaton told Secretary Pickering how pleased one of the Barbary rulers had been to receive the payments promised him by America in one of the treaties:

He said, “To speak truly and candidly . . . . we must acknowledge to you that we have never received articles of the kind of so excellent a quality from any Christian nation.”30 (emphasis added)

Eaton’s Account of Battles

When John Marshall became the new Secretary of State in 1800, Eaton promptly informed him:

It is a maxim of the Barbary States that “The Christians who would be on good terms with them must fight well or pay well.”31 (emphasis added)

When General Eaton finally commenced his military action against Tripoli at Jefferson’s order, his personal journal noted:

April 8th…. We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen [Muslims]. We have a difficult undertaking!32 (emphasis added)

May 23rd. Hassien Bey, the commander in chief of the enemy’s forces, has offered by private insinuation for my head six thousand dollars and double the sum for me a prisoner; and $30 per head for Christians. Why don’t he come and take it?33 (emphasis added)

Shortly after the military excursion against Tripoli was successfully terminated, its account was written and published. Even the title of the book bears witness to the nature of the conflict:

The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton . . . commander of the Christian and Other Forces . . . which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between The United States and The Regency of Tripoli34 (emphasis added)

The numerous documents and treaties surrounding the Barbary Powers Conflict confirm that historically it was always viewed as a conflict between Christian America and Muslim nations. Furthermore, the one line from Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli singled out by critics does not disprove that America was a Christian nation; to the contrary, when that line is reinstated back into the full sentence and its context, it proves exactly the opposite.


Endnotes

1 Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers, ed. Claude A. Swanson (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1939), I:v.

2 History of the War Between the United States and Tripoli, and Other Barbary Powers (Salem Gazette Office, 1806), 88-89.

3 A General View of the Rise, Progress, and Brilliant Achievements of the American Navy, Down to the Present Time (Brooklyn, 1828), 70-71.

4 Glen Tucker, Dawn Like Thunder: The Barbary Wars and the Birth of the U. S. Navy (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1963), 50.

5 Naval Documents, ed. Swanson (1939), I:55.

6 President Washington selected Col. David Humphreys in 1793 as sole commissioner of Algerian affairs to negotiate treaties with Algeria, Tripoli and Tunis. He also appointed Joseph Donaldson, Jr., as Consul to Tunis and Tripoli. In February of 1796, Humphreys delegated power to Donaldson and/or Joel Barlow to form treaties. James Simpson, U. S. Consul to Gibraltar, was dispatched to renew the treaty with Morocco in 1795. On October 8, 1796, Barlow commissioned Richard O’Brien to negotiate the treaty of peace with Tripoli. See, for example, Gardner W. Allen, Our Navy and the Barbary Corsairs (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1905), 46, 52-56; Ray W. Irwin, The Diplomatic Relations of the United States with the Barbary Powers (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1931), 84.

7 See, for example, treaties with: Morocco: ratified by the United States on July 18, 1787 (Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America: 1776-1949, ed. Charles I. Bevans (Washington, D. C.: Department of State, 1976), IX:1278-1285).

Algiers: concluded September 5, 1795; ratified by the U. S. Senate March 2, 1796; “Treaty of Peace and Amity” concluded June 30 and July 6, 1815; proclaimed December 26, 1815 (Treaties and Conventions Concluded Between the United States of America and Other Powers Since July 4, 1776 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1889), 1-15).

Tripoli: concluded November 4, 1796; ratified June 10, 1797;  “Treaty of Peace and Amity” concluded June 4, 1805; ratification advised by the U. S. Senate April 12, 1806 (Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers: 1776-1909, ed. William M. Malloy (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1910), II:1785-1793).

Tunis: concluded August 1797; ratification advised by the Senate, with amendments, March 6, 1798; alterations concluded March 26, 1799; ratification again advised by the Senate December 24, 1799 (Treaties, Conventions, ed. Malloy (1910), II:1794-1799).

8 Gardner W. Allen, Our Navy and the Barbary Corsairs (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1905), 33, 45, 56, 60.

9 Allen, Our Navy and the Barbary Corsairs, 66.

10 Allen, Our Navy and the Barbary Corsairs, 57.

11 Allen, Our Navy and the Barbary Corsairs, 56.

12 The American Diplomatic Code, Embracing A Collection of Treaties and Conventions Between the United States and Foreign Powers from 1778 to 1834, ed. Jonathan Elliot (Washington: Jonathan Elliot, Jr., 1834), I:473-479, Articles 10, 12, & 24.

13 The American Diplomatic Code, ed. Elliot (1834), I:479-489.

14 The American Diplomatic Code, ed. Elliot (1834), I:492-493, Articles 14 & 15.

15 See, for example, The American Diplomatic Code, ed. Elliot (1834), I:493, 1815 treaty with Algiers, Article 15; Treaties, Conventions, ed. Malloy ( 1910), II:1791, 1805 treaty with Tripoli, Article XIV.

16 (See general bibliographic information from footnote 7 above for each of these references) Morocco: see Articles 10, 11, 17, and 24; Algiers: See Treaty of 1795, Article 17, and Treaty of 1815, Article 17; Tripoli: See Treaty of 1796, Article 11, and Treaty of 1805, Article 14; Tunis: See forward to Treaty.

17 Acts Passed at the First Session of the Fifth Congress of the United States of America (Philadelphia: William Ross, 1797), 43-44, “Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary,” signed November 4, 1796.

18 The excerpt from the Treaty of Tripoli above is from 1797, the same year that the treaty went into effect, and is thus from the earliest and most authoritative printing. Nonetheless, there are some later printings of the Treaty of Tripoli, decades later, such as that which was sanctioned by Congress in the 1832 volume set American State Papers, in which the editors of that later work inserted extra punctuation into the text not present in the first printing:

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

The insertions of these semi-colons and commas do not change the meaning of the document. The latter premises (“it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen … the said States never have entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation”) still contextualize the first premise (“the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion”) and narrow it down from a general assertion of the United States government’s character to a niche commentary on the relationship of American Christianity to Islam.

Significantly, when one compares this singular quotation from the Treaty of Tripoli to the full Christian heritage of the United States, it quickly becomes clear that the quotation must be read in a niche context in order to make any sense.

19 George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, ed. John C Fitzpatrick (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1940), 33:385, to the Secretary of the Treasury, May 29, 1794; Gerard W. Gawalt, “America and the Barbary Pirates: An International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe,” Library of Congress.

20 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, “Historical Statistics of the United States” (New York: Kraus International Publications, 1989), 2:1104.

21 Writings of George Washington, ed. Fitzpatrick, 30:491, “First Annual Address to Congress,” January 8, 1790.

22 James Fenimore Cooper, The History of the Navy of the United States of America (Philadelphia: Thomas, Cowperthwait & Co., 1847), 151. A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents: 1789-1897, ed. James D. Richardson (Washington, D. C.: Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), I:201-202, George Washington, “Eighth Annual Address,” December 7, 1796.

23 Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, (1968), III:521-523, s.v. John Adams.

24 Treaties and Conventions Concluded Between the United States of America and Other Powers Since July 4, 1776 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1889), 13-14, 1815 treaty with Algiers, Articles XIII, XV, and XVII.

25 A Complete Collection of the Treaties and Conventions of Reciprocal Regulations at Present Subsisting Between Great Britain and Foreign Powers, ed. Lewis Hertslet (London: Richard Clay & Sons, 1905; originally printed in 1840), I:88, “Declaration of the Dey of Algiers,” August 28, 1816.

26 Collection of the Treaties and Conventions, ed. Hertslet (1905; originally printed in 1840), I:88, “Declaration of the Dey of Algiers,” August 28, 1816.

27 “Treaty of Peace and Amity, with Article Additional and Explanatory,” The Avalon Project, December 22-23, 1816, see Articles XIV, XV, and XVII.

28 Charles Prentiss, The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton: Several Years an Officer in the United States’ Army, Consul at the Regency of Tunis on the Coast of Barbary, and Commander of the Christian and Other Forces that Marched From Egypt Through the Desert of Barca, in 1805, and Conquered the City of Derne, Which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between the United States and the Regency of Tripoli (Brookfield: E. Merriam & Co., 1813), 92-93, from General Eaton to Timothy Pickering on June 15, 1799.

29 Prentiss, The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton, 146, from General Eaton to Mr. Smith on June 27, 1800.

30 Prentiss, The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton, 150, from General Eaton to Timothy Pickering on July 4, 1800.

31 Prentiss, The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton, 185, from General Eaton to General John Marshall on September 2, 1800.

32 Prentiss, The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton, 325, from Eaton’s journal, April 8, 1805.

33 Prentiss, The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton, 334, from Eaton’s journal, May 23, 1805.

34 Prentiss, The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton.

John Jay on the Biblical View of War

john-jay-on-the-biblical-view-of-warFounding Father John Jay (1745-1829) was appointed by President George Washington as the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. In addition to serving on the Supreme Court, Jay had a very distinguished history of public service. He was a member of the Continental Congress (1774-76, 1778-79) and served as President of Congress (1778-79). He helped write the New York State constitution (1777) and authored the first manual on military discipline (1777). Jay served as Chief-Justice of New York Supreme Court (1777-78) and was minister to Spain (1779). He signed the final peace treaty with Great Britain (1783) and he was elected as Governor of New York (1795- 1801).

Jay is also famous as one of the three coauthors, along with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, of the Federalist Papers, which were instrumental in securing the ratification of the federal Constitution.

John Jay was a strong Christian, serving both as vice-president of the American Bible Society (1816-21) and its president (1821- 27). In this series of letters, John Jay expounds on the Biblical view of war.


Letter 1

Whether war of every description is prohibited by the gospel, is one of those questions on which the excitement of any of the passions can produce no light. An answer to it can result only from careful investigation and fair reasoning.

It appears to me that the gospel not only recognizes the whole moral law, and extends and perfects our knowledge of it, but also enjoins on all mankind the observance of it. Being ordained by a legislator of infinite wisdom and rectitude, and in whom there is “no variableness,” it must be free from imperfection, and therefore never has, nor ever will require amendment or alteration. Hence I conclude that the moral law is exactly the same now that it was before the flood.

That all those wars and fightings are unlawful, which proceed from culpable desires and designs (or in Scripture language from lusts), on the one side or on the other, is too clear to require proof. As to wars of an opposite description, and many such there have been, I believe they are as lawful to the unoffending party in our days, as they were in the days of Abraham. He waged war against and defeated the five kings. He piously dedicated a tenth of the spoils; and, instead of being blamed, was blessed.

What should we think of a human legislator who should authorize or encourage infractions of his own laws ? If wars of every kind and description are prohibited by the moral law, I see no way of reconciling such a prohibition with those parts of Scripture which record institutions, declarations, and interpositions of the Almighty which manifestly evince the contrary. If every war is sinful, how did it happen that the sin of waging any war is not specified among the numerous sins and offenses which are mentioned and reproved in both the Testaments?

To collect and arrange the many facts and arguments which relate to this subject would require more time and application than I am able to bestow. The aforegoing are hinted merely to exhibit some of the reasons on which my opinion rests.

It certainly is very desirable that a pacific disposition should prevail among all nations. The most effectual way of producing it is by extending the prevalence and influence of the gospel. Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others, and therefore will not provoke war.

Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous. Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

Letter 2

In my letter to you of the 16th October last, I hinted that I might perhaps write and send you a few more lines on the question, whether war of every description is forbidden by the gospel.

I will now add some remarks to those which were inserted in my answer to your first letter. In that answer, the lawfulness of war, in certain cases, was inferred from those Divine positive institutions which authorized and regulated it. For although those institutions were not dictated by the moral law, yet they cannot be understood to authorize what the moral law forbids.

The moral or natural law was given by the Sovereign of the universe to all mankind; with them it was co-eval, and with them it will be co-existent. Being rounded by infinite wisdom and goodness on essential right, which never varies, it can require no amendment or alteration.

Divine positive ordinances and institutions, on the other hand, being founded on expediency, which is not always perpetual or immutable, admit of, and have received, alteration and limitation in sundry instances.

There were several Divine positive ordinances and institutions at very early periods. Some of them were of limited obligation, as circumcision; others of them were of universal obligation, as the Sabbath, marriage, sacrifices, the particular punishment for murder.

The Lord of the Sabbath caused the day to be changed. The ordinances of Moses suffered the Israelites to exercise more than the original liberty allowed to marriage, but our Savior repealed that indulgence. When sacrifices had answered their purpose as types of the great Sacrifice, etc., they ceased. The punishment for murder has undergone no alteration, either by Moses or by Christ.

I advert to this distinction between the moral law and positive institutions, because it enables us to distinguish the reasonings which apply to the one, from those which apply only to the other—ordinances being mutable, but the moral law always the same.

To this you observe, by way of objection, that the law was given by Moses, but that grace and truth came by Jesus Christ; and hence that, even as it relates to the moral law, a more perfect system is enjoined by the gospel than was required under the law, which admitted of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, tolerating a spirit of retaliation. And further, that, if the moral law was the same now that it was before the flood, we must call in question those precepts of the gospel which prohibit some things allowed of and practiced by the patriarchs.

It is true that the law was given by Moses, not however in his individual or private capacity, but as the agent or instrument, and by the authority of the Almighty. The law demanded exact obedience, and proclaimed: “Cursed is every one that contineth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” The law was inexorable, and by requiring perfect obedience, under a penalty so inevitable and dreadful, operated as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ for mercy.

Mercy, and grace, and favor did come by Jesus Christ; and also that truth which verified the promises and predictions concerning him, and which exposed and corrected the various errors which had been imbibed respecting the Supreme Being, his attributes, laws, and dispensations. Uninspired commentators have dishonored the law, by ascribing to it, in certain cases, a sense and meaning which it did not authorize, and which our Savior rejected and reproved.

The inspired prophets, on the contrary, express the most exalted ideas of the law. They declare that the law of the Lord is perfect, that the statutes of the Lord are right; and that the commandment of the Lord is pure; that God would magnify the law and make it honorable, etc.

Our Savior himself assures us that he came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill; that whoever shall do and teach the commandments, shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven; that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. This certainly amounts to a full approbation of it. Even after the resurrection of our Lord, and after the descent of the Holy Spirit, and after the miraculous conversion of Paul, and after the direct revelation of the Christian dispensation to him, he pronounced this memorable encomium on the law, viz.: “The law is holy, and the commandments holy, just, and good.”

It is true that one of the positive ordinances of Moses, to which you allude, did ordain retaliation, or, in other words, a tooth for a tooth. But we are to recollect that it was ordained, not as a rule to regulate the conduct of private individuals towards each other, but as a legal penalty or punishment for certain offenses. Retaliation is also manifest in the punishment prescribed for murder—life for life. Legal punishments are adjusted and inflicted by the law and magistrate, and not by unauthorized individuals. These and all other positive laws or ordinances established by Divine direction, must of necessity be consistent with the moral law. It certainly was not the design of the law or ordinance in question, to encourage a spirit of personal or private revenge. On the contrary, there are express injunctions in the law of Moses which inculcate a very different spirit; such as these: “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people; but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” “Love the stranger, for ye were strangers in Egypt.” “If thou meet thy enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him,” etc., etc.

There is reason to believe that Solomon understood the law in its true sense, and we have his opinion as to retaliation of injuries, viz.: “Say not, I will recompense evil; but wait upon the Lord, and He will save thee.” Again: “Say not, I will do to him as he hath done to me. I will render to the man according to his work.” And again:” If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink; for thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord shall reward thee.”

But a greater than Solomon has removed all doubts on this point. On being asked by a Jewish lawyer, which was the great commandment in the law, our Savior answered: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and the great commandment, and the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” It is manifest, therefore, that the love of God and the love of man are enjoined by the law; and as the genuine love of the one comprehends that of the other, the apostle assures us that “Love is the fulfilling of the law.”

It is, nevertheless, certain, that erroneous opinions respecting retaliation, and who were to be regarded as neighbors, had long prevailed, and that our Savior blamed and corrected those and many other unfounded doctrines.

That the patriarchs sometimes violated the moral law, is a position not to be disputed. They were men, and subject to the frailties of our fallen nature. But I do not know nor believe, that any of them violated the moral law by the authority or with the approbation of the Almighty. I can find no instance of it in the Bible. Nor do I know of any action done according to the moral law, that is censured or forbidden by the gospel. On the contrary, it appears to me that the gospel strongly enforces the whole moral law, and clears it from the vain traditions and absurd comments which had obscured and misapplied certain parts of it.

As, therefore, Divine ordinances did authorize just war, as those ordinances were necessarily consistent with the moral law, and as the moral law is incorporated in the Christian dispensation, I think it follows that the right to wage just and necessary war is admitted, and not abolished, by the gospel.

You seem to doubt whether there ever was a just war, and that it would puzzle even Solomon to find one.

Had such a doubt been proposed to Solomon, an answer to it would probably have been suggested to him by a very memorable and interesting war which occurred in his day. I allude to the war in which his brother Absalom on the one side, and his father David on the other, were the belligerent parties. That war was caused by, and proceeded from, “the lusts” of Absalom, and was horribly wicked. But the war waged against him by David was not caused by, nor did proceed from, “the lusts” of David, but was right, just, and necessary. Had David submitted to be dethroned by his detestable son, he would, in my opinion, have violated his moral duty and betrayed his official trust.

Although just war is not forbidden by the gospel in express terms, yet you think an implied prohibition of all war, without exception, is deducible from the answer of our Lord to Pilate, viz.: “If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight,” etc.

At the conclusion of the Last Supper, our Lord said to his disciples: “He that hath no sword, let him now sell his garment and buy one,” They answered: “Lord, here are two swords.” He replied: “It is enough.”

It is not to be presumed that our Lord would have ordered swords to be provided, but for some purpose for which a sword was requisite; nor that he would have been satisfied with two, if more had been necessary.

Whatever may have been the purposes for which swords were ordered, it is certain that the use of one of those swords soon caused an event which confirmed the subsequent defense of our Lord before Pilate, and also produced other important results. When the officers and their band arrived, with swords and with staves, to take Jesus, they who were about him saw what would follow. “They said unto him: Lord, shall we smite with the sword?” It does not appear that any of the eleven disciples who were with him, except one, made the least attempt to defend him. But Peter, probably inferring from the order for swords, that they were now to be used, proceeded to “smite a servant of the high-priest, and cut off his right ear.” Jesus (perhaps, among other reasons, to abate inducements to prosecute Peter for that violent attack) healed the ear.

He ordered Peter to put his sword into its sheath, and gave two reasons for it. The first related to himself, and amounted to this, that he would make no opposition, saying: “The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink?” The second related to Peter, viz., they who take the sword, shall perish by the sword; doubtless meaning that they who take and use a sword, as Peter had just done, without lawful authority, and against lawful authority, incur the penalty and risk of perishing by the sword. This meaning seems to be attached to those words by the occasion and circumstances which prompted them. If understood in their unlimited latitude, they would contradict the experience and testimony of all ages, it being manifest that many military men die peaceably in their beds.

The disciples did believe and expect that Jesus had come to establish a temporal kingdom. “They trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel.” “They knew not the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead; questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.” Even after his resurrection, they appear to have entertained the same belief and expectation; for on the very day he ascended, they asked him: “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”

The order for swords, and the declaration that two were enough, tended to confirm that belief and expectation, and to inspire a confidence that he who had commanded the winds and the waves, and had raised the dead to life, was able, as well as willing, to render the two swords sufficient to vanquish his enemies. Could anything less than such a firm belief and confidence have prompted eleven such men, and with only two swords among them, to offer to “smite with the sword” the armed band, which, under officers appointed by the Jewish rulers, had come to apprehend their Master?

Great must have been the disappointment and astonishment of the disciples, when Jesus unexpectedly and peaceably submitted to the power and malice of his enemies, directing Peter to sheath his sword, and hinting to him the danger he had incurred by drawing it: amazed and terrified, they forsook him and fled. This catastrophe so surprised and subdued the intrepidity of Peter, that he was no longer “ready to go with his Master to prison and to death.”

It seems that perplexity, consternation, and tumultuous feelings overwhelmed his faith and reflection, and that his agitations, receiving fresh excitement from the danger and dread of discovery, which soon after ensued, impelled him with heedless precipitation to deny his Master. This denial proved bitter to Peter, and it taught him and others that spiritual strength can be sustained only by the spiritual bread which cometh down from heaven.

The Jews accused Jesus before Pilate of aspiring to the temporal sovereignty of their nation, in violation of the legal rights of Caesar. Jesus, in his defense, admitted that he was king, but declared that his kingdom was not of this world. For the truth of this assertion, he appealed to the peaceable behavior of his adherents, saying:” If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews, but now is my kingdom not from hence.”

Pilate, who doubtless well knew what had been the conduct of Jesus, both before and at the time of his apprehension, was satisfied, but the Jews were not. They exclaimed: “If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend; whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Caesar.” “We have no king but Caesar.”

You and I understand the words in question very differently. Is there the least reason to infer from the belief and conduct of the disciples, that they were restrained from fighting by the consideration that their Master’s kingdom was not of this world? On the contrary, did they not believe and expect that he had come to restore one of the kingdoms of this world to Israel? The fact is, that they were ready and willing to fight. Did they not ask him: “Lord, shall we smite with the sword?” It was his will, therefore, and not their will, which restrained them from fighting; and for that restraint he assigned a very conclusive reason, viz., because his kingdom was not of this world.

To the advancement and support of his spiritual sovereignty over his spiritual kingdom, soldiers and swords and corporeal exertions were inapplicable and useless. But, on the other hand, soldiers and swords and corporeal exertions are necessary to enable the several temporal rulers of the states and kingdoms of this world to maintain their authority and protect themselves and their people; and our Savior expressly declared that if his kingdom had been of this world, then would his servants fight to protect him; or, in other words, that then, and in that case, he would not have restrained them from fighting. The lawfulness of such fighting, therefore, instead of being denied, is admitted and confirmed by that declaration.

This exposition coincides with the answer given by John the Baptist (who was “filled with the Holy Ghost”) to the soldiers who asked him what they should do, viz.: “Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely, and be content with your wages.” Can these words be rationally understood as meaning that they should receive wages for nothing; or that, when ordered to march against the enemy, they should refuse to proceed; or that, on meeting the enemy, they should either run away, or passively submit to be captured or slaughtered? This would be attaching a meaning to his answer very foreign to the sense of the words in which he expressed it.

Had the gospel regarded war as being in every case sinful, it seems strange that the apostle Paul should have been so unguarded as, in teaching the importance of faith, to use an argument which clearly proves the lawfulness of war, viz.: “That it was through faith that Gideon, David, and others waxed valiant in fight, and turned to flight the armies of aliens”; thereby confirming the declaration of David, that it was God who had “girded him with strength to battle; and had taught his hands to war, and his fingers to fight.”

The gospel appears to me to consider the servants of Christ as having two capacities or characters, with correspondent duties to sustain and fulfill.

Being subjects of his spiritual kingdom, they are bound in that capacity to fight, pursuant to his orders, with spiritual weapons, against his and their spiritual enemies.

Being also subjects and partakers in the rights and interests of a temporal or worldly state or kingdom, they are in that capacity bound, whenever lawfully required, to fight with weapons in just and necessary war, against the worldly enemies of that state or kingdom.

Another view may be taken of the subject. The depravity which mankind inherited from their first parents, introduced wickedness into the world. That wickedness rendered human government necessary to restrain the violence and injustice resulting from it. To facilitate the establishment and administration of government, the human race became, in the course of Providence, divided into separate and distinct nations. Every nation instituted a government, with authority and power to protect it against domestic and foreign aggressions. Each government provided for the internal peace and security of the nation, by laws for punishing their offending subjects. The law of all the nations prescribed the conduct which they were to observe towards each other, and allowed war to be waged by an innocent against an offending nation, when rendered just and necessary by unprovoked, atrocious, and unredressed injuries.

Thus two kinds of justifiable warfare arose: one against domestic malefactors; the other against foreign aggressors. The first being regulated by the law of the land; the second by the law of nations; and both consistently with the moral law.

As to the first species of warfare, in every state or kingdom, the government or executive ruler has, throughout all ages, pursued, and often at the expense of blood, attacked, captured, and subdued murderers, robbers, and other offenders; by force confining them in chains and in prisons, and by force inflicting on them punishment; never rendering to them good for evil, for that duty attaches to individuals in their personal or private capacities, but not to rulers or magistrates in their official capacities. This species of war has constantly and universally been deemed just and indispensable. On this topic the gospel is explicit. It commands us to obey the higher powers or ruler. It reminds us that “he beareth not the sword in vain”; that “he is the minister of God, and a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Now, if he is not to bear the sword in vain, it follows that he is to use it to execute wrath on evildoers, and consequently to draw blood and to kill on proper occasions.

As to the second species of warfare, it certainly is as reasonable and as right that a nation be secure against injustice, disorder, and rapine from without as from within; and therefore it is the right and duty of the government or ruler to use force and the sword to protect and maintain the rights of his people against evildoers of another nation. The reason and necessity of using force and the sword being the same in both cases, the right or the law must be the same also.

We are commanded to render to our government, or to our Caesar, “the things that are Caesar’s” that is, the things which belong to him, and not the things which do not belong to him. And surely this command cannot be construed to intend or imply that we ought to render to the Caesar of another nation more than belongs to him.

In case some powerful Caesar should demand of us to receive and obey a king of his nomination, and unite with him in all his wars, or that he would commence hostilities against us, what answer would it be proper for us to give to such a demand? In my opinion, we ought to refuse, and vigorously defend our independence by arms. To what other expedient could we have recourse? I cannot think that the gospel authorizes or encourages us, on such an occasion, to abstain from resistance, and to expect miracles to deliver us.

A very feeble unprepared nation, on receiving such a demand, might hesitate and find it expedient to adopt the policy intimated in the gospel, viz.: “What king, going to war against another king, sitteth not down first and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand; or else he sendeth an embassage, and desireth conditions of peace “—that is, makes the best bargain he can.

If the United States should unanimously resolve never more to use the sword, would a certified copy of it prove to be an effectual Mediterranean passport? Would it reform the predatory rulers of Africa, or persuade the successive potentates of Europe to observe towards us the conduct of real Christians? On the contrary, would it not present new facilities, and consequently produce new excitements, to the gratification of avarice and ambition?

It is true that even just war is attended with evils, and so likewise is the administration of government and of justice; but is that a good reason for abolishing either of them? They are means by which greater evils are averted. Among the various means necessary to obviate or remove, or repress, or to mitigate the various calamities, dangers, and exigencies, to which in this life we are exposed, how few are to be found which do not subject us to troubles, privations, and inconveniences of one kind or other. To prevent the incursion or continuance of evils, we must submit to the use of those means, whether agreeable or otherwise, which reason and experience prescribe.

It is also true, and to be lamented, that war, however just and necessary, sends many persons out of this world who are ill prepared for a better. And so also does the law in all countries. So also does navigation, and other occupations. Are they therefore all sinful and forbidden?

However desirable the abolition of all wars may be, yet until the morals and manners of mankind are greatly changed, it will be found impracticable. We are taught that national sins will be punished, and war is one of the punishments. The prophets predict wars at so late a period as the restoration of the Israelites. Who or what can hinder the occurrence of those wars?

I nevertheless believe, and have perfect faith in the prophecy, that the time will come when “the nations will beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; when nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” But does not this prophecy clearly imply, and give us plainly to understand, that in the meanwhile, and until the arrival of that blessed period, the nations will not beat their swords into plowshares, nor their
spears into pruning-hooks; that nation will not forbear to lift up sword against nation, nor cease to learn war?

It may be asked, Are we to do nothing to hasten the arrival of that happy period? Literally, no created being can either accelerate or retard its arrival. It will not arrive sooner nor later than the appointed time.

There certainly is reason to expect, that as great providential events have usually been preceded and introduced by the intervention of providential means to prepare the way for them, so the great event in question will be preceded and introduced in like manner. It is, I think, more than probable, that the unexpected and singular cooperation and the extra ordinary zeal and efforts of almost all Christian nations to extend the light and knowledge of the gospel, and to inculcate its doctrines, are among those preparatory means. It is the duty of Christians to promote the prevalence and success of such means, and to look forward with faith and hope to the result of them.

But whatever may be the time or the means adopted by Providence for the abolition of war, I think we may, without presumption, conclude that mankind must be prepared and fitted for the reception, enjoyment, and preservation of universal permanent peace, before they will be blessed with it. Are they as yet fitted for it? Certainly not. Even if it was practicable, would it be wise to disarm the good before “the wicked cease from troubling?” By what other means than arms and military force can unoffending rulers and nations protect their rights against unprovoked aggressions from within and from without? Are there any other means to which they could recur, and on the efficacy of which they could rely? To this question I have not as yet heard, nor seen, a direct and precise answer.


John Jay  John Murray, October 12, 1816 & April 15, 1818, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay,
ed. Henry Johnston (New York: G. P. Punam’s Sons, 1893), IV:391-393, 403-419.

The Founders As Christians

Note: this is a representative list only, there are many other quotes that could be listed.


Samuel Adams
Father of the American Revolution, Signer of the Declaration of Independence

I . . . recommend my Soul to that Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.

(Will of Samuel Adams)


Charles Carroll
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits; not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts.

(From an autographed letter in our possession written by Charles Carroll to Charles W. Wharton, Esq., on September 27, 1825.)


William Cushing
First Associate Justice Appointed by George Washington to the Supreme Court

Sensible of my mortality, but being of sound mind, after recommending my soul to Almighty God through the merits of my Redeemer and my body to the earth.

(Will of William Cushing)


John Dickinson
Signer of the Constitution

Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity.

(Will of John Dickinson)


John Hancock
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

I John Hancock, . . . being advanced in years and being of perfect mind and memory-thanks be given to God-therefore calling to mind the mortality of my body and knowing it is appointed for all men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do make and ordain this my last will and testament…Principally and first of all, I give and recommend my soul into the hands of God that gave it: and my body I recommend to the earth . . . nothing doubting but at the general resurrection I shall receive the same again by the mercy and power of God.

(Will of John Hancock)


Patrick Henry
Governor of Virginia, Patriot

This is all the inheritance I can give to my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.

(Will of Patrick Henry)


John Jay
First Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court

Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved son. He has been pleased to bless me with excellent parents, with a virtuous wife, and with worthy children. His protection has companied me through many eventful years, faithfully employed in the service of my country; His providence has not only conducted me to this tranquil situation but also given me abundant reason to be contented and thankful. Blessed be His holy name!

(Will of John Jay)


Daniel St. Thomas Jenifer
Signer of the Constitution

In the name of God, Amen. I, Daniel of Saint Thomas Jenifer . . . of dispossing mind and memory, commend my soul to my blessed Redeemer. . .

(Will of Daniel St. Thomas Jenifer)


Henry Knox
Revolutionary War General, Secretary of War

First, I think it proper to express my unshaken opinion of the immortality of my soul or mind; and to dedicate and devote the same to the supreme head of the Universe – to that great and tremendous Jehovah, – Who created the universal frame of nature, worlds, and systems in number infinite . . . To this awfully sublime Being do I resign my spirit with unlimited confidence of His mercy and protection.

(Will of Henry Knox)


John Langdon
Signer of the Constitution

In the name of God, Amen. I, John Langdon, . . . considering the uncertainty of life and that it is appointed unto all men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do make, ordain and publish this my last will and testament in manner following, that is to say-First: I commend my soul to the infinite mercies of God in Christ Jesus, the beloved Son of the Father, who died and rose again that He might be the Lord of the dead and of the living . . . professing to believe and hope in the joyful Scripture doctrine of a resurrection to eternal life.

(Will of John Langdon)


John Morton
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

With an awful reverence to the great Almighty God, Creator of all mankind, I, John Morton . . . being sick and weak in body but of sound mind and memory-thanks be given to Almighty God for the same, for all His mercies and favors-and considering the certainty of death and the uncertainty of the times thereof, do, for the settling of such temporal estate as it hath pleased God to bless me with in this life . . .

(Will of John Morton)


Robert Treat Paine
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

I desire to bless and praise the name of God most high for appointing me my birth in a land of Gospel Light where the glorious tidings of a Savior and of pardon and salvation through Him have been continually sounding in mine ears.

(Robert Treat Paine, The Papers of Robert Treat Paine, eds. Stephen Riley & Edward Hanson (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1992), I:48.)

[W]hen I consider that this instrument contemplates my departure from this life and all earthly enjoyments and my entrance on another state of existence, I am constrained to express my adoration of the Supreme Being, the Author of my existence, in full belief of his providential goodness and his forgiving mercy revealed to the world through Jesus Christ, through whom I hope for never ending happiness in a future state, acknowledging with grateful remembrance the happiness I have enjoyed in my passage through a long life.

(Will of Robert Treat Paine)


Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Signer of the Constitution

To the eternal, immutable, and only true God be all honor and glory, now and forever, Amen!

(Will of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney)


Rufus Putnam

Revolutionary War General, First Surveyor General of the United States

[F]irst, I give my soul to a holy, sovereign God Who gave it in humble hope of a blessed immortality through the atonement and righteousness of Jesus Christ and the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit. My body I commit to the earth to be buried in a decent Christian manner. I fully believe that this body shall, by the mighty power of God, be raised to life at the last day; ‘for this corruptable (sic) must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality.’ [I Corinthians 15:53]

(Will of Rufus Putnam)


Benjamin Rush
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

My only hope of salvation is in the infinite, transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly!

(Benjamin Rush, The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush, ed. George Corner (Princeton: Princeton University Press for the American Philosophical Society, 1948), 166.)


Roger Sherman
Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Signer of the Constitution

I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. . . . that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God. . . . that God did send His own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners, and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the Gospel offer.

(Lewis Henry Boutell, The Life of Roger Sherman (Chicago: A. C. McClurg and Company, 1896), 272-273.)


Richard Stockton
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

I think it proper here not only to subscribe to the entire belief of the great and leading doctrines of the Christian religion, such as the Being of God, the universal defection and depravity of human nature, the divinity of the person and the completeness of the redemption purchased by the blessed Savior, the necessity of the operations of the Divine Spirit, of Divine Faith, accompanied with an habitual virtuous life, and the universality of the divine Providence, but also . . . that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom; that the way of life held up in the Christian system is calculated for the most complete happiness that can be enjoyed in this mortal state; that all occasions of vice and immorality is injurious either immediately or consequentially, even in this life; that as Almighty God hath not been pleased in the Holy Scriptures to prescribe any precise mode in which He is to be publicly worshiped, all contention about it generally arises from want of knowledge or want of virtue.

(Will of Richard Stockton)


Jonathan Trumbull Sr.
Governor of Connecticut, Patriot

Principally and first of all, I bequeath my soul to God the Creator and Giver thereof, and body to the Earth . . . nothing doubting but that I shall receive the same again at the General Resurrection thro the power of Almighty God; believing and hoping for eternal life thro the merits of my dear, exalted Redeemer Jesus Christ.

(Will of Jonathan Trumbull)


John Witherspoon
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

I entreat you in the most earnest manner to believe in Jesus Christ, for there is no salvation in any other [Acts 4:12]. . . . [I]f you are not reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, if you are not clothed with the spotless robe of His righteousness, you must forever perish.

(John Witherspoon, “The Absolute Necessity of Salvation Through Christ,” January 2, 1758, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), V:276, 278.)

Benjamin Franklin’s letter to Thomas Paine

Benjamin Franklin (1706-90) was a printer, author, inventor, scientist, philanthropist, statesman, diplomat, and public official. He was the first president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery (1774); a member of the Continental Congress (1775-76) where he signed the Declaration of Independence (1776); a negotiator and signer of the final treaty of peace with Great Britain (1783); and a delegate to the Constitutional Convention where he signed the federal Constitution (1787); Franklin was one of only six men who signed both the Declaration and the Constitution. He wrote his own epitaph, which declared: “The body of Benjamin Franklin, printer, like the cover of an old book, its contents torn out, stripped of its lettering, and guilding, lies here, food for worms. But the work shall not be lost; for it will, as he believed, appear once more in a new and more elegant edition, revised and corrected by the Author.”


Benjamin Franklin was frequently consulted by Thomas Paine for advice and suggestions regarding his political writings, and Franklin assisted Paine with some of his famous essays. This letter1 is Franklin’s response to a manuscript Paine sent him that advocated against the concept of a providential God.

TO THOMAS PAINE.
[Date uncertain.]

DEAR SIR,

I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtile and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face.

But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.

I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours,

B. Franklin

Paine later published his Age of Reason, which infuriated many of the Founding Fathers. John Adams wrote, “The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.”2

Samuel Adams wrote Paine a stiff rebuke, telling him, “[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States.”3

Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickinson that Paine’s Age of Reason was “absurd and impious”;4 Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine’s work as “blasphemous writings against the Christian religion”;5 John Witherspoon said that Paine was “ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith”;6 and Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation—a full-length rebuttal to Paine’s work.7 Patrick Henry, too, wrote a refutation of Paine’s work which he described as “the puny efforts of Paine.”8

When William Paterson, signer of the Constitution and a Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court, learned that some Americans seemed to agree with Paine’s work, he thundered, “Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and your God?”9 Zephaniah Swift, author of America’s first law book, noted, “He has the impudence and effrontery [shameless boldness] to address to the citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake their faith in the religion of their fathers.”10 John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, was comforted by the fact that Christianity would prevail despite Paine’s attack, “I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds.”11 In fact, Paine’s views caused such vehement public opposition that he spent his last years in New York as “an outcast” in “social ostracism” and was buried in a farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains.12


Endnotes

1 Benjamin Franklin to [Thomas Paine], undated, The Private Correspondence of Benjamin Franklin, ed. William Temple Franklin (London: Henry Colburn, 1818), I:274-275.

2 John Adams diary entry for July 26, 1796, The Works of John Adams, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Charles Little and James Brown, 1841), III:421.

3 Samuel Adams to Thomas Paine, November 30, 1802, William V. Wells, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1865), III:372-373.

4 Benjamin Rush to John Dickinson, February 16, 1796, Letters of Benjamin Rush, ed. L. H. Butterfield (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), II:770.

5 Joseph Gurn, Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York: P. J. Kennedy & Sons, 1932), 203.

6 John Witherspoon, “The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men,” May 17, 1776, The Works of the Reverend John Witherspoon (Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1802), III:24,n. 2.

7 Elias Boudinot to his daughter, The Age of Revelation (Philadelphia: Asbury Dickins, 1801), xii-xiv.

8 Patrick Henry to his daughter Betsy, August 20, 1796, S. G. Arnold, The Life of Patrick Henry of Virginia (Auburn and Buffalo: Miller, Orton and Mulligan, 1854), 250; George Morgan, Patrick Henry (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1929), 366 n; Bishop William Meade, Old Churches, Ministers, and Families of Virginia (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1857), II:12.

9 John E. O’Conner, William Paterson: Lawyer and Statesman (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1979), 244, from a Fourth of July Oration in 1798.

10 Zephaniah Swift, A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham: John Byrne, 1796), II:323-324.

11 John Jay to Rev. Uzal Ogden, February 14, 1796, William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833), II:266.

12 “Paine, Thoams,” Dictionary of American Biography.

George Washington’s Farewell Address

(There is an outline and a select dictionary at the end of this Address.)

Friends and Fellow-Citizens:

The period for a new election of a citizen, to administer the Executive Government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived, when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person, who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.

I beg you at the same time to do me the justice to be assured, that this resolution has not been taken, without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.

The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this previous to the last election had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence impelled me to abandon the idea. I rejoice, that the state of your concerns, external as well
as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty, or propriety, and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be
retained for my services, that in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.

The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.

In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude, which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me, and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead; amidst appearances sometimes dubious; vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging; in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave as a
strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution which is the work of your hands may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present to offer to your solemn contemplation and to recommend to your frequent review some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget as an encouragement to it your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth, as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual
happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the same agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and while it contributes in different ways to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water will more and more find, a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined in the united mass of means and efforts cannot fail to find greater strength, greater resource, proportionately greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations, and what is of inestimable value, they must derive from Union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rivalries alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is, that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavour to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our union it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head. They have seen in the negotiation by the Executive and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event
throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi. They have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties – that with Great Britain and that with Spain – which secure to them everything they could desire in respect to our foreign relations towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the union by which they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of your union a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute. They must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay by the adoption of a Constitution of Government better calculated than your former for an intimate union and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very
idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community, and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans, digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Toward the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember especially that for the efficient
management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours a Government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest Guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name where the Government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.

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 men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, “where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?” And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in times of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives; but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the Government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct. And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation prompted by ill-will and resentment sometimes impels to war the government contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject. At other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility,
instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim.

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak toward a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens), the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are
liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by our justice, shall counsel.

Why forgo the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the Government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish – that they will control the usual current of the passions or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good – that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism – this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated.

How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.

In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe my proclamation of the 22d of April, 1793, is the index to my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice and by that of your representatives in both Houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.

After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined as far as should depend upon me to maintain it with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.

The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe, that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all.

The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without any thing more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.

The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

Though, in reviewing the incidents of my Administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence, and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love toward it which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize without alloy the sweet enjoyment of partaking in the midst of my fellow citizens the benign influence of good laws under a free government – the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.

George Washington

OUTLINE

  1. Retirement from office.
    1. He realizes people must be thinking about his replacement, therefore he declines re-election.
    2. He has thought it through, and feels like it is in everyone’s best interest.
    3. He wanted to retire earlier, but foreign affairs and advice from those he respected caused him to “abandon the idea.”
    4. Now that everything is calm, he is persuaded that the people will not disapprove of this “determination to retire.”
    5. He is convinced his age forces retirement, and he welcomes the opportunity.
    6. He offers gratitude for the people’s support.
    7. He offers a blessing “that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence. . .”
  2. Scope of the Address.
    1. His sentiments are for the people’s “frequent review,” he wanted us to read and re-read the Address.
    2. His only motive was as a friend.
    3. He felt no need to recommend a love of liberty – it was already there.
  3. Unity of Government.
    1. Unity is a “main pillar” of “real independence”:
      1. for the support of “tranquility at home”
      2. for “your peace abroad”
      3. for “your safety”
      4. for “your prosperity”
      5. for “that very liberty which you so highly prize.”
    2. Common attributes of unity:
      1. same religion
      2. manners
      3. habits
      4. political principles.
    3. The most commanding motive is to preserve the “union of the whole.”
    4. The North, South, East, and West all depend on each other.
    5. Unity leads to greater strength, resources, and security.
    6. Unity will help “avoid the necessity of . . . overgrown military establishments” and will be the main “prop of your liberty.”
    7. He questions the patriotism of anyone who tries to “weaken its bands.”
    8. It was unity that brought two valuable treaties:
      1. with Great Britain
      2. with Spain.
    9. Government for the whole – via the Constitution – is indispensable; not just alliances between sections.
      1. the adoption of the Constitution was an improvement on the former “essay.”
      2. respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, and acquiescence in its measures are fundamental maxims of true liberty.
      3. the people’s right to alter constitutions is the basis of our political system.
  4. Spirit of Party.
    1. Parties are “potent engines” that men will use to take over the “reins of government.”
    2. Washington warns against parties’ “baneful effects”:
      1. leads to the absolute power of an individual
      2. “discourage and restrain” the spirit of party
      3. leads to “jealousies and false alarms”
      4. “animosity of one part against another”
      5. can lead to “riot and insurrection”
      6. opens “door to foreign influence and corruption”
      7. “it is a spirit not to be encouraged.”
  5. Spirit of Encroachment.
    1. Leads to “a real despotism.”
    2. There is a necessity of “reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power.”
    3. If a problem arises, correct it by an amendment, not by “usurpation.”
  6. Religion and Morality.
    1. Are “indispensable supports” for “political prosperity.”
    2. Are the “firmest props of the duties of Men and Country.”
    3. The oaths in our courts would be useless without “the sense of religious obligation.”
    4. “And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.”
    5. “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
    6. “Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge.”
  7. Debt.
    1. “Avoid occasions of expense by cultivating peace . . . .”
    2. “Timely disbursements to prepare for danger” are better than “greater disbursements to repel it.”
    3. Avoid debt: in time of peace, pay off debts..
    4. Public opinion should “cooperate” with their representatives to pay off debt.
    5. Some taxes are necessary even though “inconvenient and unpleasant.”
  8. Foreign Policy.
    1. We should exercise “good faith and justice towards all nations.”
      1. “religion and morality enjoin this conduct”
      2. we should be guided by “an exalted justice and benevolence.”
    2. Replace “inveterate antipathies” (hatred) and passionate attachments with “just and amicable feelings.”
      1. “passionate attachments” produce a variety of evils
      2. these attachments will lead you into “quarrels and wars”
      3. they will also lead to favoritism, conceding “privileges denied to others.”
    3. Foreign “attachments” are “alarming” because they open the door to foreigners who might:
      1. “tamper with domestic factions”
      2. “practise the arts of seduction”
      3. “mislead public opinion”
      4. influence “Public Councils.”
    4. “Foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.”
    5. “The great rule of conduct for us”: “as little political connection as possible.”
      1. we should fulfill obligations, then stop
      2. we should not get involved in Europe’s affairs.
    6. Our “detached and distant situation . . . enables . . . a different course.”
    7. “Steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”
    8. However, we may have “temporary alliances, for extraordinary emergencies.”
    9. Maintain “a liberal intercourse with all nations.”
  9. Conclusion.
    1. Washington hopes his counsel will:
      1. “help moderate the fury of party spirit”
      2. “warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue”
      3. “guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”
    2. He believes himself to be guided by the “principles which have been delineated” above.
    3. A “neutral position” is the best course to take regarding the “subsisting war in Europe.”
      1. that neutrality is the right course has been “admitted by all.”
      2. our “motive has been to endeavor to gain time for our country to settle and mature” until America has “command of its own fortunes.”
    4. Washington asks “the Almighty” to correct any unintentional errors or defects from his administration.
    5. He looks forward to retiring and enjoying “good laws under a free government.”
    6. Closing words.

VOCABULARYacquiescence – agreement without protest. Consent.

actuate – put into motion. Motivate.

admonish – to counsel against. Caution.

alienate – to cause to become unfriendly. Exclude.

alliance – a formal pact between nations. Partnership.

animosity – bitter hostility. Hatred.

antipathies – strong feelings of hatred or opposition. Aversions.

apostate – abandoning one’s principles. Defective or Traitorous.

appellation – a name or title.

appertaining – relating to.

apprise – to give notice; to inform. Notify.

arduous – demanding great care, effort, or labor. Difficult.

artifices – subtle but base deceptions. Tricks.

assuage – make less burdensome or painful. Relieve.

auspice – protection or support. Authority.

auxiliary – giving assistance or support. Supplementary.

avert – to turn away. Prevent.

baneful – causing death, destruction, or ruin. Harmful.

belligerent – inclined or eager to fight. Hostile.

beneficence – a charitable act or gift. Kindness.

benevolence – an inclination to do kind or charitable acts. Goodness.

benign – tending to promote well-being. Beneficial.

beseech – to call upon earnestly. Request.

bias – to cause to have a prejudice view. Distort.

conceded – acknowledged as true, just, or proper. Given.

conjure – to call upon or entreat solemnly. Call upon.

consigned – turned over to another’s charge. Delivered.

consolation – the comforting in time of grief, defeat, or trouble. Comfort.

contemplation – thoughtful observation. Meditation.

countenanced – to give or express approval to. Approved.

covertly – concealed, hidden, or secret.

cultivate – promote the growth of. Develop.

deference – yielding to the wishes of another. Consideration.

deliberate – planned in advance. Intentional.

delineated – depicted in words or gestures. Outlined.

despotisms – political system with one man in absolute power. Oppression.

diffidence – the quality of lacking self-confidence. Humility.

diffusing – causing to spread freely. Spreading.

diffusion – the process of diffusing. Spreading.

diminution – reduction. Decrease.

disbursements – money paid out. Expenditures.

discriminations – acts based on prejudice. Prejudices.

dispositions – an habitual tendency or inclination. Tendencies.

diversifying – giving variety to. Varying.

dubious – causing doubt or uncertainty. Uncertain.

edifice – a building of imposing appearance or size. Structure.

efficacy – power to produce a desired effect. Effectiveness.

encroach – to advance beyond proper limits. Intrude.

enmities – deep-seated mutual hatred. Hostilities.

ennobles – raises in rank. Elevates.

envenomed – poisoned or embittered. Poisoned.

evinced – to show clearly or convincingly. Demonstrated.

exemption – a freedom from obligation or duty. Freedom.

exigencies – situations needing immediate attention. Necessities.

expedients – something adopted to meet an urgent need. Schemes.

facilitating – making something easier. Assisting.

fallible – capable of making an error. Imperfect.

felicity – great happiness or bliss. Happiness.

fervently – having great emotion or warmth. Earnestly.

hypothesis – something considered to be true. Assumption.

impostures – deceptions through false identities. Deceptions.

inauspicious – unfavorable.

incongruous – not consistent with what is logical, customary, or correct.
Disagreeable.

indispensable – not able to be done away with. Essential.

indissoluble – impossible to break or undo. Indestructible.

inducement – something that leads to action. Influence.

indulgent – granted as a favor or privilege. Agreeable.

inferred – figured out from evidence. Understood.

infidelity – lack of loyalty. disloyalty.

insidiously – spreading harm in a subtle way. Dishonestly.

instigated – stirred up or urged on. Aroused.

intercourse – communication between persons or groups. Business.

intimated – to announce or proclaim. Spoken.

intractable – hard to manage or govern. Stubborn.

intrigue – secret schemes or plots. Affairs.

intrinsic – having to do with the very nature of a thing. Natural.

inveterate – firmly established and deeply rooted. Established.

inviolate – not violated or changed. Unchanged.

invigorated – given strength and vitality. Energized.

inviolable – not able to be violated. Unchanging.

laudable – deserving approval. Praiseworthy.

magnanimous – noble of mind and heart. Idealistic.

maxim – fundamental principle or rule of conduct. Principle.

mitigate – to make less severe or intense. Weaken.

monarchy – a state ruled by an absolute ruler, such as a king or emperor.

obligatory – legally or morally binding. Required.

oblivion – the condition of being completely forgotten. Nonexistence.

obstinate – hard to manage, control, or subdue. Uncontrollable.

odium – a strong dislike for something. Disfavor.

pernicious – causing great harm and destruction. Destructive.

perpetrated – to be guilty of bringing something about. Committed.

perpetual – lasting for eternity. Unending.

plausible – appearing to be valid, likely, or acceptable. Believable.

posterity – future generations.

precarious – lacking in security and stability. Uncertain.

precedent – an act used as an example in future situations.

predominant – having great importance, influence, or authority. Important.

procured – obtained or acquired.

progenitors – a direct ancestor. Ancestors.

propensity – a tendency to do something. Tendency.

propagated – cause to multiply. Spread.

provocation – a reason to take action.

prudence – good judgment and common sense. Wisdom.

recompense – payment for something done. Repayment.

requisite – essential or required.

scrupulously – to do something with ethical considerations. Conscientiously.

seduction – the act of leading away from proper conduct. Misleading.

solicitude – the state of being concerned or eager. Concern.

specious – appearing to be true, but being false. Deceptive.

subservient – under the control of something. Subject.

subvert – to undermine the character, morals, or allegiance of. Overthrow.

suffrages – votes.

supposition – the idea that something is true. Idea.

tenure – the terms under which something is held. Terms.

tranquility – the state of being free from disturbance. Peace.

transient – passing away with time. Temporary.

umbrage – offense. Resentment.

usurpation – the seizing of power by force and without legal right. Overthrow.

vicissitudes – changes or variations. Changes.

vigilance – alert watchfulness. Watchfulness.

virtuous – morally excellent and righteous. Pure.

weal – the welfare of the community. Welfare.

Importance of Morality and Religion in Government

John Adams
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States

[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.1

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.2

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.3

John Quincy Adams
Sixth President of the United States

The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws.4

There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.5

Samuel Adams
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.6

Fisher Ames
Framer of the First Amendment

Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.7

Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.8

Oliver Ellsworth
Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court

[T]he primary objects of government are the peace, order, and prosperity of society. . . . To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support: and among these . . . religious institutions are eminently useful and important. . . . [T]he legislature, charged with the great interests of the community, may, and ought to countenance, aid and protect religious institutions—institutions wisely calculated to direct men to the performance of all the duties arising from their connection with each other, and to prevent or repress those evils which flow from unrestrained passion.9

Benjamin Franklin
Signer of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence

[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.10

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest. I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.11

* For more details on this quote, click here.

Thomas Jefferson
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Third President of the United States

Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly. Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise, as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual. From the practice of the purest virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life, and in the moment of death.12

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind.13

I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers.14

Richard Henry Lee
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

It is certainly true that a popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the people.15

James McHenry
Signer of the Constitution

[P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.16

Jedediah Morse
Patriot and “Father of American Geography”

To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.17

William Penn
Founder of Pennsylvania

[I]t is impossible that any people of government should ever prosper, where men render not unto God, that which is God’s, as well as to Caesar, that which is Caesar’s.18

Pennsylvania Supreme Court

No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.19

Benjamin Rush
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.20

We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism.21

By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” [Matthew 1:18]22

Remember that national crimes require national punishments, and without declaring what punishment awaits this evil, you may venture to assure them that it cannot pass with impunity, unless God shall cease to be just or merciful.23

Joseph Story
Supreme Court Justice

Indeed, the right of a society or government to [participate] in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state and indispensable to the administrations of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion—the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to Him for all our actions, founded upon moral accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues—these never can be a matter of indifference in any well-ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive how any civilized society can well exist without them.24

George Washington
“Father of Our Country”

While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.25

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. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?26

[T]he [federal] government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, and oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any other despotic or oppressive form so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the people.27

* For the full text of Geo. Washington’s Farewell Address, click here.

Daniel Webster
Early American Jurist and Senator

[I]f we and our posterity reject religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity.28

Noah Webster
Founding Educator

The most perfect maxims and examples for regulating your social conduct and domestic economy, as well as the best rules of morality and religion, are to be found in the Bible. . . . The moral principles and precepts found in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. These principles and precepts have truth, immutable truth, for their foundation. . . . All the evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible. . . . For instruction then in social, religious and civil duties resort to the scriptures for the best precepts.29

James Wilson
Signer of the Constitution

Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both.30

Robert Winthrop
Former Speaker of the US House of Representatives

Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.31


Endnotes

1 John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), IX:401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.
2 John Adams, October 11, 1798, Works of Adams, ed. Adams (1854), IX:229.
3 John Adams, Works of Adams, ed. Adams (1851), VI:9.
4 John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams, to His Son, on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), 61.
5 John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy (1850), 22-23.
6 Samuel Adams, The Public Advertiser, 1749, William V. Wells, The Life and Public Service of Samuel Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1865), I:22.
7 Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), 23.
8 Charles Carroll to James McHenry, November 4, 1800, Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475.
9 Connecticut Courant (June 7, 1802), 3, Oliver Ellsworth, to the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut
10 Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Jared Sparks (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840), X:297, April 17, 1787.
11 James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), I:450-452, June 28, 1787.
12 Thomas Jefferson to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Albert Bergh (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1903), V:82-83.
13 Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Jefferson, ed. Bergh (1904), XV:383.
14 Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, April 19, 1803, Writings of Jefferson, ed. Bergh (1904), X:376-377.
15 Richard Henry Lee to Colonel Mortin Pickett, March 5, 1786, The Letters of Richard Henry Lee, ed. James Curtis Ballagh (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1914), II:411.
16 Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Maryland Bible Society, 1921), 14.
17 Jedidiah Morse, A Sermon, Exhibiting the Present Dangers and Consequent Duties of the Citizens of the United States of America (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1799), 9.
18 Fundamental Constitutions of Pennsylvania, 1682. Written by William Penn, founder of the colony of Pennsylvania.
19 Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1824, Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 11 Serg. & R. 393, 406 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1824).
20 Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), 8.
21 Benjamin Rush, Essays (1806), 93-94.
22 Benjamin Rush to John Adams, January 23, 1807, Letters of Benjamin Rush, ed. L. H. Butterfield (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), 936.
23 Benjamin Rush, An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements in America Upon Slave-Keeping (Boston: John Boyles, 1773), 30.
24 Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1847), 260, §442.
25 George Washington, address to the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in North America, October 9, 1789, The Writings of George Washington, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), XXX:432n.
26 George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge, 1796), 22-23.
27 George Washington to Marquis De Lafayette, February 7, 1788, Writings of Washington, ed. Fitzpatrick (1939), XXIX:410.
28 Daniel Webster, “The Dignity and Importance of History,” February 23, 1852, The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown, & Company, 1903), XIII:492.
29 Noah Webster, History of the United States, “Advice to the Young” (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), 338-340.
30 James Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson (Philadelphia: Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), I:106.
31 Robert Winthrop, “Either by the Bible or the Bayonet,” Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1852), 172.

Sermon – Thanksgiving – 1774

John Lathrop (1740-1816) Biography:

John Lathrop, also spelled Lothrop, was born in Norwich, Connecticut. He graduated from Princeton in 1763 and began working as an assistant teacher with the Rev. Dr. Eleazar Wheelock of Lebanon, Connecticut, at Moor’s Indian Charity School. He studied theology under Dr. Wheelock (who later founded Dartmouth College) and became licensed to preach in 1767, ministering among the Indians. In 1768, he became the preacher of the Second Church of Boston, but as Boston was central in the rising tensions and violence with the British leading up to the American War for Independence, he relocated to Providence, Rhode Island. When the Founding Fathers declared independence from Britain in 1776, Lathrop returned to Boston. When Dr. Pemberton of New Brick Church was taken ill, Lathrop was asked to become the assistant to the pastor. When Pemberton passed away a year later, Lathrop became pastor of New Brick Church but also retained the pastorate of Second Church, merging it into New Brick in 1779. Lathrop remained pastor until his death from lung fever in 1816. He had served as President of the Massachusetts Bible Society and the Society of Propagating the Gospel in North America, and he was also a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Antiquarian Society. Numerous of his sermons were published, including the following one delivered on December 15, 1774.


sermon-thanksgiving-1774

A

DISCOURSE

PREACHED,

December 15th 1774.

Being the Day Recommended

By the Provincial Congress,

To Be Observed

In thanksgiving to God for the Blessings
enjoyed; and humiliation on account of
public Calamities.

By
JOHN LATHROP, A. M.
Pastor of the Second Church in Boston.

A
DISCOURSE,
FROM

PSALM CI. I.
I will sing of mercy and judgment: unto thee O Lord will I sing.

AUTHORIZED by a divine precept, 1 and excited by the feelings of gratitude, the inhabitants of these northern provinces, have made it their constant practice, to meet in their religious assemblies, at the close of the year, and devoutly offer unto the Lord, their sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.

When the fruits of the earth are gathered in, and we are furnished with provisions for an expensive winter season, nothing can be more proper, than for a people professing godliness, to unite in paying their thankful acknowledgments to the father of the universe, for the expressions of his goodness.—And we rejoice, that the representatives of this Province, who, in the present distracted state of our public affairs, have been consulting the most proper ways to recover and secure our invaded liberties, were not unmindful of the blessings we receive from God almighty; but have invited us to observe this day of general thanksgiving.

But although we have much reason to bless the Lord, for the many expressions of his goodness, through the course of the last year, it is proper, even on this day of festivity, “to humble ourselves before God, on account of those sins, for which he hath suffered our present calamities to come upon us, and implore the divine blessing, that by the assistances of his grace, we may be enabled to reform whatever is amiss, that so God may be pleased to continue to us the blessings we enjoy, and remove the tokens of his displeasure.” 2

The exercises of this day, will therefore be different from what have been usual; and I could think of no passage of scripture, more suitable to place at the head of a discourse, in which we are to have respect, both to the blessings of divine providence, and the public calamities which have befallen us, than the words of David, which have now been read.

A celebrated commentator on the text, has the following observations;–“When God in his providence exerciseth us with a mixture of Mercy and Judgment, it is our duty to sing, and sing unto him both of the one and the other: We must be suitably affected with both, and make suitable acknowledgments of both.” Agreeable to the Chaldee paraphrase,–“If thou bestowest mercy upon me, or if thou bringest any judgment upon me, before thee, O Lord, will I sing my hymns for all.” 3

Let me then ask your attention, while I mention some of the blessings which God is pleased to bestow upon us; and take notice of the principal calamities, which, in righteous Judgment, he has suffered to befall us.

You will be sensible, the time allowed the preacher on a day of thanksgiving, will not admit of an exact enumeration, either of the Blessings bestowed upon us, or the calamities under which we suffer; we must therefore confine our attention to those which are confessedly of the most importance: But should I a little exceed the limits commonly observed on these Occasions, the nature of the subject, I hope, will be an apology for me.

All who possess their belief of the holy Scriptures, will be free to acknowledge, the mercy of God revealed in the gospel, demands our first, our principle attention.

Such is the darkness of the human mind, that had not the children of men, been favoured with the light of divine truth, they would never have found the say to glory. But the father of the universe, in compassion to the human race, exposed to misery, in consequence of the spread of moral evil through the World, was pleased to give his Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but might have eternal life.– 4 The day-spring from on high hath visited us, to give light to them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.-—We have reason to join with the angels, and multitude of the heavenly host, ascribing glory to God in the highest, that on earth there is peace, and good will towards men.5

The mercy of God revealed to a guilty World, in the gift of his Son Jesus Christ, will claim an everlasting tribute of Praise.—How deplorable would our condition have been, had the author of our existence, seen fit to leave us to the power of those lusts, which war against the Soul.– 6 Satan, the enemy of all good, was able to seduce our once innocent parents from their loyalty, and render them obnoxious to the wrath of their creator.—And had not Jesus Christ who is stronger than the strong man armed, and is able to subdue all things to himself, 7 undertaken the work of redemption, none of our guilty race, could have entertained a hope of future happiness, or even of life from the dead.

But by the gospel of the grace of God, life and immortality are brought to light.—By the gospel we are made certain of a future state; and the author of our Salvation, has not only suffered for our offences, and rose again for our justification, but clearly pointed out the path to heaven.

We have reason to be thankful, that notwithstanding, all our unworthiness, the gospel is continued among us, and we have liberty to worship our creator, according to the dictates of conscience, without disturbance or molestation.

Many have endured the greatest afflictions, and suffered the most cruel death, not only under pagan Monarchs, and the influence of Romish inquisitions, but under the arbitrary government of tyrants, who in ages past, disgraced the throne of Britain.

Not to mention persecutions in foreign countries, or look back to the ages of darkness and gross ignorance, in our own nation, and in the short time which past between the restoration of Charles the IId, and the glorious revolution, besides many that were inhumanely murdered, five thousand Protestants died in prisons, on account of their religion. 8

But while multitudes have suffered, because they did not choose to submit to unscriptural usages, or attend to modes and forms of human invention, we have enjoyed full liberty of conscience: In no part of the world has the right of private judgment, in matters of religion, been more sacredly maintained, than in America.

In some provinces, all sects and denominations, professing Christianity, Roman Catholics not excepted, are freely tolerated.

In those provinces where the church of England is established by law, dissenters are allowed their own forms of worship; but required indeed, as in most parts of the world, where a form of worship is established by authority, to pay their proportion towards the support of the established clergy.

And in these northern provinces, where the order and discipline, which have generally been observed in the congregation or Presbyterian churches, are favoured with an establishment, dissenters from our worship and discipline, are not only tolerated, but upon their professing to be of other denominations, they are excused from bearing any part of the ministry, and form of worship established by law. 9

Such tenderness to our brethren who differ from us in their sentiments with respect to the modes of worship, or the discipline of the church, is much to the honour of this and the other New-England Provinces.

As the blessings of the gospel, and the privileges of a religious nature which we enjoy, are exceeding precious, we ought to remember them with gratitude, and render to the Lord the warmest affections of our heart for the continuance of them.

We have reason to be thankful “for the smiles of divine Providence upon us with regard to the seasons of the year, and the general health which has been enjoyed.”—God has smiled on the labour of the husbandmen through the course of the year: He has been pleased to grant those showers of rain, and kind influences of the Heavens, which were necessary to perfect the fruits of the earth. Our markets are filled with a variety of provisions; and notwithstanding the multitude of strangers among us, we cannot complain that the necessaries of life are sold us at an extravagant price. 10

We have been visited with no uncommon sickness in this Town, or through the land. This pestilence has not walked in darkness, nor has the destruction wasted at noon day.—Such indeed is human frailty, that every year we must expect to bury some of our friends and valuable acquaintance: But we have reason to be thankful, when mortal diseases have not been general.

“And in particular”, we have reason to be thankful, “from a consideration of the union which so remarkably prevails, not only in this Province, but through the continent, at this alarming crisis.”

It must be acknowledged, America never saw a day so alarming as the present—The unhappy controversy which now subsists between Great-Britain and these Colonies is more painful than any of the distressing wars we have formerly been engaged in.—When the Savages annoyed our infant settlements, or those who we used to consider as natural Enemies threatened to invade us, duty and interest pointed us to the means of safety.—Our young men offered themselves freely to engage in the defence of their country; and being succeeded by Heaven, victory from time to time, crowned their endeavours.—

But when the parent State is contending with us, nothing but the last extremity,–nothing but the preservation of life, or that which is of more importance Liberty, can ever prevail with us to make resistance.

We glory in our attachment to the House of Hanover.—We consider Britain as our native land.—We shall therefore bear much, we shall suffer many hardships, before we can entertain a single wish to the disadvantage of our brethren on the other side the Atlantic.—We never will rebel against the Sovereign of the British dominions.—However provoked,–however oppressed,–however threatened with Slavery and wretchedness, we will never be excited to any other resistance, than what the impartial world shall Judge absolutely necessary to our own defence.

Britons and Americans, subjects of the same Crown, connected by the ties of nature, by interest and by religion, maintained the most perfect harmony, and felt the purest joy in each others happiness for more than a hundred years: And would to God, that harmony had never been disturbed!

But by reason of false, and injurious representations which were made by some, from whom indeed we might have expected better things, a system of government, not long since, was formed for the colonies in America, too degrading and oppressive for British Subjects, quietly to bear.

The Parliament of Great-Britain, some years ago, passed an Act, declaring “That his Majesty in Parliament, OF RIGHT, had power to bind the people of these Colonies by Statutes IN ALL CASES WHATSOEVER.”—“The import of the words above quoted, needs no discant: For the wit of man, cannot possibly form, a more clear, concise, and comprehensive definition and sentence of slavery, than these expressions contain.” 11

In this light was the declaratory Act viewed by Americans in general.—And by several Acts which have passed since, the inhabitants of these colonies have been confirmed in their apprehensions, that the Government at home, had determined to treat them, not as obedient children, but rather as Servants; and let them know that they held life, and property, and whatever is dear to them, at the pleasure of masters three thousand miles distant; on whose ambition they can have no check, on whose power they have no control.

Alarmed it may well be supposed the Americans were, and not doubting but their gracious King would hear their Petitions, and deliver them from their gracious King would hear their Petitions, and deliver them from their troubles, they addressed the throne in the most humble and dutiful manner; but their Petitions were rejected, and treated with contempt. Arbitrary measures were taken to prevent the complaints of the injured and distressed from reaching the Royal ear.—“Assemblies have been frequently dissolved, contrary to the rights of the people, when they attempted to deliberate on grievances.” 12

“The attacks on our rights were incessant”: Not satisfied with taking away our money, in such quantities, and for such purposes as they pleased, the Parliament proceeded, in direct methods, to invade our Charters, and threaten us with transportation to Great-Britain, in order to be tried, on supposition any resistance should be made, to what the Americans might consider as intolerable oppression.

“Hard is our fate, when, to escape the character of rebels, we must be degraded into that of slaves: As if there was no medium, between the two extremes of anarchy and despotism, where innocence and freedom could find repose and safety.” 13

Such were our sufferings, particularly in this Province,–such our fears, and such the apprehensions of all America, that it was judged expedient a Continental Congress should be convened as soon as possible to take our public grievances under consideration, and point out the most proper means of redress.

Deputies were accordingly chosen by the several colonies from New-Hampshire to South-Carolina.—They entered upon the important business to which they were appointed, as it become men professing the religion of Christ.—They made their humble addresses to the Lord of the universe for the influences of his Spirit, to lead them in a safe path, succeed their endeavours to extricate an injured people from their present difficulties, and lay a foundation for lasting tranquility, both in Great-Britain and America.—Many prayers were made for them in our respective churches, and by serious people in their private retirements.

The members who met in that illustrious Assembly, were men of the first character in the several provinces: Men who best understood the rights of America, and were best able to judge what measures would be most proper for the inhabitants in general to adopt, in order to recover and secure them.

After Solemn deliberation on the important subjects which lay before them, they came to a result, which has been made known to the World, and with which you are all acquainted.—We have much reason for thankfulness that the members of the Congress were so remarkably united.—Those among us who wished the late oppressive acts of parliament to be carried into execution, were free to declare, the Colonies would never unite, and endeavoured to make us believe, the Gentlemen who were chosen to represent the several Provinces, were of sentiments extremely different from each other. Had the Congress dissolved without forming any general plans, or had the members been greatly divided in their opinions, it would have discouraged the friends of Liberty, and perhaps given a fatal turn to our public affairs: But their Union has not only expressed the Union of their constituents, but had an happy influence to establish many in their friendship to the American cause, who were before, wavering—Their doings will, as they most certainly ought to, have the force of laws.—The man that ventures to rise in opposition to them, opposes both the wisdom and strength of this amazing continent; and certainly no man in his senses will act so foolish, so desperate a part.

The penalty to be inflicted on such, if any such there should be, as in contempt of the American Association, determine to pursue their own private emoluments, regardless of the public good, is not immediate death, but it must be confessed, it is very little short of it.—You will allow me to repeat some parts of the resolves which declare it.—Whenever it shall appear to the Committees which are, or may be chosen in every county, city, and town, for executing the plans of the continental Congress, that any person within their respective limits, has violated the Association, the truth of the case is to be published,–“To the end, that all such foes to the rights of British America, may be publickly known, and universally contemned as the enemies of American Liberty; and thenceforth we respectively will break off all dealing with him or her.—And we do further agree and resolve, that we will have no trade, commerce, dealings or intercourse whatsoever, with any Colony or Province in North-America, which shall not accede to, or which shall hereafter violate this Association, but will hold them as unworthy of the rights of freemen, and as inimical to the liberties of their Country.”

Who would not dread such a punishment, as much as any temporal evil that can be mentioned?—To cut off from the privileges of human society and lie exposed to universal contempt, is next, if not equal to being cut off from among the living.—People may affect to sport with popular resentment as much as they please, when they have a few companions to flatter and encourage them; but when that punishment, which they may ridicule at a distance, or think little of in its beginnings, falls upon them in earnest, they must have fortitude more than human, to support long under it.—A man of any tender feelings will be unhappy, when he knows a few of his acquaintance are offended with him; how wretched must he then be, who is assured the resentments of almost this whole continent, are raised against him, and that there is no town or village that he can visit, on business, or for amusement, without being exposed to the indignation of the inhabitants!

I have dwelt the longer on this particular, because it appears to me of singular importance.—The union which remarkably prevails through the Continent, at this alarming crisis affords great encouragement, and requires our thankful acknowledgments to almighty God.

It is our duty, as we love righteousness,–as we love peace,–as we love our Country,–as we love the parent state,–ourselves and millions of unborn posterity, it is our duty, to do all in our power, to strengthen and perpetuate, this union.—And was I not sure, you are ready even of yourselves, I would urge you my friends and fellow citizens, by arguments which influence my own mind, “To abide by and strictly adhere to the Resolutions of the continental Congress, as the most peaceable and probable method of preventing confusion and bloodshed, and of restoring that harmony between Great-Britain and these colonies, in which we wish might be established not only the rights and liberties of America, but the opulence and lasting happiness of the whole British Empire.” 14

I CANNOT finish this part of the discourse, without mentioning another reason the inhabitants of this Town in particular have for thankfulness, which, is a consideration of the unexpected liberality of our brethren towards us, since the Port has been shut up, by which thousands were reduced to poverty and distress.

Our condition would have been calamitous beyond expression, had not the hearts and the hands of our Brethren been opened to assist us, when suffering in the general cause.

We thank our generous benefactors: We thank the Father of the universe, for enabling and inclining them to do so much for us: And we thank those worthy Gentlemen, who cheerfully devote a great part of their time to take care of the money and provisions which are sent in from various parts, and make distributions to the needy among us, for no other reward, than the consolation of doing good.15

Thus have we attended to some of the blessings God is bestowing upon us in the course of his providence, which furnish us with proper reasons for praise and thanksgiving.

But as we are called, by the alarming situation of our public affairs, to sing of the judgments of the Lord, as well as of his mercies, we shall now, agreeable to the method proposed, take notice of the calamities which God has suffered to befall us.

The calamities to which we are more especially called to give our attention, are those which arise from “the present controversy between Great-Britain and the colonies.”

We are unhappy in being represented to the parent state as factious,–impatient of government, and wishing for independence; when “we can safely appeal to that Being, from whom no thought can be concealed, that our warmest wish, and utmost ambition is, that we and our posterity may ever remain subordinate to, and dependent upon our parent state. This subordination our reason approves, our affection dictates, our duty commands, and our interest enforces.”16

Great-Britain is possessed of a naval power, able to protect our trade, and guard our coast against a foreign enemy: And the colonies produce almost every article necessary to support the parent state in her present greatness, and add unspeakably to her future glory.

A CELEBRATED author, writing on the advantages which would naturally result from the happy connection between Great-Britain and the colonies, was no fatal interruption to prevent, has the following elegant and striking expressions.—“The immense advantages of such a situation, are worthy the closest attention of every Briton. To a man that has considered them with attention, perhaps it will not appear too bold to aver, that if an archangel had planned the connection between Great-Britain and her colonies, he could not have fixed it on a more lasting and beneficial foundation, unless he could have changed human nature.—An Alexander, a Caesar, a Charles, a Lewis and others have sought through fields of blood, for universal empire. Great-Britain has a certainty by population and commerce alone, of attaining to the most astonishing and well founded power the world ever saw. The circumstances of her situation are new and striking. Heaven has offered her glory and prosperity without measure. Her wise ministers disdain to accept them—and prefer” 1718

Since advantages of the most important nature might be derived to both countries were they to be perpetually united in affection, as they are in interest, how ardently is it to be wished, no unhappy controversy had arose between them.—But a controversy now subsists, which has a threatening aspect on America, and Great-Britain herself.

Many calamities are already felt, more and greater are much to be feared.—Instead of mutual love, and a desire of each others greatness, mutual jealousies are strongly exercised: The unfailing consequence of which will be, mutual endeavours to prevent each others interest. A principal of self preservation, that law of nature, which has an uniform influence on the children of Men, will excite them to wish the diminution of that power which they suppose, is at present engaged against them, or in some future time may rival them. And what they wish they naturally express, and will pursue in every measure that promises success.

And can it remain a matter of uncertainty, whether many in Great-Britain are jealous of the increasing greatness of the American interest, and wish to check the growth of the colonies, when we are told what opposition was made to the settlement of a new Province by a late minister of State.—When we hear another minister declaring he will lay the Americans at his feet.—When we hear with Application to one of the largest and most important Towns on the continent, “delenda est carthago19 “We know how acceptable to many an earthquake would be to sink some of the colonies in the Ocean.—That we are thought too numerous. And how much it would be judged for the interest of Great-Britain, if a Pestilence should sweep off a million and a half of us.” 20

If Great-Britain is jealous of the increasing interest of the colonies, no doubt she will exert her power to check their growth, or her policy to draw off their riches as fast as they acquire them. And from the measures which have been pursued, with unremitting zeal for several years past, the Americans are made to believe, that Great-Britain does not wish the Colonies to make further advances towards “powerful States.”—The business then is to embarrass new settlements,–to lay such burdens on the colonies now planted as to prevent emigrations to them from the crowded parts of Europe, and establish such laws as shall render, not only the money, but the persons of Americans, the property of the British Parliament, or of the crown. 21

And should I say, this business has been earnestly pursued, “since the close of the late “war”, I should have the authority of the greatest and best men in the nation,–I should have more than nine-tenths of America to support the assertion.

The execution of this business has given rise to the calamities, we are this day called to lament.—The time would not allow us to go into a very particular consideration of the calamities we now feel, together with those which we tear may be permitted to fall upon us: Let it suffice to mention those which most sensibly affect us.

Several laws, have of late been enacted by the Parliament of Great-Britain, for the express purpose of raising a revenue in America. Had hose laws been executed according to their original design, the natural operation of them, would have constantly weakened the interest of the people in general, by giving their wealth to the servants of the crown.—Had those laws been regularly executed the servants of the crown, would have had it in their power, either to riot on the spoils taken from the honest and industrious, or accumulate to themselves great riches. The body of the people, being oppressed, would in time be obliged to sell their lands, and other estates, and content themselves, if contentment be possible in such a state, to be the slaves of imperious lords, on whom, hard necessity had taught them to depend, for their bread.—And should they, remembering their former happy circumstances, grow uneasy and factious, a standing army, supported by money taken from them, would be ready to humble, or destroy them.—Figure to yourselves all the calamities which are felt by the inhabitants of France and Spain, or other parts of the World where despotism is established, and I will be bold to say, we could have no security against calamities equally great, unless in the virtue of the reigning Prince, were the laws which have been passed, with respect to America, since the last war, fully carried into execution.

If the British Parliament, may “of right,” without our consent, “give and grant” any particular parts of our property, for any particular purposes, they may the whole: They say with equal pretentions to right sell our persons as slaves to what masters they please. For “Liberty, Life, or Property, can, with no consistency of words or ideas, be termed a right of the possessors, while others have a right of taking them away at pleasure.” 22

That such laws have been enacted, and that any of them are now in force, we consider as a calamity, and lament that God has in judgment, suffered it to befall the American colonies.—The laws now referred to, have already done unspeakable damage. The struggles which have been made by administration to enforce them, and by the Americans in opposition to them, have not only kept the whole continent in a ferment, but created such an alienation of affections, and unhappy jealousies between the two countries, as we have reason to fear, will never be wholly removed.

It is a calamity that the parliament have resolved, “That colonists may be transported to England, and tried there upon accusations for treason,–or concealments of treasons committed in the colonies.”—Should any unhappy Americans be accused of treason, and prosecuted according to this act, a severe punishment would necessarily be inflicted on them, before it could be determined whether they were guilty or not.

It is a calamity that the Roman Catholic religion is established through the vast province of Quebec, when, as a writer observes, “The abject of the bill, is to cut off all liberties of the rest of the colonies.” 23

Should that vast country which is now taken into the province of Quebec, be filled up with roman Catholics, who are by their religion unfriendly to protestants, and especially to dissenters, it may be in their power, assisted by the Indians to do unspeakable damage to the other colonies. We may easily conceive it will be extremely difficult for Protestants, who now have possessions in that part of the world, to live quietly, or for others to settle where the established religion teaches its professors, that they may violate the most solemn engagements with heretics, and exterminate them from their country when it can be done with safety.

We view it as a calamity, that, by the Lords spiritual, that venerable Bench of protestant Bishops, a warm opposition was not made to a bill brought in to establish a Religion in the most important colony of his Majesty’s dominions, which has disgraced humanity, and crimsoned a great part of the world, with innocent blood.

By the part which the venerable seat of Bishops took in the Canada act, the unparalleled sufferings of our ancestors, by the influence of some protestant Bishops, 24 in former Reigns, are brought fresh to view: And we cannot but apprehend, a foundation is laid, for like ecclesiastical tyranny, at least, in the province of Quebec, should a prince of arbitrary sentiments, hereafter be placed on the throne.

We view it as a calamity, that our most gracious King was pleased to give his royal assent to the Canada Act, by which he has grieved the greatest part of his faithful subjects.—But I forbear.—That unfortunate Prince, who was obliged to fly from Great-Britain, to make way for the Hanoverian succession, was charged among other things, with promoting the Roman Catholic Religion—May the reign of our present rightful Sovereign be long and happy.—May he ever enjoy the full confidence, and affection of all, and especially of his protestant subjects.

We view it as a calamity, that the Parliament have passed an act to alter our ancient method of appointing Juries.—With a Governor and Council entirely dependent on the crown: With Judges and Sheriffs dependent on the Governor, and all entirely independent on the people, we cannot suppose there is provision for the impartial administration of justice: But we have the greatest reason to fear, should any Americans be so unhappy, as to be brought into dispute with crown officers, or any, who on account of their good disposition towards some late acts of Parliament respecting the Colonies, are called friends of Government, a jury returned by such sheriffs, would be under an influence, extremely threatening to the lives and liberties, of such unfortunate subjects.

The noble Lords who entered their dissent, have given a reason, which has respect to this part of the Act for regulating the government, sufficient to convince every mind capable of seeing the force of argument, and is worthy to be writ in letters of gold.—They dissent,–“Because the Governor and Council have the means of returning such a Jury, in each particular cause, as may best suit with the gratification of their passions and interests. The lives, liberties and properties of the subject are put into their hands without control, and the invaluable right of trial by jury is turned into A SNARE FOR THE PEOPLE, who have hitherto looked upon it as their main security against the licentiousness of power.” 25

We view it as a calamity that the British Parliament have lately passed “an Act for regulating the government” of this Province, by which the most important rights of our character are violated, and the way is prepared for exercising an arbitrary and despotic government over us.

Attempts to execute this act have already flung the Province into great disorder.—The inhabitants consider their charter, granted on the faith of Kings, as sacred, and they cannot be prevailed with, either by flattery or threats, to give it up.—Those Gentlemen who have accepted the place of Counselors on the new plan, are viewed as unfriendly to our constitutional liberties:–Our Courts of Justice are shut up: And we are nearly reduced to a state of nature,–In short we have no security for life, or property, or any of the blessings of society, but from the virtue and resolutions of the inhabitants in general.

“To change the government of a people”, says the Bishop of St. Asaph, who is an honour to the sacred order, and an ornament to human nature,–“to change the government of a people without their consent, is the highest and most arbitrary act of sovereignty that one nation can exercise over another. The Romans hardly ever proceeded to this extremity, even over a conquered nation, ‘till its frequent revolts and insurrections, had made them deem it incorrigible.—The very idea of it implies a most total and abject, slavish dependence in the inferior state.”

That great and good man well knew, that attempts to change the government of this province, would be productive of the utmost confusion:–“It will make them mad”.

The noble Lords, who opposed the bill for regulating the government of this Province, entered their dissent,–“Because, say they, we think the appointment of all the members of the Council, which by this bill is vested in the crown, is not a proper provision for preserving the equilibrium of the colony constitution. The power given to the crown of occasionally increasing and lessening the number of the council on the report of governors, and at the pleasure of ministers, must make those governors and ministers masters of every question in that assembly, and by destroying its freedom of deliberation will wholly annihilate its use.”—

But the calamities arising from the unhappy controversy at present subsisting between Great-Britain and America, with which we, the inhabitants of this town, are most sensibly, and in a peculiar manner affected, are yet unnoticed.

When we look back, on our once happy state, and compare the blessings of peace and plenty, which we freely enjoyed, with our present distresses, “the tears are on our cheeks”. “How doth the city set solitary that was full of people! How is she become as a widow! She that was great among the nations, and princess among the provinces, how is she become tributary! 26

The God of nature has taught us by the situation and uncommon advantages of this place, that it was designed for extensive business: And here our fathers planted themselves, that they and their posterity might prosecute those branches of trade and merchandise, which give riches and strength, to nations and states.—And this, for many years, has been the peaceful residence of commerce and wealth.

What joy have we felt to see this capacious and safe harbor, white, with the canvass of our own ships, or of foreigners who came to exchange their treasures, for the commodities which we had to spare.

But how affecting is the change; How gloomy is the present appearance!—Look to our port, and you see it blocked up with British Ships of war—No vessels of trade are allowed to enter this harbor.—Commerce which gave wealth to many, and the means of a comfortable subsistence to thousands, has now ceased.—The well built wharfs are either left naked, or lined with transports, which have been employed to bring the King’s troops to this place.—Stores which were designed for merchandise, are, either unoccupied, or strange to relate!—turned into barracks!—Our public streets,–our most pleasant walks are filled with armed soldiers.—The only avenue to the town by land is fortified on each side, with heavy cannon, and strongly guarded day and night.—In short, all things wear the shocking appearances of war: Of war, not with the natives of the wilderness, or those foreign enemies with whom we have formerly engaged with success.—But,–how shall I speak?—Of war between Great-Britain and the colonies!—Between fellow subjects!! Between brethren!!!

But why these strange appearances? Why is the power of Great-Britain so unnaturally directed against America?—Why is this Town filled with troops? Why is this port blocked up, and the trade of the place ruined?—certainly we must have been guilty as a people of the most daring crimes.—Nothing less than an open and generally avowed rebellion against the best of Princes, one would think, could justify such treatment.—Have we been thus guilty?—Are we, thus charged?—No.—What then is our crime?—It is not pretended to be any more than a trespass, committed by some unknown persons, on private property.—Because a number of people, we know not who, destroyed some cargoes of East-India Tea, this whole community has been condemned, without trial, and is this day suffering in a manner that can scarcely be paralleled in the history of the world.

It is supposed by the rigorous manner in which the port act is executed, poverty, distress and calamity, are brought on 30,000 souls. 27

Other calamities might have been mentioned, and those we have taken notice of enlarged upon, did the time admit.—You will just allow me to say, should the British administration determine fully to execute the laws, of which we complain: Or in other words,–should the prime minister determine to LAY THE AMERICANS AT HIS FEET; and should the new parliament grant supplies for that purpose, we have yet to fear the calamities of a long civil war: For, from the spirit now raised through this continent, and the firm union which subsists, it may be presumed he struggle would be obstinate.

Americans, who have been used to war from their infancy, would spill their best blood, rather than “submit to be hewers of wood, or drawers of water, for any ministry or nation in the world”. 28

But we hope in God, and it shall be our daily prayer, that matters may never come to this.—We hope some wise and equitable plan of accommodation may take place.—For the salvation of the parent state, as well as of these provinces, we sincerely hope the measures, with respect to America, adopted by the last parliament, and pursued with vigour by the ministry, may be essentially altered by this.

We hope the rights and liberties of the colonies may be established on a solid and immoveable basis: And that this Town may emerge from its present distressed and most calamitous state, and be a more prosperous, more rich and happy place than ever yet it has been.

Let us then humble ourselves before God on account of our sins: Let us reform whatever is amiss,–“That so God may be pleased to continue to us the blessings we enjoy, and remove the tokens of his displeasure, by causing harmony and union to be restored between Great-Britain and these Colonies, that we may again rejoice in the smiles of our sovereign, and the possession of those privileges which have been transmitted to us, and have the hopeful prospect that they shall be handed down entire to posterity, under the protestant succession, in the illustrious House of Hanover.”29

FINIS.


Endnotes

1 Exodus 34. 22.

2 See the recommendation from the Provincial Congress, for a day of thanksgiving.

3 Henry on the place.

4 John 3. 16.

5 Luke 2. 14.

6 James 4. I.

7 Phillip. 3, 21.

8 See the History of England during the Reigns of the Stuarts.

9 The following extract from an Act “passed by the Great and General Court” of this province, “to exempt the People called Quakers, and Antipedobaptists, from paying Taxes for the support of Ministers settled by the Laws of this Province, and for the building and repairing Meeting Houses or places of public Worship,” may serve to evince what was said above with respect to religious liberty, and the tenderness which is exercised towards such as dissent from the mode of worship and discipline established by law.
Be it enacted by the Governor, Council, and House of Representatives, that none of the Persons who are either of the Persuasion of the People called Quakers, or Antipedobaptists, who allege a scruple of Conscience as the reason of their refusal to pay any part or Proportion of such Taxes, as are from time to time assessed for the Support of the Minister or Ministers of any Church settled by the Laws of this Province, shall have their Polls or Estate, Real or Personal in their own Hand, and under their actual Improvement; taxed or assessed, in any Tax or Assessment hereafter made for the raising any Monies towards the Settlement or Support of such Minister or Ministers, nor for building or repairing any Meeting-House or Place of public Worship, or be obliged to collect any Taxes granted for the purposes aforesaid.

And to the intent that it may be better known who are to be exempted by this Act.

Be it enacted, That no Person in any Town, District or Precinct in this Province, shall for the future be esteemed or taken to be of the Persuasion of the People called Quakers, or Antipedobaptists, so as to have his, her or their Poll or Polls, or any Estate to him, her or them belonging, exempted by virtue of this Act from paying a proportionable Part of the Ministerial or other Taxes in this Act mentioned, but such whose Names shall be contained in a List or Lists taken and signed by three Members of some Quaker or Antipedobaptist Society or Congregation, who shall be chosen by said Society or Congregation, who shall be chosen by said Society or Congregation for that purpose; one whereof to be the Minister where there is any, who shall therein certify for substance with respect to the People called Quakers in the form following, viz. We the Subscribers being chosen a Committee by the Society of the People called Quakers, who meet together for religious Worship on the Lord’s Day or first Day of the Week in (blank space) to exhibit a List or Lists of the Names of such Persons as belong to said Society or Congregation, do Certify, that (blank space) do belong to said Society or Congregation, and that they do frequently and usually when able attend with us in our Meetings for religious Worship on the Lord’s Day or first Day of the Week, and we verily believe are of our Persuasion.
Dated Signed A. B., C. D., E. F.; Committee.

And with respect to the Antipedobaptists in the words following, viz. We the Subscribers being chosen a Committee by the Society of the People called Antipedobaptists, who meet together for religious Worship on the Lord’s Day in (blank space) to exhibit a List or Lists of the Names of such Persons as belong to said Society or Congregation, do Certify, that (blank space) do belong to said Society or Congregation, do Certify, that (blank space) do belong to said Society or Congregation, and that they do frequently and usually when able attend with us in our Meetings for religious Worship on the Lord’s Day, and we do verily believe are, with respect to the ordinance of Baptism, of the same religious Sentiments with us.

Dated Signed A. B., C. D., E. F.; Committee.

Which Certificate so signed, the said Committee shall cause to be delivered to the Town, District or Precinct Clerk respectively, where such Person or Persons contained in such List or Lists dwell or have Estates liable to be taxed, on or before the first Day of September Annually; and the Clerk on receiving such Certificate, shall enter the same at large in the Town, District and Precinct Book in his keeping, with the time when the same was delivered to him, and shall deliver an attested Copy of such Certificate and the time when the same was delivered to him, to any Person desiring the same, receiving therefor, four Pence only, which Copy shall be received as Evidence on any Tryal respecting the Taxing the Persons whose Names are contained in said Certificate for any Ministerial Charge or Charges, or for building or repairing any Meeting-House.

10 The following Regiments are now Stationed at Boston, and at Castle-William.—Fourth Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Artillery.—Fourth (or King’s own) Regiment.—Fifth Regiment.—Tenth Regiment.—Eighteenth (or royal Irish) Regiment. Twenty-Third-Regiment, Or royal Welch Fusileers.—Thirty-Eighty Regiment.—Forty-Third Regiment.—Forty Seventh Regiment.—Fifty Second Regiment.—Fifty Ninth Regiment.—Sixty Fourth Regiment.—Sixty Fifth Regiment.—We have also the following large Ships of War,–Preston, of 50 Guns. Somerset, of 68. Asia, of 64. Boyne, of 64: Besides a number of smaller Ships and other armed Vessels; together with the Transports which have been employed to bring Troops to this unhappy Metropolis.–

11 See the Pennsylvania Instructions to their Representatives.

12 Proceedings of the American Congress, P. 2.

13 Essay on the constitutional Power of Great-Britain over the Colonies in America.

14 See the Address of the Provincial Congress, presented to the several Ministers of the Gospel in this Province.

15 Some evil minded persons, have wickedly insinuated, that the Committee, with whom the donations are entrusted, and by whom they are distributed to such as stand in need, take pay for their trouble, or they would never devote so great a part of their time to the service.—This insinuation is equally false and malicious.—Those respectable Gentlemen have indeed the thanks of the public, and the blessing of many ready to perish; besides which they neither have nor wish for any reward—is it not base and cruel then, to insinuate, as some have done, that they pay themselves out of the charities which were designed for the immediate sufferers.
But some people have a scurvy trick of lying, to support a certain interest, and if possible injure those who are most faithful and unwearied in the service of their country.—But great is truth, and it will prevail.

16 Essay on the constitutional power of Great-Britain over the colonies in America, p. 52.

17 See the Note in the same Essay, pp. 56, 57.

18 Mr. Nugent’s Speech.

19 Which is to be interpreted, let Boston be demolished. The sage advice of Mr. Van a member of the late parliament.

20 Essay on the constitutional power of Great-Britain &c. p. 61.

21 “The authority of Parliament, has, within these few years, been a question much agitated; and great difficulty, we understand, has occurred, in tracing the line between the rights of the mother country, and those of the colonies. The modern doctrine of the former is truly remarkable; for though it points out, what are not our rights, yet we can never learn from it, what are our rights. As for example—Great-Britain claims a right to take away nine-tenths of our estates—have we a right to the remaining tenth? No.—To say we have, is a “traitorous position”, denying her supreme legislative. So far from having property, according to these late found novels, we are ourselves a property”.
See Essay &c. p. 33, 34.

22 See Essay &c. 41. See Locke on Government. Chap. V. “What property have they in that, which another may by right take, when he pleases to himself?” Mr. Pitt’s Speech.

23 The Canada Act has met with some small advocates in these parts, who pretend the roman catholic religion is not established by it; and that nothing more is designed by that part of it which has respect to religion, than a confirmation of what was stipulated by the treaty of peace.—But what say the Grand American Congress to this matter?—“In the session of Parliament last mentioned, an Act was passed, for changing the government of Quebec, by which Act the Roman Catholic religion, instead of being tolerated, as stipulated by the treaty of peace, is established.”

The Earl of Chatham has declared, that by the Canada Act, popery is established: And Lord Lyttleton, in his Letter to the above-mentioned Earl, does not deny that the Roman catholic religion is established in the Province of Quebec, but endeavours to defend the whole Act, without exception.—After having said, “The Canadians are “above one hundred thousand, the English not more than two thousand men, women, and children.” And that the legislature was therefore to consider whether the law and government ought to be adapted to the many or the few,” he goes on, to consider that part of the bill which has respect to religion; and says,–“The best distinction I know between establishment and toleration is, that the greater number has a right to the one, and the lesser to the other. The public maintenance of a clergy is inherent to establishment; at the reformation, therefore, as much of the church estates as were thought necessary for its support were transferred to the protestant church, as by law established. Surely then when the free exercise of the national religion was given to the Canadian nation, it could never b understood that they were to be deprived of their clergy; and if not, a national provision for that clergy follows of course.”’.—What we have here quoted from his Lordship’s Letter, is sufficient to shew, that he not only considered the Canada Act as establishing the Roman catholic religion in that country, but that he supposed the British Legislature, acted a wise and equitable part in so doing.—But his Lordship’s reasoning does not carry with it the fullest conviction.—Suppose, by a strange Jesuitical influence, in some future period, more than one half the inhabitants of Great-Britain should be converted to the Roman catholic religion, would the legislature be bound in duty to establish that religion, and only tolerate Protestants?—It must be so, it seems, if the best distinction between establishment and toleration is, that the greater number has a right to the one, and the lesser to the other.

Wise legislative bodies, will examine the nature and doctrines of a religion, before they favour it with an establishment; If they find the doctrines of any religion are contrary to that the holy Scriptures, and are persuaded that it is, in its nature, unfriendly to the safety and happiness of the community, certainly they will not establish it, although, the greater number, (of the community) may, at present, be fond of it.—

Let us hear what the learned and pious Bishop Burnet has said of Roman Catholics, and their religion.—“It is certain, that as all Papists must, at all times, be ill subjects to a protestant Prince, so that is much more to be apprehended, when there is a pretended Popish heir in the case.”—“learn to view popery in a true light, as a conspiracy to exalt the power of the clergy, even by subjecting the most sacred truths of religion to contrivances for raising their authority, and by offering to the world another method of being saved, besides that prescribed in the gospel.—Popery is a mass of impostures, supported by men, who manage them with great advantages, and impose them with inexpressible severities, on those who dare call anything in question that they dictate to them.”

Bishop Burnet’s History of His Own Times. If the Roman Catholic religion is what the good Bishop has here declared, is it not astonishing, that any Protestant can plead for its establishment! For a British legislature to tolerate such a religion, is as much, one would think, as they could do consistent with their duty to God, and to that constitution of civil government, which they are bound to maintain.—

It may be said a religion is established, where there are laws for the support of it.—Thus is the church of England established in a great part of the British dominions.—Thus are the congregational order and discipline established in this Province, and thus is the roman catholic religion established in Canada.

24 The high Church party says Bishop Burnet, have all along been unfriendly to the government established on revelation principles: They have not been wanting to reproach those who were of moderate sentiments, and abuse the dissenters,–Why? Because moderate church-men and Dissenters in general, have been friends to the rights of mankind, and honest enough to oppose Tyrants in church and state. I would here beg leave to insert a paragraph from a Pamphlet which fell into my hands since this discourse was delivered, called, An address to Protestant Dissenters of all Denominations &c.—“The measures that are now carrying on against the North-American colonies are alone a sufficient indication of the disposition of the court towards you. The pretence for such outrageous proceedings, conducted with such indecent and unjust precipitation, is much too flight to account for them. The true cause of such violent animosity must have existed much earlier and deeper. In short, it can be nothing but the Americans (particularly those of New-England) being chiefly dissenters and whigs. For the whole conduct of the present ministry demonstrates, that what was merit in the two late reigns, is demerit in this. And can you suppose that those who are so violently hostile to the offspring of the English dissenters, should be friendly to the remains of the parent stock? I trust that both you and they will make it appear, that you have not degenerated from the principles and spirit of your illustrious ancestors, and that you are no more to be outwitted or overawed than they were.”

25 Much to our purpose is the following extract from Doctor Pettingal’s celebrated Enquiry into the use and practice of Juries among the Greeks and Romans.

“The privilege that every Englishman enjoys of having his person and property so far secured, that no injury, under pretence of law can be done to one or the other, but by the consent and approbation of twelve men of his own rank, is the greatest happiness that can belong to a subject, and the most valuable blessing that can attend society; for by this means the poor stands in no fear of oppression from his governor or powerful neighbour; and the hands of the great are tied up from disturbing the public by making inroads upon the ease and property of individuals below them.—So that the powers of each, in their respective stations, are hereby happily directed to carry on one and the same end, the peace, order, and good government of the whole.”

In another place the same great Man writes,–“The trial by Jury was founded on liberty, and contrived both in the Grecian and Roman polity, as a guard and protection of the lower people, against the power and arbitrary judgments of their superiors.”—And again, “Civil liberty, being thus, both in Greece and Rome, founded in equality, that is, a joint power and participation of enacting and executing laws, we hence see the reason why the trial by our equals, the legale judicium parium suorum, makes so great a figure in the character of English liberties; for while we are bound by no laws but those we consent to, and suffer no judgment under those laws but by the approbation of honest men of our own rank and condition, who have no interest in injustice, but an expectation of the same candor and integrity in us upon some other occasions, where perhaps we may be a jury on them or their affairs, there is no danger of being ruined and undone by arbitrary laws, or oppressed by the partial determination of a corrupt Judge. This was the liberty and happiness that arose from the equality which was the foundation of the Greek and Roman constitution, and is the very spirit and life of our own.”—p. 8. In Preface, I. 25, & 26, in the Enquiry.–

26 Lamentations Chap. I. I.

27 The damages arising from the execution of the Port Act are immense: Supposing 30000 people suffer the loss of 1S sterling per day, one with another; which I believe will be judged far short of what is real, considering the destruction of Trade,–the multitudes flung into idleness,–the useless condition of shipping, Wharfs, Stores, Ware-Houses &c. And the damages the last Six months will be 270000 pounds Sterling.

28 See the address of the American Congress to the People of Great-Britain.

29 See the recommendation from the Provincial Congress for a day of thanksgiving.