George Washington 1785 Letter

Below is an original letter in WallBuilders’ collection, from George Washington, dated February 1, 1785. This letter was written during a short period of retirement for Washington, following the War for Independence and before the Constitutional Convention. After resigning his military commission, he settled back in Mount Vernon following an almost continuance absence of eight years.


 

Mount Vernon 1st Feb. 1785

Gentleman,

You may think me very troublesome – and the reason I assign for being so (that I am of the opinion you can serve me better than any other) no good apology for the liberty I take.

My Miller (William Roberts) in now become such an intolerable serv, and when drunk so great a madman, that he never unwilling I am to part with an old servant (for he has been with me 15 years) I cannot with propriety on common justice to myself bear with him any longer.

I pray you once more, therefore, to engage & forward to me, a miller as seen as you may have it in your power; and whatever engagement you shall enter into on my behalf I will religiously fulfil. I do not stipulate for the wages at altho’ my Mill (being on an indifferent stream & not constant at work) can illy [sic] afford high wages.

My wishes to procure a servant who understands the manufacturing business perfectly – and who is sober and honest, that I may even at the expense of paying for it, have as little trouble as possible with him. If he understood the business of a Mill _____ and was obliged by his attitude to keep the Mill works in repair, so much the better. Whatever agreement you may enter into on my behalf, I pray you to have it reduced to writing, & specially declared, that there may be no misexception [sic] or disputes thereafter.

The House in which such Muller will live, is a very comfortable one, within 30 yards of the Mill (which works two pairs of stones one pair of them french Burns) – it has a small Kitchen convenient thereto and a good garden properly paled it. There is a Coopers shop within 50 yards of the Mill, with three Negro Coopers which will also be under the direction of the Miller. Whose allowance of meat, flour, & privileges of every kind, I would have ascertained, to prevent after claims. I do not object to the Mans having a family (a wife I could wish him to have) but if it was a small one, it would be preferable.

At any rate be so good as to let me hear from you, that I may know on what to depend, as it is no longer safe for me to entrust my business to the care of Willi’m Roberts. It only remains now for me to ask your sanguineness for this trouble & to assure you of the esteem with which I am

Gentm

Your friend & very Humble

G. Washington

Mess. Lewis’s

Four Letters on Government – John and Samuel Adams

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

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

John Adams

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

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

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

He then asks Samuel:

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

Samuel Adams answers this query in his response:

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

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

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

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

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

Sam Adams

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Endnotes

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

Jefferson and Library of Congress

Most Americans are very familiar with the Library of Congress and its massive collection of millions of books, documents, recordings, photographs, sheet music, and manuscripts.1 But few know how Thomas Jefferson is connected to the library.

On April 24, 1800, Congress approved moving the federal government to Washington DC and granted resources for a congressional library:

That for the purchase of such books as may be necessary for the use of Congress at the said city of Washington, and for fitting up a suitable apartment for containing them and for placing them therein, the sum of five thousand dollars shall be, and hereby is appropriated.2

The books purchased for that library were originally kept in the Capitol building.3 But when the British invaded and set fire to the Capitol during the War of 1812,4 this collection was destroyed. This is where Jefferson comes in.

He offered to sell his collection of books (nearly 6,500) to Congress to replace the books that had been burned.5 His offer was accepted and nearly $24,000 (over $300,000 in today’s money) was set aside to purchase his books.6

Unfortunately, almost two-thirds of his collection was destroyed in another fire in 1851,7 but Jefferson’s library was a springboard from which the Library of Congress would continue to grow. Next time you visit the Library of Congress, remember one of the reasons this collection is so impressive is due to Thomas Jefferson’s influence.


Endnotes

1 “Fascinating Facts,” Library of Congress, accessed January 17, 2024.
2 “An Act to make further provision for the removal and accommodation of the Government of the United States,” April 24, 1800, The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, ed. Richard Peters (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1845), II:56.
3 “History of the Library of Congress,” Library of Congress, accessed January 17, 2024.
4 “A Most Magnificent Ruin: The Burning of the Capitol during the War of 1812,” Architect of the Capitol, August 1, 2023.
5 Thomas Jefferson to Samuel H. Smith, September 21, 1814, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. H.A. Washington (Washington: Taylor & Maury, 1854), VI:383-385; “Sale of Books to the Library of Congress (1815),” Monticello, accessed January 17, 2024.
6 Samuel H. Smith to Thomas Jefferson, February 15, 1815, Founders Online.
7 “Thomas Jefferson: Jefferson’s Library,” Library of Congress, accessed January 17, 2024.

Sermon – House of Representatives – 1864

Byron Sunderland was born in Shoreham on November 22, 1819. He served 45 years as Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in Washington D.C. Sunderland spoke privately about Christian philosophy with Lincoln. He served as Chaplain of the U.S. Senate, and presided over the wedding of President Grover Cleveland at the White House. Notably, he preached in favor of abolition, at a time, and in a place, where it was dangerous to do so.


SERMON
ON THEPUBLIC WORSHIP OF GOD,
DELIVERED IN THEHALL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUNDAY, JANUARY 31ST, 1864AND REPEATED, BY REQUEST, IN UNION HALL, NO. 481 NINTH STREET,
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8TH, 1864,BY: REV. B. SUNDERLAND, D.D.
Pastor of First Presbyterian Church, and Chaplain U.S. Senate for Thirty-Eighth Congress.

PUBLISHED BY REQUEST.

WASHINGTON, D.C.
CHRONICLE PRINT.
1864.

Washington,  D.C. Feb. 4, 1864.
REV’D BYRON SUNDERLAND, D.D.,
Chaplain U. S. Senate:
DEAR SIR:  Realizing the great value of the truths enunciated in the sermon delivered by you in the House of Representatives of the United States last Sabbath morning, “on the duty of maintaining the public worship of God,” knowing its most gratifying reception by the immense audience convened on that occasion, and feeling that others will be profited by hearing it, we invite you to repeat it at Hall No. 481 Ninth street, at a time agreeable to yourself, and also that you furnish a copy for publication.
With sentiments of high regard, we remain
Yours, very truly,
HENRY A. BREWSTER, New York.                                               WILLIAM BEBB, Ohio.
JUDSON S. BROWN, Massachusetts.                                             HANNIBAL HAMLIN, Maine.
LEONARD S. FARWELL, Wisconsin                                              SCHUYLER COLFAX, Indiana.
THADEUS STEVENS, Pennsylvania.                                             SOLOMON FOOT, Vermont.
AUGUSTIN CHESTER, Illinois                                                        D. CLARKE, New Hampshire.
JAMES M. EDMUNDS, Michigan.                                                  J. A. BROWN, Rhode Island.
B. B. FRENCH, Washington, D. C.                                                  W. C. DODGE, Minnesota.
A. F. WILLIAMS, Connecticut.                                                        J. CONNESS, California.
A. M. SCOTT, Iowa.                                                                           A. CARTER WILDER, Kansas.
N. B. SMITHERS, Delaware.                                                            R. G. GREENE, Virginia.
J. D. MERRILL, Missouri.                                                 HANISON REED, Florida.
J. W. NESMITH, Oregon.                                                                   J. D. DOTY, Utah.
J. F. SHARETTS, Maryland.                                                             J. CLAY SMITH, Kentucky.

WASHINGTON, D. C., Feb. 5, 1864.

TO MESSRS. BREWSTER, BEBB, BROWN, HAMLIN, FARWELL, and others:

GENTLEMEN:  Your note of the 4th inst. Is received, inviting me to repeat the discourse “on the duty of maintaining the public worship of God,” delivered in the House of Representatives January 31, 1864.  I cheerfully comply with the request, and designate Monday evening, the 8th inst., as the time.It is with thanksgiving to God that I find such sentiments endorsed by you, as the representatives of the great Christian community throughout the United States.  With trembling I think of the stern and fearful time in which we live, and of the stupendous contest for the supremacy of the law and of the perpetuity of the Union in which the nation is engaged.

I feel sure we all desire the triumph of our Government over the rebellion, because we believe it will be a victory for righteousness in the earth.

We must have Jehovah for our Captain by conforming to his requirements, and especially maintaining the public ordinances of his worship.
With sincere regards,
B. SUNDERLAND.
SERMON.
ISAIAH 66:23
“And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, says the Lord.”
This is a marvelous prediction.  What a day for the world, when the worship of God from month to month, and from week to week, shall be universal!

The worship of God implies the highest acts of which a rational creature is capable.  It demands all the powers of body and soul.  To conceive and feel all that it implies, and to give suitable outward expression to its thoughts and emotions, by the posture of the body, by the voice, by the various faculties of manifestation, presupposes a character of the noblest culture.

The worship of God may be solitary, as of the individual alone – domestic, as in the family – social, as in the small companies of friends – or public, as in the great and open congregation.

In any case however, to be real it must be spiritual, whatever may be the outward act by which it is expressed – “God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”

And what does this mean but that homage which is due to God as the Father of spirits, and the Supreme King?  In acts of worship, we render to God an acknowledgment of his right to rule over us – of the supreme authority of his law, and the righteousness of his kingdom and dominion, in opposition to all other pretended authority whatsoever.  For such an act, the whole being of the man is requisite – body, soul, mind, reason, sense, memory, hope, imagination, and the loftiest thoughts of human faith.  And as to spirituality, what is it but the life of justice and truth and virtue?  Can anything be more spiritual than these?  If I pay my honest debt, I hold the essence of that deed is as purely spiritual as the act of the loftiest adoration – both are proper upon occasion, and both befit the highest development of our nature.

Each form of worship of God has its appropriate characteristics, and requires in its observance the outward expression suited to its nature.  As I intend, in this discourse to speak chiefly of public worship, I will remark, in passing, that the general usage of the evangelical world has assigned three grand parts to the service of God in the great congregation: prayer – reading and expounding the Holy Scriptures – and praise in singing, with instruments of music; the first two generally conducted by the minister – the last by a choir, or the whole assembly.  Each of these parts is held to be of paramount importance, both from their intrinsic fitness and from the long experience of the affections of human nature.  Wherever an assembly meets for the public worship of God on the Sabbath, ample provision should be made, if practicable, for the full performance of each of these parts, so that nothing may be wanting to the great object.

In a congregation like this, meeting in a place like this, we have all the material or physical requisites, if properly employed, to make the public worship of God what it ought to be, so far as it depends upon such conditions.  If there is a failure, in any degree or in any sense, to make the service all it should be, we must attribute it to ourselves.  The Hall itself is sufficient – the attendants here are diligent, courteous and faithful – ministers are provided – the Sabbath day comes round – the word of God lies open before us – the people assemble – and the service begins.  That there may be given to public worship its greatest impressiveness, I take leave to mention that some general order should be observed, by all in the congregation, through the different parts of the service.  For example, in the reading of the Scriptures and preaching, let all sit with fixed attention upon what is uttered by the minister – not listless, or perhaps asleep – not distracted by idle curiosities – not whispering, or moving about or leaving the assembly, unless by imperative necessity.  Custom has stamped all these things as exceedingly vulgar and low-bred, besides being irreverent and insulting to God.

In time of singing, let all stand up, and devoutly join in the hymn of praise by the voice, or in silent meditation.  In time of prayer, let all kneel or bow the head forward, attesting by their attitude their sense of the solemnity of the act – and let there be no unnecessary noise or confusion, as is often the case in the time of daily prayer in these chambers – talking, rattling of papers, sitting in the seat, perhaps reading or writing, and in many ways showing that indifference to the act of prayer to God, which is positively shameful.  And while on this point, I wish every member of Congress were here today, that I might ask it of these kind gentlemen, such of them as have fallen into this habit – for I rejoice to say that many should be exempted – nay, I would not insinuate that to be a member of Congress is to be prima facie an unchristian man – every man innocent till proved guilty, is the maxim of law to which they, with us, are entitled; and indeed I know some among them to be as noble Christian gentlemen as are to be found in the land – and far, far be it from me to inveigh against men whose lives illustrate the clear virtues and sublime sympathies of our divine religion; who rejoice when it flourishes, and lament when it declines, and who would go to every length of rational sacrifice to promote its extension in the earth – no, not such do I intend – but such rather as profess no such adherence to its cause, and certainly exhibit none to be spoken of – but that I might ask it of them to reform in this particular.

I allude to this subject, not in a spirit of bitterness or personal complaint at all; for I have this to say, that in all my personal intercourse with members of Congress, and with the officers and employees of the Capitol, I have never received anything but kindness and respect, and I should be sorry to have aggrieved any of them, by alluding to these things now – but I do feel a solicitude for the honor of God, and that men should pay that homage to Him which is due to the Father of us all.  It is true that many times members are absent from the daily prayers = for which I have heard various reasons alleged – some detained by necessary business – some by providential dispensations – some from want of inclination toward this duty – and some from a positive dislike of the sentiments these gentlemen from this public Sabbath service, many, it is true, worshipping in the churches of the city, but the majority, I fear elsewhere, leaving the assembly here to be largely made up, from week to week, of strangers from all parts of the land, and of the great sojourning public who have no other stated place of worship.

It naturally follows from these very circumstances, that there is no certain reliance to be placed upon any one or any number of persons, for that most important and yet most difficult part of public worship, the praise of God in the singing of sacred hymns.  All that can be expected is the voluntary service of those who may be disposed to aid in the singing for the time being, upon a mere voluntary impulse.  Congress manifesting so great an indifference to the whole matter, not only by the absence of the greater portion of the members, but also by the decided opposition of the majority to making any provision for such services, it must continue to be a matter of regret that the ordinary resort in such cases to voluntary contributions is not practicable, and consequently if divine service is held here on the Sabbath, it must be subject to the inconvenience, the deficiency and the depression, which I have here pointed out.

It is true, a man may say, what right have you to lecture me on this or any other subject?  I reply, by the right of free speech, which God has given me – and when I have given my lecture, in respectful terms, there my responsibility ends, and his begins.  If Congress may not choose to receive what they regard as a chaplain’s lecture, that is their business, not mine.  This rule applies universally.  If you read a lecture to me, I cannot deny you the right – but my own judgment must decide whether it is of any value, and whether or not I will heed it; and I act in this, under a responsibility for which I am accountable, and one day must account to the Judge of all.  So I am the more earnest to develop the whole matter before us, as far as it lies in my power.

Now I undertake to say that there is an erroneous and most vicious public sentiment abroad, not only here among the public functionaries of the Government, but everywhere throughout the country, upon the whole question of the public worship of God.  Does it ever occur to men, that God has required these public ordinances of religion to be observed unto Him, and has foretold the advent of a day when all flesh shall come and worship before Him?  Does it ever occur to men to feel that one is just as much bound by these requirements as another?  Does it ever occur to them to think, that one man, as a member of the religious community, has just as much to think, that one man, as a member of the religious community, has just as much interest at stake in the maintenance of these ordinances of Heaven as another?  And yet this is really so.

I have truly no more interest in the matter than you have; and you have truly no more interest in the matter than that officer of the Government, high or low, who appropriates the Sabbath day of God to pleasure excursions, and forsakes the public worship of the Almighty, that he may pay court to some foreign minister, or find means for his own private and personal recreation.  I say I have no more interest in the matter than we all have in common – for if these ordinances of God are wantonly ignored and willfully neglected – if the great light that shines in them shall finally be extinguished, and the darkness and degradation of vice, precursor of destruction, shall succeed to it – and if finally, the whole structure of society, undermined and s=disintegrated, shall tumble into ruin, I shall have no more to lose than my neighbor, in the common catastrophe!  What I lose, he will lose – we shall all be alike despoiled.

Now the whole community may be divided in respect to this matter of public worship, into three classes: 1st, those who attend upon it with some just sense of its true nature and importance; 2d, those who go to the sacred assembly from grossly inadequate, if not wholly improper motives; 3d, those who stay away altogether.  Of the first class I have nothing to say, but that it is comparatively small – alas!  To small, I fear, for the leavening of the whole lump.  Of the second class I have this to say, that I wonder at them.  I am thankful to my Maker that whatever may have been, or may now be my faults, I never had the disposition or desire to attend public worship for the simple sake of seeing or being seen – of making a display – of ogling the assembly – and in short for any and every purpose, but the single one which is alone pertinent and proper, the devout and reverent waiting upon the Majesty of earth and heaven.  I never had any sympathy with that spirit which can sport and trifle in the place and time of prayer, – I never could comprehend that levity which mocks at the most sacred things, and turns the very sanctuary of Jehovah into a theatre of laughter and of jeers.  Of the third class I testify, in the name of religion, that they are moral delinquents by habit and inclination, and in their example before the nation and the world, they support the grand foundation principle of a practical atheism, and to this extent they are corrupters of society and the enemies of mankind.  I take my stand on the decrees of God’s word, and boldly declare that any man, who habitually neglects the worship of God, is a traitor not only to the high government and law of God, but also to the security and welfare of human society itself.

Said the devout Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Declaration, and one of the noblest spirits of the Revolution, a Christian and a clergyman of those brave and heroic times – “He is the truest friend to American liberty who is the most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind.  Whoever is an avowed enemy to God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country.  It is your duty in this important and critical season to exert yourselves, everyone in his proper sphere, to stem the tide of prevailing vice, to promote the knowledge of God, the observance of his name and worship, and obedience to his laws.  Your duty to God, to your country, to your families, and to yourselves, is the same.  True religion is nothing else but an inward temper and an outward conduct suited to your state and circumstances, in the Providence, at any time.  And as peace with God and conformity to Him add to the sweetness of creature comforts, while we possess them, so in times of difficulty and trial it is the man of piety and inward principle that we may expect to find the uncorrupted patriot, the useful citizen, and the invincible soldier.”

In affixing his name to the Declaration of Independence, this man rose in that illustrious assembly, and gave utterance to these words: “Mr. President, that noble instrument on your table, which insures immortality to its author, should be subscribed this very morning, by every pen in the House.  He who will not respond to its accents, and strain every nerve to carry into effect its provisions, is unworthy the name of freeman.  Although these grey hairs may descend into the sepulcher, I would infinitely rather they should descend thither by the hand of the executioner than desert at this crisis the sacred cause of my country.”  The words ran through the body like electric fire.  Every man arose and affixed his name to that immortal document.  He spoke then the best and highest word of the nation.  He was the mouthpiece of a people standing on the religion of the Bible.

Every nation under heaven has had its religion, and will have to the end of time.  Our own nation has never recognized, in form or principle, any system but that of Christianity, the highest outward expression of which is known in the public service of divine worship maintained among us, especially on the Sabbath day.  And of all places in the land, none should be more important, none more command the sympathy and awaken the interest of the whole people, than the public worship of God in the Capital of the nation.

The historical facts connected with this subject are fraught with the deepest importance, and are entitled to the most serious consideration.  To go no further back than the adoption of the Federal Constitution, and confining ourselves also simply in this statement to the proceedings had in relation to the chaplains of Congress, we call to mind first, the fact that the Constitution of 1789 forbids Congress to make “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” – and further says, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust in the United States.”  This secures two things – the freedom of religion, and the equality of religious sects.  But it does not dispense with the divine obligations of the public worship of God.  So our fathers believed, and so they acted.  The first Congress under the Constitution elected two chaplains, and this practice is continued to the present day.  The law of 1789, and of 1816, regulating this subject, and fixing an annual salary which has never exceeded $750, was passed in pursuance of the conviction not only of the constitutionality, but of the eminent propriety and religious obligation of the service to which the chaplains of Congress were appointed.

And while speaking of salary for the chaplain service in this country, permit me to notice the contrast presented by the State establishment of the Church of England.  The statistics were furnished me by a friend who has thoroughly examined this whole subject.  From tables prepared by him, it appears that the tithing system of Great Britain for the support of the Church, opens an abyss absolutely appalling.  One single fact illustrates the truth of this assertion.  The amount of annual salary paid to some twenty four individuals in the highest orders of the clergy, aggregates nearly $1,000,000 – the highest single salary reaching over $78,000, and the lowest exceeding $20,000!  What then must be the cost of the entire ecclesiastical establishment?

Now, in comparison with this, what is done by our Government for the support of Christianity?  Until the present war, which has of course increased the expense of the chaplaincy, still however, leaving it as a system very defective, the little that was attempted by the Government of the United States can be reported in few words.  I find from a small volume published in 1856, entitled “Government Chaplains,” by Dr. L. D. Johnson, and containing much interesting and curious information, that there were at that date thirty chaplains in the Army, twenty-four in the Navy, and two in Congress, besides a number of post-chaplains and teachers among the Indians.  The whole expense annually to the Government of supporting this body of men did not exceed a quarter of a million of dollars.  I venture to assert that no nation ever existed on earth that maintained the popular religion at so cheap a rate.  Think of it again.

To say nothing of the army or navy, Congress has two chaplains, and gives them each $750 per annum for their services in daily attendance.  I do not for one ask an increase.  I am not pleading for money so much as for the moral effect of the observance, in Congress, of the public ordinances of Divine worship.  But there is no provision of law regulating or even requiring the public Sabbath service in which we are now engaged, and there never has been from the beginning, so far as I am instructed.  It seems to stand alone upon custom.  It has been the unvarying usage for the chaplains of Congress to hold one public service in the Capitol on the Sabbath.  It is evident that Washington, Franklin, Madison, Ellsworth, Sherman and their illustrious compeers, approved of the custom, and that ever since that day, the greatest, the best, and the purest men in the nation have given it countenance and support.  Yet there have been times when questions of the propriety of such services have arisen – times when a portion of the people have petitioned Congress for the abolition of the whole system of the chaplaincy, and consequently of the public religious services which chaplains perform – and times when the system of Government chaplains, and of the Christian ministry itself has met, in the Houses of Congress and out of them, a storm of ridicule, contempt and denunciation.

On the 5th of September, 1774 the American Congress was in session.  There was a doubt in the minds of many about the propriety of opening the daily deliberations with prayer, the reason assigned being the great diversity of opinion and religious belief.  Then rose the venerable puritan, Samuel Adams, with his long white locks hanging over his shoulders, and spoke as follows:  “It does not become men professing to be Christians, convened for solemn deliberation in the hour of their extremity, to say there is so wide a difference in their religious belief that they cannot as one man bow the knee in prayer to the Almighty, whose aid they hope to obtain.  Independent as I am, and an enemy to all Prelacy as I am known to be, I move that the Rev. Dr. Duche, of the Episcopal church, be invited to address the Throne of grace in prayer.”  Dr. Duche complied, and offered prayer, first in the form of his church, and then in extemporaneous supplication, until all hearts were moved, and the whole assembly were bathed in tears.  In the Convention which formed the present Constitution, another scene occurred, no less remarkable and impressive, when the venerable Franklin proposed, in words of profound solemnity never to be forgotten, the introduction of prayer to the Father of Light for that wisdom which was then wanting to harmonize the conflicting elements, and establish the conditions of the nation’s welfare.

Many are the thrilling facts in our country’s history which demonstrate the necessity of public religious services, conducted by the Christian ministry, to the well-being of the Government and the highest prosperity of the whole people.  And now I remark, by the way, that a volume has recently been issued, entitled “The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States,” by the Rev. B. F. Morris, which is the only book of the kind in existence, and which I find to be a perfect treasury of the Christianity of the nation, as embodied in its public monuments, and attested by its public men – a book which ought to become the Manual of the people, and find a place in every library, and be in the possession of every man, woman and child in the nation, and the close companion of all, whether in public or private life.  I trust that book will be thoroughly studied by the present generation of Americans, for it has all the interest of a romance, with all the solidity of science, and all the sanctity of religion.  Go to that book, if you would see what the great and good men of the nation, from the beginning until now, have thought of the propriety and absolute necessity of the services of the Christian ministry, and of the observance of the public worship of God in our national affairs, and in the high places of the country.

I am mainly indebted to it for the impulse which originated this very discourse – for I saw it in manuscript, and have copiously drawn from it, as from a fountain deep and rare, for all the great words I have quoted, or am about to quote from our illustrious ancestors.  Need I say that its loyalty is one of its grandest features; that the very heart of a deep, genuine, glorious devotion to God and the Country and the Constitution, throbs through every page of it.  It could not be otherwise, for it is the sum of the great Christian monuments of the fathers who under God built up our nation – laid its foundation, and reared its mighty structure.  Oh had the degenerate sons of now dishonored sires in the rebellious States heeded these great lessons, instead of those of their false and lying prophets of a more recent time, how great a ruin they might have averted from their heads!

By the expressed conviction and resolute conduct of the great men of the first age of the Republic, the objections of the ignorant, the profane, the unbelieving, against the Christian religion and its devoted ministers were in a measure silenced.  But when at length, in after years, the institution of the Sabbath seemed to be peculiarly and openly endangered by the public example of the Government in the universal running of the mails, the Christian mind of the nation became alarmed, and the Christian ministry lifted up a decided protest, and made their voice heard in the halls of Congress upon that question.  This awakened a powerful opposition from the lax and dissolute men of every description, and kindled again into open conflagration the smoldering embers of the popular prejudice against the ministers and services of religion.  The debates in Congress of that period attest a severe conflict, in which at last however, the friends and advocates of immorality were virtually discomfited, and the cause of Christianity obtained a substantial triumph.  Thus the question of religion, especially as connected with the appointment of chaplains to Congress, and the public worship of God in the Capitol, was left undisturbed for a considerable period.  Meantime, however, a series of causes were operating to bring on the conflict in a fiercer form of political partisanship and bitter animadversion.

It must be confessed that the scramble for the office of chaplain to Congress, by many applicants, and by some perhaps not the best qualified for its responsibilities and duties, had been a growing evil, and was becoming an open scandal to the country.  Besides this, measures had been proposed in Congress affecting the question of slavery, and the repeal of a compact of long standing, which moved the whole nation to its very foundation.  It was an occasion when large portions of the Christian ministry felt justified in bearing an open testimony on the question at issue.  Earnest and stirring memorials, signed by large bodies of the clergy, were sent to Congress, and this aroused the indignation of Senators and Representatives of the dominant political party, against whose public policy the petitions of the memorialists were directed.  Sad is the chapter of the proceedings and debates in regard to the Christian ministry generally, and especially in regard to the election of chaplains, and their services in the 33d Congress.  The very election of a chaplain was characterized as “a farce.”  Votes were given for a female to be the chaplain of the House.  One speaker alludes to the election, as the election of “an humble chaplain.”  Another speaker said, “The candidates are multiplying, and those whose names are now before us are getting uneasy.

I am anxious to have the matter settled, so that the rejected applicants may apply for some other office if they do not get this!”  An article appeared in one of the daily papers of the city to this effect:  “We are altogether opposed to having chaplains to Congress.  We hope the last of them have been elected.  It is pretty well understood that those paid for prayers are to be made brief – cut off short, in order to avoid boring Congress.  Short as they are, they are bores.”  In the Senate, the opposition to the action of a portion of the Christian clergy, and especially to the ministers of New England, took a wider scope.  Senators held them up as deserving the grave censure of that body – as not knowing what they were talking about – as bringing our holy religion into disrepute – as agitators, transforming the lamb to the tiger and the lion.

Meanwhile, memorials came up from the profane and infidel in various quarters of the land for the total abolishment of the office of chaplain.  The reasons set forth for this were that the continuance of the office was in violation of the Constitution – that it imposed unjust taxation – that it was a virtual establishment of the union of church and state – and that it was subversive of the genius and spirit of American institutions.  All these points were fully answered in the reports of the Committees of the two Houses of Congress upon that whole subject, during that ever memorable period.  The Christian sentiment and deliberate sense of the people and of their representatives again prevailed, and the office of the chaplain and the public worship of God in this Capitol of the nation survived together!  But there are objections still, no doubt, lurking in the popular mind and heart, if not openly expressed, against the whole system of the Chaplaincy, and especially against the public worship of God in this high place, which I propose now to consider.

1.  It is unconstitutional.  The voice and practice of the fathers refute this charge.  The Constitution does not forbid the creation of the office of chaplain, with a salary by law of Congress; nor does it forbid the appropriation of money to support a decent observance of the public worship of God in this Capitol.  Congress appropriates thousands of dollars in other ways, not half so much calculated, in my opinion, to promote the public welfare and virtue of the people; and they have a right, under the Constitution, if they so choose, not only to employ a chaplain or chaplains to conduct daily prayers, and the services of public worship here on the Sabbath, but also to devote money from the public treasury to provide a choir, to purchase an organ, and to do all other acts and things necessary to the fullest perfection of divine service.  It will not do for any man to undertake to convince me that all this is unconstitutional.

It is a scandal on the Constitution – a reproach to the memory of our fathers – an insult to religion, and impiety toward God.  The catholic evangelical church of Christ of this day, in all denominations, will not tolerate such a sentiment – such a satire on the great organic law of a free and Christian people.  The Constitution is not at war with the law of God in this particular; and if it were conclusively shown to be, I should go for the higher law of God, and go for conforming the Constitution to that higher law.  We have had enough of sneering at this higher law of God in the land for the last fifteen years.  This is one of the iniquities that has brought at last the thunders of His judgment upon us.

2.  But this would be forming and establishing a union of church and state.  Not by any means.  I am as much opposed to such a union as any man, and would contend as strongly against it.  When our fathers, by the Constitution, deprived Congress of the power to establish religion by law, they did not intend to make us an infidel nation, nor our Government an impious and God-forsaken iniquity.  They meant not to divorce religion wholly from the existence and life of the Republic, but only to prevent the union of any Church establishment with the State, in such a way as to bind the conscience and burden the coffers of the people with either the creed or the taxes of any ecclesiastical institution.  Nobody finds fault with the employment of Government physicians and surgeons, and yet there is just as much reason on this ground for the complaint of a union of Therapeutics with the State.

What is meant by a State church is such as exists in England, where immense sums are appropriated, and large prerogatives exclusively granted to a single church establishment, at the expense of all others, and this in perpetuity.  No such policy has existed under our Constitution, and I trust it never may.  But it is a very different thing for Congress to provide for the public recognition and worship of God in their own halls, leaving all men free to act upon their conscience as to their attendance upon the same, responsible alone to God, for the manner in which these obligations are discharged.

3.  It is no place for religious services.  Ah, and whose opinion is this?  Jesus Christ instructs us, that the day has gone by, when the worship of God shall be confined to any one locality exclusive of another – when men shall worship the Father neither alone at Jerusalem nor in the mountains of Samaria, but everywhere, where men shall worship Him in the spirit.  The temple, the synagogue, the academy, the market-place, the forum, the theatre, the aeropagus, as well as the Christian sanctuary, have all been used for this high purpose.  Nay, the deserts and caves, and fastnesses of the mountains, the vast solitudes of nature, the wide forest, the open sea, under the broad sky in the light of day, in the shadow of midnight, the camp, the caravansary, the hospital, the asylum, the cottage, the seminary, the halls of justice, and the very jails and penitentiaries have been made the temples of the public worship of the Almighty.  And now will it do to say that here in the high conclave of the nation, there is no place for the pure, spiritual, public worship of the one only living and true God?

It is the thought of the infidel – it is the word of the profane!  I am well aware of the opinion of multitudes in this land in regard to the whole subject of Christianity, its ordinances, its laws, its requirements, it ministry, and especially in regard to those who represent it as chaplains, whether here or in the army or the navy.  I know they look with contempt upon the whole arrangement.  They treat the whole matter as though it were but the cant of superstition, or the bigotry of ignorance.  They look upon chaplains as beggars, and upon God as a myth, and upon his worship as a mummery.  They think it superbly magnanimous even to tolerate all this.  They think and feel and act as if Christianity had no right to be here in the world, and its ministers ought to be apologizing to every man they meet, for the fault of pursuing their profession.  But those who have such ideas are not the wise and virtuous of the land.  They are the impious and corrupt, the very dregs and refuse of human society.  They want no restraint on their lusts and passions.

They would hear no reproof of their vices.  They desire full scope for their briberies, their dishonesties, their peculations, their foul and pestilent iniquities.  Such men would no doubt be glad to see God himself dethroned, his law abolished, his government destroyed, and every vestige of his authority swept away, in order that they might run unimpeded and unquestioned into every excess of riot.  Why, I hear it on every hand, day by day, whispered in our dwellings, at the street corners, and everywhere, that there is an amount of corruption going on among us, through men connected with the Government, in all its branches, political, pecuniary, personal, official, and in every way, enough to sink the nation by the weight of its own enormities.  I hear it said on every side, that the same is true socially with the population of the city, in their resorts of amusement and in their dens of infamy.  Now if this be so, would it not be the most natural thing in the world for such a multitude to desire the public monuments of religion to be everywhere destroyed, that they may have full license to run their course of unscrupulous and lawless conduct, without molestation and without restraint.

And now I undertake to say to all such that I ask no leave of them to be following my profession as a minister of Christ.  I shall never beg of any such the privilege of staying in the world to preach the Gospel, and to join in the public worship of Almighty God.  I shall never go creeping and crawling before any man, in my clerical capacity.  If I am not treated as I ought to be, I have the instructions of my Great Master how to proceed.  I will shake the dust off my feet for a witness against them, and leaving them to settle the account with God in the day of final reckoning, I will go elsewhere, as Providence may guide my way.  It is not for any minister of Christ to be whining and puling among his fellow men, as though he were but half a man himself.  Someone remarked to me the other day that a member of Congress had said “he thought it a great privilege that we were allowed the use of this chamber for public worship at all” – and I say if that is the sense of the American Congress, I for one will leave them, the moment it is ascertained, to do their own preaching and praying, and to follow out their own devices in their own way.

I will not waste my breath upon any class of men who, in this age and country, feel like that.  The man who repudiates the Christian religion, and shows his contempt for all it enjoins, and for all who represent and serve it, does not reflect that it is the parent of all the highest social, intellectual, civil and moral good in the land – that it has fostered into greatness all the resources, industries, prosperities, honors and dignities of the nation – that it has adorned our civilization with its rarest ornaments – that it has given to woman her true place in the scale of life – that it has multiplied all the charities and magnanimities of human nature – and he may well be told, in the sententious language of Dr. Franklin, who on one occasion wrote, with a quiet satire only equaled by the truth of the sentence he penned, “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 think so, too.  Take Christianity from this land today – suspend the public worship of God everywhere – eliminate every radix and vestige of the Christian element from among the people, and what would you have left but a mass of fools and knaves, and a general scoundrelism swallowing itself up on all sides!  Therefore I say, stand your ground, to all men who would be true to God, the gospel, and their country.

I do not come here to ask any favor for myself, and I again assert that every man, high or low, black or white, has an equal interest and a common obligation for the maintenance of the public worship of God in this Capitol.  As a single member of the religious community, I do feel an intense interest in the support of the public recognition of God in this high place of the nation; and though I might never preach here again, it would be my prayer that some messenger of the great truth of Revelation might always stand here to uphold the mighty doctrine, and to flash its light and proclaim its summons over all the nation.

4.  But the office of chaplain is liable to abuse, both in the manner of seeking it and in the character of its incumbents.  I know it is alleged, and with some foundation of truth, I fear, that unworthy men have disgraced the profession, not only here but in the army and navy.  But the true remedy is purgation, not the destruction of the office.  Would you abolish Congress, because some members of Congress disgrace their station?  I deplore as deeply as any man the delinquencies of men assuming the sacred office, only to make it the means of pandering to their own selfishness or corruption.  I denounce it here, and I denounce it everywhere.  But let us not tear down the house over our heads because some thief or robber has stolen into it, to rifle it of its contents.

5.  But the services of chaplains are a bore to Congress.  Ah! Then so much the worse for  Congress.  I am glad no record shows, so far as I have seen, that any member of Congress said such a thing as that.  It was said by some scribbler for a newspaper.  It comes with an ill grace from a class of individuals who get their living by filling the issues of the daily press with garbage.  Do not take me to be criticizing that mighty power in the land without discrimination.  When I consider the gigantic influence of this wonder of modern civilization, I am struck with awe at the constancy, the rapidity, and the ubiquity of its operations.  It has more than realized all the fabled actors of antiquity.  The hundred-handed Briareus, the hundred-eyed Argus, the thousand gifts of Apollo, the strength of Hercules, the wisdom of Minerva, the laughter of Momus are all its own – yea, and it has also the secrets of the fatal box of Pandora – and the prolific growth and foliage of all times and climes, and latitudes and seasons, until its leaves fall daily thicker than the leaves of all the forests – to bless or blight the nations.  It is a mighty power for good or evil.  Many great and good men are endeavoring to direct its energies – to them let us give all praise – but in the hands of the evil and the venal, who can calculate the mischief it has power to work!

6.  But ministers are too apt to meddle with politics.  If they would only preach the gospel, and let politics alone, they might be tolerated.  Now I admit that there is a danger here, and that some fall into it – that is to say, ministers may fail in their great mission of preaching the gospel to the world, either by suppressing its great cardinal elements, and foisting in their place some truth, or error, as the case may be, which does not belong to the place they would assign to it; or they may so preach the gospel, in their style of handling it, as to render nugatory its legitimate influence and effect.  All this is to be carefully avoided.  But whoever undertakes to say that the gospel is not in itself essentially a system that takes hold upon the question of right and wrong everywhere in the nature, relations, society, intercourse and business of men, knows nothing of its principles or of its design.  I know there has been an attempt to divorce the gospel from politics, and politics from the gospel; and I hold it to be one of the most stupendous practical errors, follies, heresies, and crimes of the age.  The gospel is the most radical force of a moral and spiritual kind ever introduced into this world.

It is God’s plough-share, driven afield by the great cattle of his Providence, through the wilderness of human wrong and outrage for the last two thousand years; and wherever it comes, it is destined to tear up the prescription of ages of iniquity, the great systems of false religion and false philosophy, the infidelity, the tyranny, the oppression, the vice and rooted corruptions of mankind, and hurl them headlong from its mighty furrows.  If it encounters a vulgar and vitiated system of politics, it will no more spare that than anything else that tends to the destruction and ruin of mankind.  The gospel was designed to attack all false opinions and sentiments, all immoral customs and practices, all despotic and cruel principles, and every enemy of the virtue, the true culture, the Christian progress, and the spiritual elevation of mankind; and woe be to that professed minister of Christ who fails through any fear or favor of man, to declare the whole counsel of God, who abates one jot from the Revelation of divine wisdom.  It is the duty of the minister to proclaim Christ and him crucified, the only and all-sufficient Savior of the world, and all the cognate and kindred doctrines of grace; but around this central doctrine of the cross, this article of justification by faith, every human interest and relationship come thronging; and he must apply this truth, rightly dividing the word – a workman that needs not to be ashamed.

The truth is, and we may all know it, a pure Christianity is the only sufficient and proper conservator of the duties, the obligations, and immunities of mankind – the only lasting and adequate security of republican constitutional liberty.  This is the testimony of all the wisdom and greatness of the ages that are past:

“Government has an everlasting foundation in the unchangeable will of God,” said Otis.  “May we ever be a people favored of God,” said Warren.  “If it was ever granted to mortals to trace the designs of Providence, we may cry out, not unto us, but unto thy name be the praise,” said Samuel Adams.  “There is one thing more I wish I could give them, and that is the Christian religion,” said Patrick Henry.  “Let us play the men for God and the cities of our God,” said John Hancock.  “Science, liberty, and religion are the choicest blessings of humanity,” said John Adams.  “Righteousness exalts a nation,” testified Robert Treat Paine.  “The hand of Heaven seems to have directed every occurrence,” said Elbridge Gerry.  “I believe in the divine mission of our Savior,” said Thornton.  “I believe in the Christian religion,” said Hopkins.  “Let us be hopeful and trusting, for the Lord reigns,” said William Ellery.  “A life-long devotion to his country and his God.” Is the eulogy of Roger Sherman.  “

A professing Christian of eminent virtue,” was the substance of the testimony of the biographers of Huntingdon, of Williams, of Wolcott, of Livingston and Stockton.  Of Witherspoon, the historian says, “If the pulpit of America had given only this one man to the Revolution, it would deserve to be held in everlasting remembrance.”  “The worship of God is a duty,” said Benjamin Franklin. “I tremble for my country, when I reflect that God is just,” said Jefferson.  “The duty we owe to God can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force and violence,” said George Mason.  “Religion is the solid basis of good morals,” said Governor Morris.  Of Pinckney it is certified, “He had practical faith in the divinity of the Bible, and its essential need to republican government” – of Benjamin Rush, that “he was one of the greatest and best of Christians.”  Fisher Ames, John Hart, James Smith, and Robert Morris were all believers in the gospel of Christ; and some of them were as eminent in His church as in the councils of the nation.  Hamilton, that great genius of the Revolution, says, “The law of nature, dictated by God himself, is of course superior to any other.  No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.”  “Grateful to Almighty God for the blessings which, through Jesus Christ, our Lord, he has bestowed upon my beloved country,” said the venerable Charles Carroll of Carrollton.

Thompson, Wythe, Wilson, Chase, the two Lees, were all pre-eminent Christians.  Every one of their illustrious associates and successors might be quoted as witnesses of the same great faith.  John Jay, Boudinot, Madison, Monroe, Ellsworth, Drayton, Greene, Knox, Wm. Livingston, Trumbull, Washington and Lafayette, Marshall, the Randolph’s, the Adams, Jackson, Clay, and Webster – all these have left an imperishable record of their conviction that it is as true now as in the remotest antiquity, that, using the language of Plutarch, “a city might as well be built in the air, without any earth to stand upon, as a commonwealth or a kingdom be constituted or preserved without religion!”  Need I say then, how deeply the American people, but especially the rulers, lawgivers, judges, and military and civil functionaries of our country, ought to feel the necessity and obligation of cleaving to this public recognition of Almighty God, and the great foundation principles of the Christian faith, in such a day as this?  Now the earthquake of popular excitement is heaving in every quarter.  Now the hurricane of popular opinion is sweeping fiercely and wildly across the naked heart of the nation.  Now grim-visaged war rolls his dun clouds, reddened with the blood of our bravest and best, over all the sky.  Now we are in the most momentous year of these great travail pangs – a year in which it is to be determined whether the nation, with the sword in one hand, and reeling under the weight of staggering blows from a giant rebellion, uplifted by the awful energies of the universal convulsion, can with the other steadily hold her great and sovereign birthright, and by the deliberate and unrestricted suffrage of a free people, advance to the high seat of Government a citizen for their President!  Oh when I look at these things, I say God help us.  Let the nation cling to the Christian religion.

It would be easy to show, as has been done over and over again, how the public worship of God tends directly to work those effects in the opinions, habits and spirit of the people which contribute to the public security and prosperity; and how, on the other hand, the neglect of these great ordinance s conspires to the demoralization of communities, until they are ground to powder beneath the upper and nether millstones of God’s providence.  But I shall not enter into this argument now.  It is sufficient to assert that no people can retain the principles of religion apart from its public monuments, ordinances, and commemorations.  God has foretold therefore, that his worship shall be universal; and that in the high places of every nation there shall be the celebration of his praise.  And therefore let me ask you whether it is a matter of individual and national concern for the people of the United States to maintain or not the public worship of Almighty God in these chambers of their Capitol?  Shall the great hope of man and the great light of salvation here be permitted to go out from the highest public altar of the country – the temple of law and justice – the edifice consecrated to the noblest earthly work of man?  No, no, sai I- a thousand times, no!  I would not have this capitol polluted and disgraced by any company of brawling politicians, demagogues and conspirators, who under the sacred forms of legislative office, in the proud parade of senatorial robes – bearing the insignia of representatives of a mighty people, use such a place as this to hatch their infernal plots, and to perfect the finesse or the chicanery of their corrupt and mischievous designs.

Nay, rather I would have every man who enters these halls feel at once the grand old air of an upright and majestic manhood – feel that he stands in a temple – not like that at Jerusalem, which smoked with the holocausts of a thousand victims but a place where God’s homage is paramount, and man’s dignity the next in value to the Infinite; both uniting to give these halls a sanctity more than the veneration of the Amphictyon Council – more than the Hebrew Sanhedrin – more than the Court of Aeropagus, or the Delphic Oracles – more than the Roman Senate- more than the Saxon Witenagemot – more than the House of Deputies of France – more than the Parliament of England.  And so long as the starry banner, the previous ensign of the Republic floats over the capitol, in token of the convention of the nation’s lawgivers, and so long as the statue of Liberty, now exalted over us by the wonderful skill and cunning handiwork of man, shall look down upon this grand panorama and proscenium of the metropolis, so long, even to the last running sand of expiring time, would I have this public structure devoted to the public worship of God – its pillars the emblems of his truth, its adornments the symbols of his favor, its chambers, halls and corridors filled with the rolling songs of praise, and echoing to the swell of voices uplifted in the wonder, the gratitude, the awe, and the adoration of His worship.

Yea, and when that glorious hour shall strike the full accomplishment of his great prediction, and from moon to moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all nations shall come before the Jehovah of the whole earth, and there shall be one matchless and continuous anthem of worship, reverberating from hill to hill, and from land to land, and from shore to shore, as the sun performs his circuit in the heavens, and all the ministers of God, becoming the mouth of the millions of earth’s people, shall utter their successive testimony to the truth of the great salvation, and from all the renowned cities of the globe shall break, and echo, and respond, in the soul-thrilling accents of apocalyptic tongues, the last great announcement of the emancipated world, the kingdoms of the earth have become the kingdoms of our God, and when the great heart of human nature no longer driven by the sins and sorrows of the time, but redressed and full of living joy, shall beat with the mighty fervor of unutterable enthusiasm, and when from every summit of nature, and every tower of man, shall peal forth the solemn knoll of God’s great bells of time, calling mankind to worship – Oh, then would I have the capitol of my country stand high and strong, with all the heart of the nation gathered about it, God’s favor shining upon it, millions of prayers centered in it, and the voice of its worship going up to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe in a volume the clearest, the grandest, and the most earnest of all the voices that shall salute the ear of Heaven from the manifold languages of the whole earth!  This is an emulation worthy to be fostered, and may the Lord Jehovah hasten it in his time! Amen.
END.

Religious Activities at Presidential Inaugurations

by David Barton

Americans have long believed that civic ceremonies such as presidential inaugurations should include religious activities. Recently, some individuals and groups have raised objections to these activities, often arguing that they violate the Founders’ supposed commitment to secularizing the public square by separating church and state.1 These arguments have no historical foundation, as can be seen by briefly considering America’s first presidential inauguration.

Constitutional experts abounded at George Washington’s inauguration. The inauguree himself was a signer of the Constitution, and one-fourth of the members of the Congress that organized and directed his inauguration had also been delegates to the Constitutional Convention. 2 This body certainly knew what was, and was not constitutional.

George Washington’s First Inauguration

The first inauguration occurred on April 30, 1789, at Federal Hall in New York City (the city served as the nation’s capital in 1789-1790). Extensive preparations for that event were made by Congress, with the cooperative help of a body of fourteen clergy, including ministers from different denominations and a rabbi.3

Local papers reported the first of these activities:

[O]n the morning of the day on which our illustrious President will be invested with his office, the bells will ring at nine o’clock, when the people may go up to the house of God and in a solemn manner commit the new government, with its important train of consequences, to the holy protection and blessing of the Most High. An early hour is prudently fixed for this peculiar act of devotion and it is designed wholly for prayer. 4

As the day proceeded, things appeared to be moving smoothly. But as the parade carrying Washington by horse-drawn carriage was nearing Federal Hall, it was realized that no Bible had been obtained for administering the oath. Today this would not be a problem for some civic officials, but in that era it would have been highly unusual to take an oath without a Bible.

Oaths in American History

In the Christian West, oath taking had long been held to be an innately religious activity. Many early colonial and state laws required oaths to be taken on the Bible. Some states even specified that they were to be taken “on the holy evangelists of Almighty God” 5 —that is, on the Bible, but with special emphasis on the Gospels. Requirements also routinely stipulated that “So help me God” be part of the official oath,6 and multiple states specifically required that the person taking the oath, “after repeating the words, ‘So help me God,’ shall kiss the Holy Gospels.” 7 These general provisions—in place at the time of the federal Constitution—were retained for generations.8

With this as the standard practice for oath-taking, a Bible was certainly needed. So Parade Marshal Jacob Morton hurried off and soon returned with a large 1767 King James Bible.

Bible & the Presidential Oath at the 1st Inauguration

The inaugural ceremony was conducted on the balcony at Federal Hall. With a huge crowd gathered below to watch the proceedings, the Bible was laid upon a crimson velvet cushion held by Samuel Otis, Secretary of the US Senate. New York Chancellor Robert Livingston administered the oath of office. (He was on the five-man committee charged with drafting the Declaration of Independence, but before he could affix his signature to the document he was called back to New York to guide his state through the Revolution. Because Livingston was the highest ranking judicial official in New York, he was chosen to administer the oath to President Washington.) Standing beside them were many distinguished officials, including Vice President John Adams, future Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, and Generals Henry Knox and Philip Schuyler.

When it came time to take the oath, Washington placed his left hand upon the Bible, which had been opened at random to Genesis 49,9 raised his right, and swore to “faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” He then bent over, reverentially kissed the Bible, and then likely added the words “So help me God.”

Oaths in the Various States

Significantly, twelve of the thirteen colonies at the time required the use of that phrase when taking an oath, 10 and the thirteenth colony required a declared belief in God just to hold office. 11 While no contemporary records verify this addition to his oath, it would have been highly unusual if he had neglected to do so; and we can be confident that the absence of these words would certainly have been noted in contemporary accounts.

Many of Washington’s actions related to oath-taking have clear antecedents in the Bible. For example, God declared: “I RAISED MY HAND IN AN OATH . . .” (Ezekiel 20:15, 23; 36:7; Psalm 106:26) and the Scripture further affirms that “The Lord has sworn by His RIGHT hand” (Isaiah 62:8). And when God’s people were instructed how to take an oath, they were told: “You shall . . . take oaths IN HIS NAME” (Deuteronomy 10:20), which is reflected with our use of the phrase “So help me God.”

Founders on Oaths

America’s Founders repeatedly affirmed that oath taking is an inherently religious activity. For example (emphasis added in each quote):

[An] oath—the strongest of religious ties.12 JAMES MADISON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION

[In o]ur laws . . . by the oath which they prescribe, we appeal to the Supreme Being so to deal with us hereafter as we observe the obligation of our oaths. The Pagan world were and are without the mighty influence of this principle which is proclaimed in the Christian system. 13 RUFUS KING, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION

Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. 14 JOHN ADAMS, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS

An oath is an appeal to God, the Searcher of Hearts, for the truth of what we say and always expresses or supposes an imprecation [calling down] of His judgment upon us if we prevaricate [lie]. An oath, therefore, implies a belief in God and His Providence and indeed is an act of worship. . . . In vows, there is no party but God and the person himself who makes the vow.15 JOHN WITHERSPOON, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

The Constitution enjoins an oath upon all the officers of the United States. This is a direct appeal to that God Who is the avenger of perjury. Such an appeal to Him is a full acknowledgment of His being and providence. 16 OLIVER WOLCOTT, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

According to the modern definition [1788] of an oath, it is considered a “solemn appeal to the Supreme Being for the truth of what is said by a person who believes in the existence of a Supreme Being and in a future state of rewards and punishments . . .” 17JAMES IREDELL, RATIFIER OF THE CONSTITUTION, EARLY U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

The Constitution had provided that all the public functionaries of the Union, not only of the general [federal] but of all the state governments, should be under oath or affirmation for its support. The homage of religious faith was thus superadded to all the obligations of temporal law to give it strength. 18JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, PRESIDENT

George Washington, in his famous Farewell Address at the end of his presidency, pointedly warned Americans never to let the oath-taking process become secular:

[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths . . . ?19

Clearly, in the Founding Era, the act of taking an oath was considered an intrinsically religious activity.

Eyewitness Account of the 1st Inauguration

After George Washington finished taking his oath, Chancellor Livingston proclaimed “It is done!” Turning to the crowd assembled below, he shouted, “Long live George Washington —the first President of the United States!” That shout was echoed and re-echoed by the crowd. As reported by one eyewitness:

It would seem extraordinary that the administration of an oath, a ceremony so very common and familiar, should in so great a degree excite the public curiosity. But the circumstances of his election—the impression of his past services—the concourse of spectators – the devout fervency with which he repeated the oath—and the reverential manner in which he bowed down and kissed the Sacred Volume—all these conspired to render it one of the most august and interesting spectacle ever exhibited on this globe. It seemed, from the number of witnesses, to be a solemn appeal to Heaven and earth at once. Upon the subject of this great and good man, I may perhaps be an enthusiast, but I confess that I was under an awful and religious persuasion that the gracious Ruler of the Universe was looking down at that moment with peculiar complacency [satisfaction] on an act, which to a part of His creatures was so very important. Under this impression, when the Chancellor pronounced in a very feeling manner, “Long live George Washington,” my sensibility was wound up to such a pitch that I could do not more than wave my hat with the rest, without the power of joining in the repeated acclamations which rent the air.20

Washington’s Inauguration Address

Washington and the other officials then left the balcony and went inside Federal Hall to the Senate Chamber, where he delivered the first Inaugural Address to a joint session of Congress. He began by emphasizing that it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being Who rules over the universe, Who presides in the councils of nations, and Whose providential aids can supply every human defect – that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes. 21

Washington then called his listeners to remember and acknowledge God:

In tendering this homage [act of worship] to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of Providential Agency. . . . [and] we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious [favorable] smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.22

Washington concluded the address by offering a heartfelt closing prayer:

I shall take my present leave—but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication [prayer] that . . . His Divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this government must depend.23

Church After Inauguration

After the address, Congress had stipulated:

That after the oath shall have been administered to the President, he—attended by the Vice-President and members of the Senate and House of Representatives—proceed to St. Paul’s Chapel to hear Divine service.24

So, agreeable to the congressional resolution:

The President, the Vice-President, the Senate, and House of Representatives, &c., then proceeded to St. Paul’s Chapel, where Divine Service was performed by the chaplain of Congress. 25

The president and Congress went en masse to church, where the service was conducted by The Right Reverend Samuel Provoost—the Episcopal Bishop of New York who had been chosen chaplain of the Senate the preceding week. 26 He performed the service according to The Book of Common Prayer, including prayers taken from Psalms 144–150, administering the sacrament of Holy Communion, and Scripture readings from the book of Acts, I Kings, and the Third Epistle of John. 27

After the church service Congress returned to Federal Hall where it adjourned, thus concluding the official inaugural activities.

Conclusion

The first presidential inauguration included at least eight distinctly religious activities: (1) a time of public prayer preceding the inauguration (today, this often occurs through an official prayer breakfast preceding the inauguration); (2) the use of the Bible to administer the oath; (3) solemnifying the oath with multiple religious expressions (placing a hand on the Bible, saying “So help me God,” and kissing the Bible); (4) prayers offered by the president himself; (5) religious content in the inaugural address; (6) the president calling the people to pray or acknowledge God; (7) official church worship services; and (8) clergy-led prayers. These have been repeated, in whole or part, in every subsequent inauguration. 28

From the earliest colonial settlements to the first presidential inauguration, Americans believed that religious practices should play an important role in civic ceremonies. There is no reason to think America’s Founders desired to change these practices, and every reason to believe they firmly embraced them.


Endnotes

1 See, for example, “ FFRF asks Trump to eject religion and prayer from public oath-taking,” Freedom From Religion Foundation, January 3, 2017; Newdow v. Roberts, 603 F.3d 1002, Ct. of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia (2010); Newdow v. Bush, USDC, District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 04-2208 (JDB), opinion rendered January 14, 2005.

2 Significantly, many of the U. S. Senators at the first Inauguration had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention that framed the Constitution including William Samuel Johnson, Oliver Ellsworth, George Read, Richard Bassett, William Few, Caleb Strong, John Langdon, William Paterson, Robert Morris, and Pierce Butler; and many members of the House had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention, including Roger Sherman, Abraham Baldwin, Daniel Carroll, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Hugh Williamson, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimmons, and James Madison.

3 See, for example, The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1907), XI:160, “Gershom Mendez Seixas.”

4 The Daily Advertiser, (New York, April 23, 1789), 2.

5 See, for example, the laws of Georgia, both before and after the federal Constitution: Oliver H. Prince, A Digest of the Laws of the State of Georgia (Milledgeville: Grantland & Orme, 1822), 3, “An Act for the case of Dissenting Protestants, within this province, who may be scrupulous of taking an oath, in respect to the manner and form of administering the same,” passed December 13, 1756 and South Carolina: Joseph Brevard, An Alphabetical Digest of the Public Statue Law of South Carolina (Charleston: John Hoff, 1814), II:86, “Oaths-Affirmations.”

6 See, for example, Connecticut as an example. For policies on this before the federal Constitution: R.R. Hinman, A.M., Letters From the English Kings and Queens, Charles II, James II, William and Mary, Anne, George II, &C., To the Governors of the Colony of Connecticut, Together With the Answers Thereto, From 1635 to 1749; And Other Original, Ancient, Literary and Curious Documents, Compiled From Files and Records in the Office of the Secretary of the State of Connecticut (Hartford: John B. Eldredge, Printer, 1836), 26-28. For policies on this following the federal Constitution, see: The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1808), 535, Title CXXII: Oaths, Ch. 1, Sec. 6, law passed in May, 1742; 540, Title CXXII: Oaths, Ch. 1, Sec. 25, law passed in May, 1726; 541, Title CXXII: Oaths, Ch. 1, Sec. 30 & 32, law passed in May, 1718.

For additional examples of states requiring people being sworn into office to say “so help me God” see: The Federal and State Constitution, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws, ed. Francis Newton Thorpe (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1909), I:523, 1638-1639. Fundamental Orders of Connecticut; II:780, 1777. Georgia Constitution, Art. XIV-XV; III:1909, 1780. Massachusetts Constitution, Ch. VI; IV:2468, 1784. New Hampshire Constitution, “Oaths and Subscriptions”; VI:3255, 1778. Constitution of South Carolina, Sec. XXXVI. Laws of the State of Delaware (New Castle: Samuel and John Adams, 1797), II:1261, Ch. XCVIII, Sec. 29.

Laws of Maryland, Made Since MDCCLXIII (Annapolis: Frederick Green, 1787), Ch. V from “A Session of the General Assembly of Maryland…in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-seven”. William Patterson, Laws of the State of New-Jersey (Newark: Matthias Day, 1800), 376, “An Act prescribing certain oaths,” February 20, 1799. The Public Laws of the State of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations (Providence: Miller & Hutchens, 1822), 109, 111, “An Act to establish a Supreme Judicial Court,” passed from 1729-1822. Abridgment of the Public Permanent Laws of Virginia (Richmond: Augustine Davis, 1796), 219-220, “Oaths,” December 22, 1792, the text of many of the oaths listed here come from 1779.

7. John Haywood, A Manual of the Laws of North Carolina (Raleigh: J. Gales, 1814), 34, “Oaths and Affirmations. 1777”; Laws of the State of New-York (New York: Thomas Greenleaf, 1798), 21, “Chap. XXV: An Act to dispense with the usual mode of administering oaths, in favor of persons having conscientious scruples respecting the same, Passed 1st of April, 1778”; James Parker, Conductor Generalis: Or the Office, Duty and Authority of the Justices of the Peace (New York: John Patterson, 1788), 302-304, “Of oaths in general”.

8. George C. Edward, A Treatise on the Powers and Duties of Justices of the Peace and Town Officers, in the State of New York (Ithaca: Mack, Andrus & Woodruff, 1836), 91, “Of the proceedings on the trial.”

9. See, for example, “The 1st Presidential Inauguration,” Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (accessed on January 17, 2017).

10. Laws requiring some version of “so help me God” are found in all original 13 colonies except Pennsylvania. American Political Thought (Spring 2014), 3:1:55, Mark David Hall, “Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance, Jefferson’s Statute for Religious Liberty, and the Creation of the First Amendment.”

11. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 required legislators to swear or affirm, “I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the Rewarder of the good and the Punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration” [The Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (Boston: Norman and Bowen, 1785), 81, Pennsylvania, 1776, Chapter II, Section 10]. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 required that the official “acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments” [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: Towar, J. & D. M. Hogan, 1830), 168, Pennsylvania, 1790, Art. 9].

12. James Madison, The Writings of James Madison, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904), V:30, to Thomas Jefferson on October 24, 1787.

13. Reports of the Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1821, Assembled for the Purpose of Amending The Constitution of the State of New York (Albany: E. and E. Hosford, 1821), 575, Rufus King, October 30, 1821.

14. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, Brown and company, 1854), IX:229, to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts on October 11, 1798.

15. John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), VII:139, 142, from his “Lectures on Moral Philosophy,” Lecture 16 on Oaths and Vows.

16. Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington: Printed for the Editor, 1836), II:202, Oliver Wolcott on January 9, 1788.

17. Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington: Printed for the Editor, 1836), IV:196, James Iredell on July 30, 1788.

18. John Quincy Adams, The Jubilee of the Constitution. A Discourse Delivered at the Request of the New York Historical Society, in the City of New York, on Tuesday, the 30th of April, 1839; Being the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Inauguration of George Washington as President of the United States, on Thursday, the 30th of April, 1789 (New York: Samuel Colman, 1839), 62.

19. George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge, 1796), 23.

20. Gazette of the United States (May 9-13, 1789), 3, “Extract of a letter from New-York, May 3;” The American Museum: Or Repository of Ancient and Modern Fugitive Pieces, & c. Prose and Poetical (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1789), V:505.

21. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, ed. Joseph Gales (Washington: Gales & Seaton, 1834), Vol. I, p. 27; George Washington, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, ed. James D. Richardson (Washington, D.C.: 1899), 1:44-45, April 30, 1789.

22. Debates and Proceedings (1834), I:27-29, April 30, 1789.

23. Debates and Proceedings (1834), I:27-29, April 30, 1789.

24. In the Senate: Debates and Proceedings (1834), I:25, April 27, 1789; in the House: Debates and Proceedings (1834), I:241, April 29, 1789.

25. Debates and Proceedings (1834), I:29, April 30, 1789.

26. Clarence W. Bowen, The History of the Centennial Celebration of the Inauguration of George Washington (New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1892), 54; “Chaplain’s Office,” United States Senate (accessed on January 12, 2017).

27. Book of Common Prayer (Oxford: W. Jackson & A. Hamilton, 1784), s.v., April 30th. For evidence that George Washington participated in that communion, see Peter Lillback, Sacred Fire (Bryn Mawr, PA: Dickinson Press, 2006), 420-423.

28. The religious activities that took place during Barack Obama’s inauguration ceremony in 2009 were fewer than those at Washington’s Inauguration but did include prayer before and after the oath of office, using a Bible during the oath, saying “so help me God” at the end of the oath [“The 56th Presidential Inauguration,” Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies], religious content in the inaugural address [“President Barack Obama’s Inaugural Address,” The White House, January 21, 2009], and attending a prayer service the day after the inauguration [Amanda Ruggeri, “For President Obama, a Somber, Inclusive Inaugural Prayer Service,” U.S. News & World Report, January 21, 2009].

 

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

President Eisenhower’s One Nation Under God

February 7 is a notable historical day for the acknowledgment of God in modern America: it is the day that a sermon was preached before President Dwight D. Eisenhower, suggesting that the words “under God” be added to the pledge. The sermon was preached by the Rev. George M. Docherty, pastor of New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington, D. C.1

This sermon was preached for Lincoln Day, and it had a great impact on those listening, including President Eisenhower, who was seated in the same pew that Abraham Lincoln had regularly occupied in that church as President.2 In that sermon Docherty stated:

There was something missing in the pledge, and that which was missing was the characteristics and definitive factor in the American way of life. Indeed apart from the mention of the phrase, the United States of America, it could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer and sickle flag in Moscow with equal solemnity.3

He made the point that the American pledge as it then existed could just have been recited by citizens from any country, even those from communistic nations that hated God. The day following the sermon, U. S. Rep. Charles Oakman from Michigan introduced a Joint Resolution (H. J. Res 371) to add the words “Under God” into the pledge,4 explaining:

Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Docherty hit the nail squarely on the head. One of the most fundamental differences between us and the Communists is our belief in God.5

Two days later, on February 10th, Senator Homer Ferguson from Michigan introduced the Senate Joint Resolution (S.J. 126),6 explaining to the Senate:

Our nation is founded on a fundamental belief in God, and the first and most important reason for the existence of our government is to protect the God-given rights of our citizens. . . . Indeed, Mr. President, over one of the doorways to this very Chamber inscribed in the marble are the words “In God We Trust.” Unless those words amount to more than a carving in stone, our country will never be able to defend itself.7

These resolutions were passed, and on June 14, 1954 (Flag Day), President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the bill into law, officially adding the words “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance, telling the nation:

From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty. To anyone who truly loves America, nothing could be more inspiring than to contemplate this rededication of our youth, on each school morning, to our country’s true meaning. . . . In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource, in peace or in war.8

Who could have imagined that a single sermon could have such an impact? Yet American history is full of such accounts. On February 7th, take time to read this remarkable sermon, remembering that we are indeed “one nation under God.”


Endnotes

1 George M. Docherty, One Way of Living (Harper & Brothers, New York, 1958), 158, “One Nation Under God.”
2 “Lincoln and ‘Under God’,” Presbyterian Historical Society, February 7, 2014; “House Joint Resolution 243 to Amend the Pledge of Allegiance to Include the Phrase ‘Under God’: Extension of Remarks of Hon. Louis C. Rabaut,” Feb 12, 1954,  Congressional Record (Volume 100 Session 2), 1700.
3 “Abraham Lincoln: Extension of Remarks of Hon. Charles G. Oakman,” Feb 12, 1954, Congressional Record (Volume 100, Session 2), 1697; George M. Docherty, One Way of Living (Harper & Brothers, New York, 1958), 164; “House Joint Resolution 243 to Amend the Pledge of Allegiance to Include the Phrase ‘Under God’: Extension of Remarks of Hon. Louis C. Rabaut,” Feb 12, 1954,  Congressional Record (Volume 100 Session 2), 1700.
4 Feb 8, 1954, Congressional Record (Volume 100, Session 2), 1522.
5 “Abraham Lincoln: Extension of Remarks of Hon. Charles G. Oakman,” Feb 12, 1954, Congressional Record (Volume 100, Session 2), 1697.
6 Feb 10, 1954, Congressional Record (Volume 100, Session 2), 1600.
7 Feb 10, 1954, Congressional Record (Volume 100, Session 2), 1600-1601.
8 Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Statement by the President Upon Signing Bill To Include the Words “Under God” in the Pledge to the Flag,” June 14, 1954, The American Presidency Project.

A God-Given Inalienable Right

One of the first rights to be protected in early America was the right of conscience – the right to believe differently on issues of religious faith. As John Quincy Adams explained, this right was a product of Christianity:

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

Early American legal writer Stephen Cowell (1800-1872) agreed:

Nonconformity, dissent, free inquiry, individual conviction, mental independence, are forever consecrated by the religion of the New Testament. 2

President Franklin D. Roosevelt likewise declared:

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

The Scriptures teach that there will be differences of conscience (cf. 1 Corinthians 8) and that if an individual “wounds a weak conscience of another, you have sinned against Christ” (v. 12). We are therefore instructed to respect the differing rights of conscience (v. 13). (See also I Corinthians 10:27-29.) Extending toleration for the rights of conscience is urged throughout the New Testament. (See also Romans 14:3, 15:7, Ephesians 4:2, Colossians 3:13, etc.)

Leaders who knew the Scriptures therefore protected those rights. For example, in 1640, the Rev. Roger Williams established Providence, penning its governing document declaring:

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

Similar protections also appear in 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 and the 1682 Frame of Government for Pennsylvania. 12 John Quincy Adams affirmed that: “The transcendent and overruling principle of the first settlers of New England was conscience.” 13

Then when America separated from Great Britain in 1776 and the states created their very first state constitutions, they openly acknowledged Christianity and jointly secured religious toleration, non-coercion, and the rights of conscience. For example, the 1776 constitution of Virginia declared:

That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. 14

Similar clauses appeared in the constitutions of New Jersey (1776), 15 North Carolina (1776), 16 Pennsylvania (1776), 17 New York (1777), 18 Vermont (1777), 19 South Carolina (1778), 20 Massachusetts (1780), 21 New Hampshire (1784), 22 etc. Today, the safeguard for the rights of conscience pioneered by Christian leaders is a regular feature of state constitutions. 23

The Founding Fathers were outspoken about the importance of this God-given inalienable right. For example, signer of the Constitution William Livingston declared:

Consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation. . . . [H]ow beautiful appears our [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. 24

And John Jay, the original Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, similarly rejoiced that:

Security under our constitution is 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. 25

President Thomas Jefferson likewise declared that the First Amendment was an “expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience.” 26

But President Obama disagrees with what for four centuries in American history has formerly been an inalienable right. He has specifically singled out and attacked the rights of religious and moral conscience, seeking to coerce dissenters into accepting his own beliefs. While Biblical teachings result in protection for differences of opinion on religious issues, secularists demand conformity of belief and practice to their own secular standards; they are especially intolerant of any differences that stem from Biblical faith.

While the President has targeted the Catholic Church for its religious beliefs, his attacks on religious conscience were ongoing, beginning shortly after he first took office when he first announced his plans to repeal religious conscience protection for medical workers. (We have posted on our website a piece showing the extreme and consistent hostility of this President against Biblical faith and values. As proven by his own actions and words, he is the most anti-Biblical president in American history.)


1 John Quincy Adams, A Discourse on Education Delivered at Braintree, Thursday, October 24th, 1839 (Boston: Perkins & Marvin, 1840), 17-18.

2 Stephen Colwell, Politics for American Christians: A World upon our Example as a Nation, our Labour, our Trade, Elections, Education, and Congressional Legislation (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo & Co. 1852), 82.

3 “Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Christmas Greeting to the Nation,” American Presidency Project, December 24, 1940, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/209414.

4 “Plantation Agreement at Providence,” The Avalon Project, August 27 – September 6, 1640, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/ri01.asp.

5 William MacDonald, Select Charters and Other Documents Illustrative of American History 1606-1775 (New York: MacMillan Company, 1899), 104-106.

6 “Plantation Agreement at Providence August 27 – September 6, 1640,” The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters and Other Organic Laws, ed. Francis Newton Thorpe (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1909), VI:3211; “Charter of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,” The Avalon Project, July 15, 1663, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/ri01.asp.

7 “The Concession and Agreement of the Lords Proprietors of the Province of New Caesarea, or New Jersey,” The Avalon Project, 1664, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/nj05.asp.

8 “Charter of Carolina,” The Avalon Project, June 30, 1665, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/nc03.asp.

9 “Fundamental Constitution of Carolina,” The Avalon Project, March 1, 1669, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/nc05.asp.

10 “The Charter or Fundamental Laws of West New Jersey,” The Avalon Project, 1676, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/nj05.asp.

11 “Charter of Delaware,“ The Avalon Project, 1701, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/de01.asp.

12 “ Frame of Government of Pennsylvania,“ The Avalon Project, May 5, 1682, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/pa04.asp.

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

14 “Constitution of Virginia: Bill of Rights,” 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, 1845), 180.

15 “Constitution of New Jersey,” The Avalon Project, 1776, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nj15.asp.

16 Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (Boston: Norman & Bowen, 1785), 132.

17 Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (Boston: Norman & Bowen, 1785), 77.

18 “The Constitution of New York,” The Avalon Project, April 20, 1777, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ny01.asp 1777.

19 The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws, 3d. Francis Newton Thorpe (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1909), VI:3740.

20 Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America, (Boston: Norman & Bowen, 1785), 152-154.

21 Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (Boston: Norman & Bowen, 1785), 6.

22 Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (Boston: Norman & Bowen, 1785), 3-4.

23 “State Policies in Brief: Refusing to Provide Health Services,” Guttmacher Institute, March 1, 2012, https://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RPHS.pdf.

24 William Livingston, The Papers of William Livingston, eds. Carl E. Prince, et al (Trenton: New Jersey Historical Commission, 1980), 2:235-237, writing as “Cato,” February 18, 1778.

25 Benjamin 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), 152.

26 Thomas Jefferson to Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen S. Nelson, A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut, January 1, 1802 Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Albert Ellery Bergh (Washington D.C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), XVI:281-282.

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

Black History Issue 2003

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

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

Black Voting in the 1700s

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

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

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

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

Congressional Actions

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

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

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

Political Parties

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

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

Specific Constitutional Rights for African-Americans

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democratic Efforts to Limit Voting Rights for Blacks

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

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

  • Poll taxes

  • Literacy tests

  • “Grandfather” clauses

  • Suppressive election procedures

  • Black codes and enforced segregation

  • Bizarre gerrymandering

  • White-only primaries

  • Physical intimidation and violence

  • Restrictive eligibility requirements

  • Rewriting of State constitutions

1. The poll tax

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

2. Literacy tests

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

3. “Grandfather” clauses

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

4. Suppressive election procedures

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

5. Black codes and enforced segregation

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

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

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

6. Bizarre gerrymandering

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

7. White-only primaries

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

8. Physical intimidation and violence

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

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

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

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

9. Restrictive eligibility requirements

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

10. Rewriting of State constitutions

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

11. Other requirements

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

An Historical Sidenote

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

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

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

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

An Obvious Purpose

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

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

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

Fighting the Constitution

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

Effect on Black Voting

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

More Recent Civil Rights Efforts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controversies and Successes

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

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

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

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

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

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


Endnotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Religious Freedom Sunday

religious-freedom-sunday-1January 16, 1786, was the day that the Virginia Assembly adopted the Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, finally ending the official state-established church in Virginia. It provided that (1) all individuals would be free from any punishment for not conforming to state-established religious mandates, and (2) one’s religious affiliation would no longer affect the civil privileges he could enjoy 1. In short, in Virginia it legally secured religious toleration and protection for the right of religious conscience.

The Virginia Act, drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1777, originally failed to pass when brought before the State Assembly in religious-freedom-sunday-21779 2. James Madison later reintroduced the measure, and it was finally enacted in 1786. Jefferson considered it one of his three greatest achievements, ranking it along with penning the Declaration of Independence and establishing the University of Virginia.

This act was reflective of the attitude that had developed across much of America toward securing full religious liberty for all — an attitude later embodied in the federal Bill of Rights’ 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

Each year, in commemoration of religious freedom (one of the most important of our freedoms), the President proclaims January 16th to be Religious Freedom Day 3. Religious Freedom Sunday is commemorated the Sunday before Religious Freedom Day, and this year, Religious Freedom Sunday falls on January 11th.

Gateways to Better Education have teamed up to provide ways for Christians and churches to celebrate this important day and to participate in encouraging the free exercise of religion. But don’t stop with just celebrating Religious Freedom Day at your church, make sure the schools in your area also recognize this special holiday. (Gateways to Better Education has a guidebook to help you enlighten those in the education system about this important day.)

Happy Religious Freedom Sunday!


Endnotes

1 https://www.virginiamemory.com/docs/ReligiousFree.pdf
2 https://www.virginiamemory.com/online_classroom/shaping_the_constitution/doc/religious_freedom
3 https://religiousfreedomday.com/. See, for example, proclamations by George H.W. Bush in 1992 (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/268664); William Clinton in 1996 (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/222064); George W. Bush in 2003 (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/212361); and Barack Obama in 2011 (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/289040).

It Happened in March

There are two specific March “firsts” from American history that center on presidential appointments.
it-happened-in-march-1

On March 22, 1790, Thomas Jefferson began serving as America’s first Secretary of State under the Constitution. This appointment had been made by President George Washington and approved by the U. S. Senate in September of 1789.1 As the Secretary of State, Jefferson’s primary job to be “the president’s chief foreign affairs adviser.”2 He also took on other major responsibilities as well — such as laying out the grounds for the brand new federal capital that was to be build in Washington, DC.
it-happened-in-march-2On March 18, 1877, Frederick Douglass became the first African American confirmed by the U. S. Senate to serve in a presidential appointment.3 He had been selected by President Rutherford B. Hayes to be the Marshal of Washington, D.C  — a position established to “support the federal courts.”4 His responsibilities included serving “the subpoenas, summonses, writs, warrants and other process issued by the courts, [making] all the arrests and [handling] all the prisoners.”5 Prior to this appointment, Douglass had held various positions under previous presidents, but none had required Senate confirmation. In all, Douglass served under four Republican presidents.6


Endnotes

1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, “The Early Republic, 1784-1789,” Library of Congress, accessed on March 18, 2015; “Former Secretaries of State,” U.S. Department of State (accessed on March 18, 2015); Office of the Historian, “A Short History of the Department of State,” U.S. Department of State, accessed on March 18, 2015.
2Duties of the Secretary of State,” U.S. Department of State, January 20, 2009.
3Frederick Douglass,” White House Historical Association, accessed on March 18, 2015.
4History – Broad Range of Authority,” U.S. Marshals Service, accessed on March 18, 2015.
5History – Broad Range of Authority,” U.S. Marshals Service, accessed on March 18, 2015.
6People: Frederick Douglass,” National Park Service, accessed on March 18, 2015.