Archive for the ‘Founding Fathers’ Category

« Older Entries

IT TOOK 180 YEARS

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

It took the American Founding Fathers 180 years (1607-1787) to arrive at writing the Constitution of the United States. During that time there were many tribulations, trials, and mistakes made. Yet, in the end these men gathered and began the process of developing practical and true principles by which the United States of America has become a great nation. The final document, our Constitution, established the principles of government and freedom that has led us to this place.

George Washington wrote,

“The United States enjoy a scene of prosperity and tranquility under the new government that could hardly have been hoped for.” (1)

“Tranquility reigns among the people with that disposition towards the general government which is likely to preserve it . . . Our public credit stands on the [high] ground which three years ago it would have been considered as a species of madness to have foretold.” (2)

(1) The Writings of George Washington, 39 volumes; Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1931-44, 31:316-17
(2) Ibid., pp. 318-19

Posted in America, Founding Fathers | No Comments »

The Importance of Christianity

Thursday, July 8th, 2010

The following is an article by Dr. Peter Lillback entitled “This Fourth of July, Remember the Importance of Christianity” posted at Townhall.com on July 4, 2010

Myths have always surrounded George Washington. As we celebrate our nation’s birthday, it’s time to dispel the most dangerous – that he was not a Christian.

Since the 200th anniversary of his birth in 1932, the consensus of historians has been that Washington was a Deist – someone who believes in a remote and impersonal God who plays no role in human affairs.

In recent years, several books have been published, often referring to Washington as more “a man of honor than … a man of religion” or not a Christian “if one defines ‘Christian’ as the evangelicals do.”

Many of the leaders of the Revolutionary War were Deists, including Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, author of “The Age of Reason.” But calling Washington one of them – that’s just sloppy scholarship. I challenge these historians to produce one verifiable statement from Washington’s writings that shows he was a Deist.

Scholars today, by and large, consider all the research to have been done on Washington’s faith. They think that there is nothing new to discover, and that the conclusion already reached, that Washington was not a Christian, is unimpeachable. The fact is that these secular scholars simply read their own unbelief into Washington to draw the desired conclusion.

Discovering the truth was made more difficult by Washington’s introspective nature. He didn’t like talking about himself. His personal faith was more often expressed in actions, according to his motto, “deeds, not words.”

But a careful examination of his thoughts, words and deeds shows that he was a devout 18th-century Anglican – what today would be called an Episcopalian.

Washington never claimed to be a Deist and never used the word Deist or Deism, and yet he does refer to himself as a Christian, using such phrases as “on my honor and the faith of a Christian.”
Washington believed in a God who was active in history, calling his faith the “blessed religion revealed in the Word of God,” speaking of Christ as the “Divine Author of our blessed religion,” and continually referring to the role of Divine Providence in the affairs of men.

Washington read sermons to his family. His writing was thick with Biblical allusions. He composed more than 100 prayers in his own hand – Deists don’t believe that God answers prayers.
In Washington’s writings, he used the word “God” at least 146 times, “divine” at least 95 times, “heaven” at least 133 times and “providence” at least 270 times.

His first act as president was a prayer. When he finished his oath of office at his first inaugural, he added the words, “So help me God,” and bent down to kiss the Bible. Then he led the crowd across the street to a chapel for a two-hour service. Alexander Hamilton’s wife said she was at Washington’s side when he took communion that day.

In his General Orders to the troops at Valley Forge, Washington wrote, “While we are zealously performing the duties of good Citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of Religion. To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian.”

On Sept. 28, 1789, he wrote to the Rev. Samuel Langdon: “The man must be bad indeed who can look upon the events of the American Revolution without feeling the warmest gratitude towards the great Author of the Universe whose divine interposition was so frequently manifested in our behalf. And it is my earnest prayer that we may so conduct ourselves as to merit a continuance of those blessings with which we have hitherto been favored.”

Where a nation starts determines where it ends. If our Founding Father was a Deist, we should certainly be secularists today.

But if our Founding Father was committed to a Christian worldview, Christianity today is not an interloper in the public square but rather has a legitimate role in addressing the secular assault against the historic values and beliefs of America.

End Notes:

Posted in Christian, Christian faith, Founding Fathers, Presidents | No Comments »

DIVERSE CURRENTS IN COLONIAL CHRISTIANITY

Monday, June 7th, 2010

The separation of Church and state, secularism and Statism are not new. In fact, early Colonial Christianity, strengthened by the Puritans and responsible for establishing a Christian foundation in our country, came under attack by false doctrines that started to infiltrate the orthodox Christian theology and faith. Beginning in Europe and spread to the colonies, these beliefs had a significant impact in changing the headway the Puritans had made. In the larger scope of  our country’s early days, it remains evident that God was acknowledged as the Supreme Being and Provider. The founding fathers said and wrote as much and relied on these truths to establish this country. Divine Providence ruled in the end.

The following excerpts from “Diverse Currents,” Chapter 8 of Christianity in the United States by Daniel Dorchester [American Vision Press, Powder Springs, Georgia, 2009; originally published by Philips & Hunt, 1888] provides us with a glimpse of how these diverse currents began and the course it took. These excerpts cannot and do not capture the full story. If you are interested in learning more, check our endnotes for the web site and contact information for American Vision Press. [1]

DIVERSE CURRENTS

An inspection of the religious life of the colonial era reveals new currents of theological sentiment, silently but steadily setting in, at various points, against the long accepted theories. In the subsequent periods they will appear as more active assailing forces, openly antagonizing the old beliefs and seriously engaging the attention of the world.

Section 1. – The Inception of American Skepticism

As early as the middle of the seventeenth century symptoms of this great revolt appeared, in the English mind, in the gradual unfolding of the principle that the natural consciousness of the Divine existence and man’s conscience are all the materials necessary for the construction of a perfect religion, and that Christianity is of no value except as containing germs of this natural religion. In the course of the following century these sentiments obtained a formal recognition under the name of English deism, accompanied often with a denial of the historic verity of the Christian records and a denunciation of the Christian system as priestcraft. The history of English deism covers a period of about one hundred and seventy-five years (1625-1800) [2]  from Herbert to Gibbon, embracing groups of essayists, poets and novelists distinguished for splendid talents and extensive acquisitions. A large portion of the English mind was tainted with these ideas, and a serious deterioration in faith and morals became apparent.

Introduction into America


The celebrated French and Indian war, extending through a period of nine years (1754-1763), afforded an opportunity for their inculcation. During this war American citizens were brought into deistical sentiments. “Most of their American companions had never heard the divine origin of the Scriptures questioned, and their minds were, of course, unprovided with answers even to the most common objections. To such objections as were actually made was added the force of authority. The British officers were from the mother country—a phase of high import—until after the commencement of the Revolution. They came from a country renowned for arts and arms, and regarded by the people of New England as the birth-place of science and wisdom.

The period of intervening between the French war and the Revolution was characterized by a perceptible relaxation of morals, and it is certain that religion suffered serious decline.

The Unitarian departure had its inception in the introduction of the famous “halfway covenant,” which was adopted in the infancy of the colonies, only forty-two years after the landing of the Pilgrims. This measure was a politico-religious expedient resorted to for the purpose of relieving themselves from embarrassments growing out of an extreme and impracticable application of Christianity to the relations of the Church and the civil power.

It has been already observed that the early churches of New England held very strictly to the necessity of saving faith and spiritual regeneration as conditions of membership. And their religion was not a dreamy speculation, or a mere sentiment, or an abstraction, but it was carried out in concrete forms in the practical details of life. Religion was the stock upon which every things must be rejected. Hence we find the State growing out of the Church. Under their regimen no person could hold public office, or vote in elections, or enjoy any of the ordinary privileges of citizenship, who was not a member of the Church.

In 1633, Rev. John Cotton preached a sermon in Boston, entitled, “A Discourse About Civil Government, in a New Plantation, whose Design is Religion.” Its object was “to prove the expediency and necessity of intrusting free burgesses, who are members of churches, gathered amongst them according to Christ, with the power of choosing from among themselves magistrates and men to whom the managing of all public and civil affairs of importance is to be committed.” This was in accordance with the general usage of the New England colonies. [3]

Religious ideas were carried into everything they did. The recluses of the Middle Ages had removed religion from practical life, into caves and cloisters, but the Puritans reversed the order and carried it into the most common affairs. Thus actuated, they made the franchise of the Commonwealth dependent upon church membership, and the latter upon a genuine religious experience. A solemn form, too, was observed in the relation of religious experience before the Church, and inquiries were made into the previous conviction for sin and the radical character of the change. Thus were the membership of the Church and the franchise of the State hedged in with impressive and uncompromising religious ideas and usages. [4]

[1] Editor’s note to article
[2] Herbert died 1648; Hobbes, 1679; The Earl of Shaftesbury, 1713; Toland, 1722; Mandeville, 1733; Collins, 1729; Woolston, 1733; Morgan, 1743; Tindal, 1733; Chubb, 1747; Bolingbroke, 1751; Hume, 1776; Gibbon, 1794
[3] The Ecclesiastical History of New England, By Joseph B. Felt. Vol. l, pg. 169
[4] Endnote: These excerpts are taken from “Diverse Currents,” Chapter 8 of Christianity in the United States by Daniel Dorchester [American Vision Press, Powder Springs, Georgia, 2009; originally published by Philips & Hunt, 1888]. For further information, visit their web site at www.americanvision.org or telephone 1-800-628-9460

Tags:
Posted in America, Christian faith, Faith, Founding Fathers, God, Separation | No Comments »

JAMES MADISON, CHRISTIAN FOUNDING FATHER

Tuesday, May 25th, 2010

James Wilson; Ole Erekson, Engraver, c1876, Library of Congress

James Wilson of Pennsylvania may be a name you do not recognize. He arrived in Pennsylvania in 1765. As one of the eight framers of the Constitution, it is said that Wilson was second only to James Madison, and was perhaps on a par with him, in terms of influence on the Constitution. [1] He was also a signer of the Declaration of Independence.

There is much to say about this amazing man that we can not cover in one blog. There are two very important points to be made this time; one, he held the vision for a nation, and second, he was a devout Christian.

Christianity has been a major influence on the founding of our nation and in spite of increasing secularism it still is very much a force today. To say that our political tradition is not influenced by Christianity raises the question of why presidential candidates deem it so important to address Christians. That in itself demonstrates the recognition of reality – there is a practicing Christian population that influences politics. Political questions are ultimately moral questions and most moral views are framed by one’s religious commitments. James Wilson, without a doubt, was a major Christian influence on the framing of our nation’s constitution and law (he became a Supreme Court Judge later). He based formulating constitutional law on Christian natural law.

James Wilson was born in 1742 (Carskerdo, Scotland) and dedicated to the ministry at birth. He entered the University of St. Andrews and studied there for four years before entering their Divinity School. He was unable to complete his studies and had to withdraw due to his father’s death. After caring for family matters he came to Pennsylvania in 1765. He began his life in Pennsylvania by teaching Latin and Greek at the College of Philadelphia and then studied law under John Dickinson. He then became a lawyer and entered politics. It was one of his writings the jumpstarted him into the national scene.

“Wilson achieved national recognition in 1774 with the publication of ‘Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament,’ the first essay to argue that Americans had absolutely no obligation to obey Parliament. He was able to put his theory of resistance into practice after he was appointed to the Continental Congress in 1775. He became an important participant in the debates over the controversy with Great Britain, and eventually cast the tie-breaking vote in the Pennsylvania delegation in favor of independence.” [2]

All this led to his being one of eight framers of the Declaration of Independence and he also attended the Constitutional Convention where he was one of only six to sign both documents. Significantly, he also was among the few delegates that attended the convention from beginning to the finish. It is stated that he spoke 168 times, more than any other member. This is why he is ranked as the second most influential participant of the Constitutional Convention.

“Wilson clearly and consistently appealed to Christian principals throughout his works, something particularly evident and relevant with respect to his natural law theory. Given this reality, why do most contemporary students of Wilson ignore or refuse to take seriously his religious views?” [3]

“Wilson contended that because God created the world and has ‘infinite power-infinite wisdom-and infinite goodness,’ he has ’supreme right to prescribe a law for our conduct, and that we are under the most perfect obligation to obey that law.’ [4] Similarly, he stated several times that our obligation to obey natural law is rooted in the ‘will of God.’ [5][6]

Space does not permit us to eleborate more fully on Wilson’s faith and Christian reasoning, but an excellent publication for this may be found at Google Books at http://goo.gl/SpTR starting at Page 181.

[1] James Bryce, “James Wilson: An Appreciation”, The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography (October 1936), Pg 360.
[2] Daniel L. Dreisback, Mark D. Hall, Jeffrey H. Morrison, Editors, The Founders On God and Government, 2004, Page 182, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
[3] Daniel L. Dreisback, Mark D. Hall, Jeffrey H. Morrison, Editors, The Founders On God and Government, 2004, Page 186, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
[4] Robert McClosky, Editor, The Works of James Madison, 2 Volumes (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967) Pages 128, 126, 132-33
[5] Robert McClosky, Editor, The Works of James Madison, 2 Volumes (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967) Pages 132, 150, 153
[6] Daniel L. Dreisback, Mark D. Hall, Jeffrey H. Morrison, Editors, The Founders On God and Government, 2004, Page 189, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Tags:
Posted in Christian faith, Constitutions, Declaration of Independence, Founding Fathers, Supreme Court | No Comments »

RELIGION AND EDUCATION

Monday, April 26th, 2010

“[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind.”

Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence

“And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children” Isaiah 54:13

Posted in Bible, Christian faith, Education, Founding Fathers | No Comments »

WAS GEORGE WASHINGTON A CHRISTIAN?

Sunday, April 25th, 2010

George Washington is one of the most influential founding fathers of our country. Some say he was a Christian, others a Deist, devout Episcopalian, Free Mason, etc. Anna C. Reed, a niece of one of the original signers of the Declaration of Independence, wrote “Life of Washington” for the American Sunday School Union in 1842. The book was written within 50 years of Washington’s death, giving us one of the earliest biographies. After reading the following, you will have an answer to Washington’s faith. The following is an excerpt from “Life of Washington” [see endnotes].

On another occasion he [Washington] said, “My first wish is to see the whole world in peace, and the inhabitants of it as a band of brothers, striving who should contribute most to the happiness of mankind.” He knew that this could be effected only the universal influence of the precepts of Jesus, the Divine ‘Prince of Peace;’ and in answering the address of the clergy and laity of the Episcopal church, presented when he was first elected president, he said, “On this occasion it would ill become me to conceal the joy I have felt in perceiving the fraternal affection which appears to increase every day among the friends of genuine religion. It affords edifying prospects indeed, to see Christians of every denomination dwell together in more charity, and conduct themselves in respect to each other with a more Christian spirit than ever they have done in any former age, or in any other nation.”

The various addresses he received then, and his answers, fill three manuscript volumes. The close of his answer to the ministers of one religious denomination, will show the feelings which influenced him in replying to all; he said, “I assure you I take in the kindest part the promise you make of presenting your prayers at the throne of grace for me; and that I likewise will implore the divine benediction on yourselves and your religious community.” This declaration of Washington was not an unmeaning profession, and no doubt he literally fulfilled this promise to pray for those whose prayers for him were proffered. he was in the habit of communing with God, or he would not have made such an engagement. His practice was always in conformity with the opinions and feelings he expressed, and he had evinced his sentiments on Christian unity of a spirit when the American army lay encamped at Morristown. He called on the Rev. Dr. Jones, the pastor of the Presbyterian church of that village, and said, “Dr., I understand that the Lord’s supper is to be celebrated with you next Sunday; I would learn if it accords with the canon of your church to admit communicants of another denomination?” The doctor replied, “Most certainly; ours is not the Presbyterian table, general, but the Lord’s table; and we hence give the Lord’s invitation to all his followers, of whatever name.” The general replied, “I am glad of it, that is as it ought to be; but as I was not quite sure of the fact, I thought I would ascertain it from yourself as I propose to join with you on that occasion though a member of the Church of England, I have no exclusive partialities.” Dr. Jones assured him of a cordial welcome, and he took his seat with the communicants on the next Sabbath. Early in life, he was actively interested in church affairs; was a vestryman of Truro parish, in which was Pohick church, seven miles from Mount Vernon. He was also a vestryman in Fairfax a parish, the place of worship of which was in Alexandria, ten miles from his home. He had a pew in each church. On a day appointed for fasting, humiliation and prayer, he wrote in his diary, “Went to church and fasted all day.” Conforming not only to the spirit, but strictly to the letter of the appointment. His private devotional habits were in accordance with his invariable public ones. He usually rose at four o’clock and went into his library. His nephew, Mr. Robert Lewis, who was his private secretary when he was president, said that he had accidentally witnessed his private devotions both morning and evening; that on those occasions he had seen him in a kneeling posture, with a Bible open before him; and that he believed such to have been his daily practice. He adopted a grand-daughter of Mrs. Washington, and she resided in his family twenty years. In a letter, dated 1833, that lady wrote of Washington thus:

“It was his custom to retire to his library at nine or ten o’clock, where he remained an hour before he went to his chamber. he always rose before the sun, and remained in his library until called to breakfast. I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them. I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray ‘that they may be seen of men;’ he communed with his God in secret. When my aunt, Miss Custis, died suddenly at Mount Vernon, before they could realize the event, he knelt by her and prayed most fervently, most affectionately, for her recovery. He was a silent, thoughtful man. He spoke little, generally never of himself. I never heard him relate a single act of his life during the war.” After some other remarks, she mentions her grandmother thus: “He knew that I had the most perfect model of female excellence ever with me, as my monitress, who acted the part of a tender and devoted parent, loving me only as a mother can love, and never extenuating, or approving in me what she disapproved in others. She never omitted her private devotions or her public duties; and she and her husband were so perfectly united and happy that he must have been a Christian.? She had no doubts, no fears for him. After forty years of devoted affection and uninterrupted happiness, she resigned him without a murmur into the arms of his Savior and his God, with the assured hope of his eternal felicity. It is necessary that any one should certify General Washington avowed himself to me a believer in Christianity? as well may we question his patriotism, his heroic disinterested devotion to his country. His mottoes were, “DEEDS, NOT WORDS; and , FOR GOD AND MY COUNTRY.’ ” [1]

But, remember, Washington directed his countrymen to a higher example than his; he said that he earnestly prayed they might follow that of “THE DIVINE AUTHOR OF OUR BLESSED RELIGION;” and the Bible, the sacred book which makes known that example, you should value as the crown of all your blessings; for in it, you may learn how to secure their continuance through this short life, and how to obtain that blissful gift of God, “Eternal life, through Jesus Christ, our Lord.”

ENDNOTES:

Anna C. Reed, Life of Washington, Pages 270-275, 277; Copyright 2009, Attic Books, New Leaf Publishing Group, P O Box 726, Green Forest, AR 72638 (Second Printing 2010); Published by permission. Orginally published in 1842, American Sunday-School Union, now known as American Missionary Society, http://www.americanmissionary.org; Life of Washington retains the original 1842 printing in a beautiful, highly readable bound book. If you love early American History and our country’s Christian foundation, this is a ‘must’ book. You may order the book at $16.99 at http://goo.gl/firB

[1] Letter written by George Washington’s adopted daughter (also his step-granddaughter) Eleanor (Nelly) Parke Custis Lewis. It was written in 1833 in response to author Jared Sparks [who compiled a set of Washington's Writings] request for info on Washington’s religious beliefs for a book he was writing that was published under the title “The Life of Washington”.

Posted in Bible, Blessings, Christian faith, Founding Fathers, Presidents | No Comments »

BOOK SELECTIONS OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS

Monday, April 19th, 2010

On April 30, 1789, from the balcony of Federal Hall, George Washington took the oath of office as President of the United States. The president and Congress shared space in Federal Hall with the New York Society Library. The library had been founded in 1754 by a group of six young New Yorkers – five lawyers and a merchant – in the belief that “a Publick Library would be very useful, as well as ornamental to this City…”

The library was available as a resource to its 239 subscribing members, among them Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr and John Jay, and to the president, members of Congress and justices of the Supreme Court. Occupying a room on the top floor, the library was the only institution in Federal Hall not mandated by the U.S. Constitution.

The Library’s charging ledger for 1789-92, bound in leather and weighing 18 pounds, was misplaced for years and then found in 1934 in a trash pile in the basement of its fourth home at 109 University Place. (Since 1937, the library has been in its fifth home at 53 East 79th Street.) Today the ledger is a priceless, but crumbling possession, recording titles of books taken out and the names of borrowers.

June 24, 1789. The first entry in the ledger records that the Reverend Dr. Lynn borrowed “Animated Nature” by Oliver Goldsmith. Dr. Lynn served as chaplain to the Congress. He was fined seven pence for returning the book late.
July 31. “Elements of Criticism – 1 – Ovo. H. Vice-president-self.” Shorthand for Vice-President John Adams himself appearing at the library to take out volume 1 of “Elements of Criticism” (octavo size), a philosophical work by Lord Henry Kames. Volume returned on Aug. 17.

Aug. 21. Volume 2 taken out by “Doork” for “H. Vice-President.” This time, instead of personally coming to the library, the vice-president sent the doorkeeper to collect the second volume of “Elements of Criticism.” No record of volume 2 being returned.

October 5. “Law of Nations [&] Commons Debates – volume 12 – President.” Here the ledger records that President Washington took out “The Law of Nations” by Emmerich de Vattel. Also, volume 12 of the House of Commons Debates. The ledger does not record whether the president came in person or sent a messenger, nor is there any record of either volume being returned, or the president or vice-president being fined.

Alexander Hamilton borrowed two novels, “The Amours of Count Palviano and Eleanora” and, as recorded in the ledger, “Edward Mortimer (hist. of) by a lady.”

In 1789, Aaron Burr took out “Revolutions in Geneva”; a volume of Swift; and “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” by Gibbon. In 1790, he turned to Voltaire, reading nine volumes and then to the 44 volumes making up the series, “An Unusual History,” self-described as a history “from the earliest account of Time, compiled from original authors.” His lighter reading included the novels, “Mysterious Husband” and “False Friend.”

On Feb. 1, 1790, in a building on Broad Street called the Exchange, the U.S. Supreme Court held its first session. The New York Society Library charging ledger records books borrowed by Chief Justice John Jay. These included:

Literature. The works of Jonathan Swift; “Don Quixote”, Voltaire’s, “Candidus, or “All For the Best,” as the volume is noted in the ledger; “The Fair Syrian, a novel”; Frances Burney’s, “Cecilia, or Memoirs of an Heiress”; “Arabian Nights Entertainments, consisting of one thousand and one stories, related by the Sultaness of the Indies” and John Aubrey’s “Miscellanies,” a collection of stories on ghosts and dreams.
History. Plutarch’s, “Lives”; “Lives of the Admirals, and other Eminent British Seamen”; “The History of the Five Indian Nations of Canada”; “The History of the Revolution of South Carolina, from a British Province to an Independent State”; and “An Essay on the Life of the Honorable Major-General Israel Putnam.”

Travel. Captain James Cook’s, “A Voyage towards the South Pole, and Round the World”; “A Tour through Sicily and Malta”; “Travels into Muscovy, Persia, and Paris of the East-Indies, containing an accurate description of whatever is most remarkable in those countries”; “A Voyage Round the World in the Years 1766-1769,” by the Comte Louis Antoine de Bougainville; “A General Description of China, containing the topography of the fifteen provinces which compose this vast empire”; “Travels in Spain”; “Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile in 1768-1773″; and “Travels in North America in the Years 1780-1782″, by the Marquis Francois Jean de Chastellux.

Science. Comte de Buffon’s “Natural History”; “Chambers’, Cyclopaedia, or General Dictionary of Arts and Sciences”; and “Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man.”

Chief Justice Jay must have had his own collection of law books, for few of the books borrowed by him from the New York Society Library are law-related. What stands out when examining the library’s charging ledger is both the breadth of his interests and his wide reading in literature, history, travel and science. May we, as lawyers, be encouraged by his example to expand, through reading, our own horizons.

Sources:

William J. Dean, Book Selections of Founding Fathers, New York Law Journal (2007)

As it appears in the New York Society Library web site at http://www.nysoclib.org/articles/ny_law_journal.html

Endnote: Article edited for brevity

Posted in Founding Fathers | No Comments »

No Intermeddling and No Flagrant Usurpations

Wednesday, April 14th, 2010

James Madison

Founding Father and U.S. President James Madison is often called the “Father of the Constitution”, having written most of it at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. He then wrote over one-third of the Federalist Papers, essays that were intended to sway public opinion to ratifying the new Constitution.

Significantly, Madison has often also been referred to as a primary source for the separation of church and state. He, and others, has been used to justify acts such as removal of prayers in schools, or limiting religious expression by teachers in public schools. Those court decisions have had the effect of chilling free speech in the classroom, at least in regards to religion.

Madison certainly came out in opposition of anything that directed tax monies from taxpayers to go directly to churches. For example, there was a move in Virginia in 1784-85 to create a special tax to pay ministers of churches. Eventually the popular bill let each taxpayer decide which church should receive his share of the tax. Madison, a Virginian, saw problems with this down the road, and didn’t think the government had any business directing church funding. He opposed it vigorously, even working to get the bill’s principal supporter elected governor so he could not vote for the bill.

But believing that Government should not be involved in religion is the polar opposite of Government prohibiting freedom of religion, or more distinctly, the prohibition of the expression of religion. Madison apparently believed Government should not be involved in religion (though if you look at the context of the culture and times in which he lived, he would have never dreamed of creating a government that promoted a vacuum of religion). But he also did not believe in Government prohibiting the free exercise of religion. As Virginians considered whether or not to ratify the U. S. Constitution he wrote, some suggested he include a clause in it to establish the protection of religion. He argued it already did protect it:

Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are decidedly against any exclusive establishment–I believe it to be so in the other states. There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom.

Even the tiniest little bit of  ”intermeddling” would be a “flagrant usurpation.” Merriam-Webster defines “usurpation” as “to seize and hold (as office, place, or powers) in possession by force or without right.” If government interfered with religion at all, it would be a most flagrant seizure and taking of power, without right, and by force! He was saying, literally, that government would take the place that it had no right to take—the place of power to determine or limit religious expression.

Furthermore, he pointed out that even a bill of rights would not protect people from being taxed to outright support certain religions:

Is a bill of rights a security for religion? Would the bill of rights, in this state, exempt the people from paying for the support of one particular sect, if such sect were exclusively established by law? If there were a majority of one sect, a bill of rights would be a poor protection for liberty. Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion. This freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects, which pervades America, and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest.

In his mind, there was never any doubt that men would be able to freely discuss and take part in religion as they wished. He never even mentions those who were outside religion as having the right to supersede and direct those who were practicing religion. And with a multiplicity of sects—diverse groups of believers in different denominations—freedom of religion would be guaranteed by the sheer numbers of different churches, with no sect taking precedence over other groups. But others wished to see freedom of religion clearly delineated in the American government, and so it became part of the U.S. Bill of Rights as the First Amendment. As the First Amendment has been twisted in the last 50 years to enforce the limitation of the freedom of expression of religion, Madison may been right in that even an official government recognition of religious freedom in the form of a bill of rights would not be enough to protect the freedom to express religion.

________
End Notes:

About James Madison
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/jamesmadison/p/pmadison.htm
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/jamesmadison/a/ff_j_madison.htm

Virginia Ratifying Convention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Ratifying_Convention

Madison’s Speech at the Ratifying Convention
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions49.html
James Madison, Virginia Ratifying Convention
12 June 1788Papers 11:130–31
The Founders’ Constitution
Volume 5, Amendment I (Religion), Document 49
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions49.html
The University of Chicago Press
The Papers of James Madison. Edited by William T. Hutchinson et al. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1962–77 (vols. 1–10); Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1977–(vols. 11–).

Usurpation definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usurpation

Posted in Constitutions, Founding Fathers, Religion | No Comments »

NOT OVER YET

Tuesday, April 6th, 2010

Dr. Benjamin Rush

A lesser known Founding Father made an interesting statement that read today and not knowing its source may lead you to believe it describes our current state of affairs in the United States. Read on.

Benjamin Rush (1745–1813) was a Founding Father of the United States. Rush lived in the state of Pennsylvania and was a physician, writer, educator, humanitarian and a devout Christian, as well as the founder of Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Rush was a signatory of the Declaration of Independence and attended the Continental Congress. [1]

Upon his return to America [from finishing his education overseas], Benjamin Rush engaged early in pre-Revolutionary movements, and wrote constantly for the press on colonial rights. He was a member of the provincial conference of Pennsylvania, and chairman of the committee that reported that it had become expedient for congress to declare independence. He manifested his enthusiasm for the colonial cause by riding out to meet the Massachusetts delegates to the first Continental Congress in 1774. He established during the next few years the deepest and most cherished of his friendships with John Adams.

He was also a staunch opponent of Gen. George Washington and worked tirelessly to have him removed as the Commander-In-Chief of the Continental Army.[2] Later in life, he became a professor of medical theory and clinical practice at the University of Pennsylvania. Despite having a wide influence on the development of American government, he is not as widely known as many of his American contemporaries. Rush was also an early opponent of slavery and capital punishment.

Despite his great contributions to early American society, Rush may be more famous today as the man who, in 1812, helped reconcile the friendship of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams by encouraging the two former Presidents to resume writing to each other.[3][4]

Famed physician, signer of the Declaration of Indepedence, friend to several of the Founding Fathers, Benjamin Rush pronounced,

“The American War is over, but that is far from the case with the American Revolution. On the contrary, nothing but the first act of the great drama is closed. Some today would say that our republic has run its course, that our respect around the world is in decline, that our military power is not what it once was, and that our commerce is challenged by several other countries. Others would contend that we are the only super power left and that our influence is second to none. Does the American Revolution continue? In what ways? [5]

Benjamin Rush was a Presbyterian and devout Christian. He was a cofounder and vice president of the Philadelphia Bible Society, which advocated the use of scripture in public schools. A typhus epidemic claimed Rush’s life at the age of 67 in 1813. Surviving him were six sons and three daughters of the 13 children he had fathered. His grave is in Christ Church Burial Ground at Philadelphia. [6]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Rush
[2] George Washington and Benedict Arnold. Regnery. 2006. pp. 264–265, 282.
[3] “”Two Pieces of Homespun” (Memory): American Treasures of the Library of Congress”. The Library of Congress. 2002-11-22. Retrieved 2008-02-24.
[4] McCullough, David (2001). John Adams. Simon and Schuster. pp. 599–603. ISBN 0684813637.
[5] Dr. Benjamin Rush (American Museum, Jan. 1787)
[6] http://www.adherents.com/people/pr/Benjamin_Rush.html

Posted in America, Founding Fathers, Revolutionary War | No Comments »

ALEXANDER HAMILTON’S PLAN OF UNION

Monday, April 5th, 2010

Delivered to the Federal Convention by Alexander Hamilton (NY)

IN CONVENTION

18 June 1787

Mr HAMILTON introduced the following resolution
_______________________________
Resolution

I.

The supreme Legislative power of the United States of America to be vested in two different bodies of men;

The one to be called the Assembly, the other the Senate who together shall form the Legislature of the United States with power to pass all laws whatsoever subject to the negative hereafter mentioned.

II.

The Assembly to consist of persons elected by the people to serve for three years.

III.

The Senate to consist of persons elected to serve during good behaviour;

Their election to be made by electors chosen for that purpose by the people: in order to this the States to be divided into election districts.

On the death, removal or resignation of any Senator his place to be filled out of the district from which he came.

IV.

The supreme Executive authority of the United States to be vested in a Governour to be elected to serve during good behaviour;

The election to be made by Electors chosen by the people in the Election Districts aforesaid;

The authorities and functions of the Executive to be as follows:

TO have a negative on all laws about to be passed, and the execution of all laws passed;

TO have the direction of war when authorized or begun;

TO have with the advice and approbation of the Senate the power of making all treaties;

TO have the sole appointment of the heads or chief officers of the departments of Finance, War and Foreign Affairs;

TO have the nomination of all other officers (ambassadors to foreign nations included) subject to the approbation or rejection of the Senate;

TO have the power of pardoning all offenses except treason; which he shall not pardon without the approbation of the Senate.

V.

On the death, resignation or removal of the Governour his authorities to be exercised by the President of the Senate till a successor be appointed.

VI.

The Senate to have the sole power of declaring war, the power of advising and approving all treaties, the power of approving or rejecting all appointments of officers except the heads or chiefs of the departments of Finance, War and Foreign Affairs.

VII.

The supreme Judicial authority to be vested in ____ Judges to hold their offices during good behaviour with adequate and permanent salaries.

This Court to have original jurisdiction in all causes of capture, and an appellative jurisdiction in all causes in which the revenues of the general Government or the Citizens of foreign Nations are concerned.

VIII.

The Legislature of the United States to have power to institute courts in each state for the determination of all matters of general concern.

IX.

The Governour, Senators and all officers of the United States to be liable to impeachment for mal– and corrupt conduct; and upon conviction to be removed from office, and disqualified for holding any place of trust or profit-all impeachments to be tried by a court to consist of the Chief ________ or Judge of the Superior Court of Law of each state, Provided, Such Judge shall hold his place during good behaviour, and have a permanent salary.

X.

All laws of the particular states contrary to the Constitution or laws of the United States to be utterly void; and

The better to prevent such laws being passed, the Governour or President of each state shall be appointed by the General Government and shall have a negative upon the laws about to be passed in the state of which he is Governour or President.

XI.

No State to have any forces land or naval; and

The Militia of all the States to be under the sole and exclusive direction of the United States.

The officers of which to be appointed and commissioned by them.

Source: Read the entire proposal here: http://goo.gl/eeHE

Posted in Constitutions, Founding Fathers | No Comments »

« Older Entries