Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Gardiner meet Mr. Madison

1 view

Skip to first unread message

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Jan 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/7/00

>:|Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|
>:|>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>:|>
>:|>:|> The real reason is I love demolishing your speculations.
>:|>:|>
>:|>:|> >:|I'd love for you to address a single point systematically for a change,
>:|>:|> >:|without diverting the discussion into the merits of Pat Robertson.
>:|>:|>
>:|>:|> MY single point right now is James Madison and your previous claims about
>:|>:|> him.
>:|>:|
>:|>:|James Madison was a fellow who did graduate studies in "divinity" at Princeton
>:|>:|under John Witherspoon. This included extensive study in Hebrew and Biblical
>:|>:|studies.
>:|>:|
>:|>:|You would have us believe that this indicates nothing whatsoever about Madison's
>:|>:|religious disposition. I think most people of common sense and reason don't
>:|>:|believe that a person would go off to seminary, study under one of the most
>:|>:|Calvinistic and orthodox professors of the era whom you refer to as your mentor,
>:|>:|dedicate extensive time and effort toward learning the original languages for
>:|>:|studying the Bible, go so far as to lead in communion services, be commended by
>:|>:|one of the most astute Calvinists of the era, credit Luther as being the leader
>:|>:|in the cause of his life...
>:|>:|
>:|>:|...and not be a very religious person.
>:|>:|
>:|
>:|LOL, such an effort you are making.
>:|
>:|But, I only see you working overtime trying to sell your theory.
>:|
>:|What I don't see is hard evidence.
>:|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|
>:|Why exactly did he go to Princeton?
>:|Well, the readers can consider the following:
>:|FOOTNOTES:
>:| (1)Reverend Thomas Martin (ca. 1742-1770) graduated from the College of
>:|New Jersey in 1762. His brief career as a teacher and Episcopal clergyman
>:|in Virginia included the two years, 1767-1769, when he lived at Montpelier,
>:|tutoring JM and possibly the younger Madison children (Virginia Gazette
>:|[Williamsburg, Rind], 20 September 1770; Alexander, Princeton College,
>:| p. 78).
>:| (2) This may suggest that Thomas Martin and his brother Alexander, who
>:|stopped in Orange during the summer of 1769 when on his way from North
>:|Carolina to New Jersey, helped JM's father to decide that JM should enter
>:|the College of New Jersey rather than William and Mary. Alexander Martin
>:|(1740-1807) graduated from the College of New Jersey in 1756 and had a
>:|notable career in North Carolina politics, serving as governor, delegate to
>:|the Constitutional Convention of 1787. and United States senator.
>:|(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Papers of James Madison, Volume I, Hutchinson &
>:|Rachal, University of Chicago Press, (1962) p 43-44)
>:|
>:|
>:|Sounds a bit like a little allegiance to a former tutor, huh? Perhaps not
>:|the only reason, but probably was a factor.
>:|
>:|An interesting question, since you align Madison with the Episcopalian
>:|church, why, if religion was really any factor would he not go to a college
>:|that was aligned with his "own" religion?
>:|
>:|" Furthermore, JM apparently knew no Latin before he entered the school of
>:|Donald Robertson (171:-1792) near Dunkirk in King and Queen County,
>:|Virginia, in 1762, and was not sufficiently versed in that subject to make
>:|some of the comments in his notebook until well toward the end of his
>:|sojourn there five years later, or perhaps not until he was a student at
>:|the College of New Jersey. Besides its occasional entries of "Deo Gratia &
>:|Gloria" when bills for tuition and textbooks were paid. Robertson's
>:|"Account Rook," now in the Virginia Historical Society, lists many, and
>:|perhaps all, of the volumes in his library. This roster makes clear that,
>:|while under Robcrtson"s tutelage, JM could have taken the notes on
>:|Montaigne's Essays and, incidentally have gained his initial acquaintance
>:|with Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws and Locke's An Essay Concerning
>:|Human Understanding. Moreover, he studied there almost all the Latin
>:|classics from which he quotes in his notebook, as well as others he found
>:|no occasion to cite. The "Account Book" reveals "Jamie" Madison buying
>:|works by Virgil, Horace Justinian, and Cornelius Nepos, and probably also
>:|reading others by Caesar, Tacitus, Lucredus, Eutropius, and Phaedrus. With
>:|Robertson as his mentor. JM used selections from the writings of Plutarch,
>:|Herodotus, Thucydides, and Plato in his study of Greek. Abel Boyer's The
>:|Compleat French Master for Ladies and Gentlemen may have introduced
>:|JM to the French language (Robertson's "Account Book," pp. 11, 30, 65-66,
>:|69, 72, 74, 78, 80-81, 132-37, 143).
>:|(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Papers of James Madison, Volume I, Hutchinson &
>:|Rachal, University of Chicago Press, (1962) p 43-44)
>:|
>:|
>:|The point of the above is to show he was educated nicely long before he
>:|went to Princeton, well enough, in fact that he was able to skip his
>:|freshman year there and begin with his second year.
>:|
>:|**********************************************
>:| THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
>:| SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
>:|
>:|http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
>:|
>:|"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
>:|
>:| Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
>:| SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
>:| and
>:|Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
>:|Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
>:|
>:| Page is a member of the following web rings:
>:|
>:|The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
>:|
>:| Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
>:|
>:| Legal Research Ring
>:|**********************************************
>:|

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Jan 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/7/00

buc...@exis.net wrote:

>:|Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|
>:|>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>:|>

>:|>:|> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|
>:|
>:|>:|> The real reason is I love demolishing your speculations.
>:|>:|>
>:|>:|> >:|I'd love for you to address a single point systematically for a change,
>:|>:|> >:|without diverting the discussion into the merits of Pat Robertson.
>:|>:|>
>:|>:|> MY single point right now is James Madison and your previous claims about
>:|>:|> him.
>:|>:|
>:|>:|James Madison was a fellow who did graduate studies in "divinity" at Princeton
>:|>:|under John Witherspoon. This included extensive study in Hebrew and Biblical
>:|>:|studies.
>:|>:|
>:|
>:|>:|You would have us believe that this indicates nothing whatsoever about Madison's
>:|>:|religious disposition. I think most people of common sense and reason don't
>:|>:|believe that a person would go off to seminary, study under one of the most
>:|>:|Calvinistic and orthodox professors of the era whom you refer to as your mentor,
>:|>:|dedicate extensive time and effort toward learning the original languages for
>:|>:|studying the Bible, go so far as to lead in communion services, be commended by
>:|>:|one of the most astute Calvinists of the era, credit Luther as being the leader
>:|>:|in the cause of his life...
>:|>:|
>:|

>:|For someone who did all this study into religion, and was as religious as
>:|you claim, why did he have so much trouble filling a simple request as
>:|outlined in what follows?
>:|
>:|
>:|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|AUGUST 16, 1824
>:|
>:| TO THOMAS JEFFERSON
>:| MONTPELLIER, Aug. 16, 1824
>:| I will endeavour to make out a list of theological works, but am
>:|less qualified for the task then you seem to think; and fear, also, that my
>:|catalogues are less copious than might be wished. There is a difficulity in
>:|marking the proper limit to so inehaustible a chapter, whether with a view
>:|to the Library in its infant or more mature state.
>:|(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter from James Madison to Thomas
>:|Jefferson Aug. 16, 1824. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
>:|Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
>:|Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 447-448).
>:|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|
>:|
>:|SEPTEMBER 20, 1824
>:|
>:| TO THOMAS JEFFERSON
>:| MONTPELLIER, Sept. 20, 1824
>:| Dear sir, --On the receipt of yours of August 8, I turned my
>:|thoughts to its request on the subject of a theological catalogue for the
>:|Library of the University; and not being aware that so early answer was
>:|wished, as I now find was the case, I had proceeded very leisurely in
>:|noting such authors as seemed proper for the collection. Supposing, also,
>:|that although theology was not to be taught in the University, its Library
>:|ought to contain pretty full information for such as might voluntarily seek
>:|it in that branch of learning. I had contemplated as much of a
>:|comprehensive and systematic selection as my scanty materials admitted, and
>:|had gone through the five first centuries of Christianity when yours of the
>:|3d instant came to hand, which was evening before the last. This conveyed
>:|to me more distinctly the limited obeject your letter had in view, and
>:|relieved me from a task which I found extremely tedious; especially
>:|considering the intermixture of the doctrinal and constroversal part of
>:|Divinity with the moral and metaohysical part, and the immense extent of
>:|the whole. I send you the list I had made out, with an addition on the same
>:|paper of such books as a hasty glance of a few catalogues and my
>:|recollection suggested. Perhaps some of them may not have occurred to you,
>:|and may suit the blank you have not filled. I am sorry I could not make a
>:|fair copy without failing to comply with the time pointed out.
>:|(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter to Thomas Jefferson from James Madison,
>:|Sept. 20, 1824. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in Four
>:|Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott & Co.
>:|Philadelphia, (1865), pp 450-451).
>:|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Jan 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/11/00

Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

PART I OF A SERIES OF POSTS

>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|> >:|>

>:|> >:|> The real reason is I love demolishing your speculations.
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|I'd love for you to address a single point systematically for a change,
>:|> >:|> >:|without diverting the discussion into the merits of Pat Robertson.
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> MY single point right now is James Madison and your previous claims about
>:|> >:|> him.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|James Madison was a fellow who did graduate studies in "divinity" at Princeton
>:|> >:|under John Witherspoon. This included extensive study in Hebrew and Biblical
>:|> >:|studies.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|You would have us believe that this indicates nothing whatsoever about Madison's
>:|> >:|religious disposition. I think most people of common sense and reason don't
>:|> >:|believe that a person would go off to seminary, study under one of the most
>:|> >:|Calvinistic and orthodox professors of the era whom you refer to as your mentor,
>:|> >:|dedicate extensive time and effort toward learning the original languages for
>:|> >:|studying the Bible, go so far as to lead in communion services, be commended by
>:|> >:|one of the most astute Calvinists of the era, credit Luther as being the leader
>:|> >:|in the cause of his life...
>:|> >:|

>:|> >:|...and not be a very religious person.
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> LOL, such an effort you are making.
>:|>
>:|> But, I only see you working overtime trying to sell your theory.
>:|>
>:|> What I don't see is hard evidence.
>:|> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|>
>:|> Why exactly did he go to Princeton?
>:|> Well, the readers can consider the following:
>:|> FOOTNOTES:
>:|> (1)Reverend Thomas Martin (ca. 1742-1770) graduated from the College of
>:|> New Jersey in 1762. His brief career as a teacher and Episcopal clergyman
>:|> in Virginia included the two years, 1767-1769, when he lived at Montpelier,
>:|> tutoring JM and possibly the younger Madison children (Virginia Gazette
>:|> [Williamsburg, Rind], 20 September 1770; Alexander, Princeton College,
>:|> p. 78).
>:|> (2) This may suggest that Thomas Martin and his brother Alexander, who
>:|> stopped in Orange during the summer of 1769 when on his way from North
>:|> Carolina to New Jersey, helped JM's father to decide that JM should enter
>:|> the College of New Jersey rather than William and Mary. Alexander Martin
>:|> (1740-1807) graduated from the College of New Jersey in 1756 and had a
>:|> notable career in North Carolina politics, serving as governor, delegate to
>:|> the Constitutional Convention of 1787. and United States senator.
>:|> (SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Papers of James Madison, Volume I, Hutchinson &
>:|> Rachal, University of Chicago Press, (1962) p 43-44)
>:|>
>:|> Sounds a bit like a little allegiance to a former tutor, huh?

>:|
>:|Perhaps. But tell it like it is: an allegiance to an orthodox clergyman.

You haver anything to offer to support this claim?

The claim in question is "orthodox clergyman"

Do you have anything to offer that would establish that as the reason
instead of just an allegiance to a former tutor?

>:|
>:|> An interesting question, since you align Madison with the Episcopalian
>:|> church, why, if religion was really any factor would he not go to a college
>:|> that was aligned with his "own" religion?
>:|

>:|I have read that Madison was a Presbyterian at heart.

LOL, oh LOL

Well in our anatomy lessons we have now progressed from Christianity
flowing through his veins and added to that being pumped by a Presbyterian
heart. LOL

The fact that you have no valid answer to my question is noted. The fact
you provided nothing to support your claim about his heart is also noted.

But let's cut through all the crap here and get to what can be provided.
====================================================================

From probably even before the Constitution was written, on the various
state levels two primary camps of thought and desires formed regarding
religion and the state

There was one camp that believed and wanted as complete a separation
between religion and government (church and state) as was possible. Most
recognized that at times it might be a bit hard to know exactly where to
draw that line between the two, but they wanted and worked for as complete
a separation as possible, believing that such a separation served the best
interests of both government and religion. These were the separationists.

The other camp wanted various forms of establishment (meaning various forms
of financial and legal support of , protection of religion) Protestant
Christianity, so long as the mainline denominations, sects, religious
societies of this Protestant Christianity was treated equally.
Theses were the non-preferentialists or accommodations.

Those same two camps or philosophies still exist today.

James Madison was a separationist.

John Witherspoon, a man that Gardiner tries so very hard to link Madison to
in ways that the historical evidence does not support would probably fit
fit in quite well in the accommodationist camp.

What is going to follow is going to be a series of posts that provide
documented evidence that while Madison, the pupil, might have thought a
great deal of Witherspoon, might have valued his friendship, might have
liked the man a great deal, and was influenced by the man about a lot of
things, also was not that man's puppet. That he moved beyond his "mentor"
in the area of religion/government--church/state

That Madison became his own man with his own mind in such areas.

**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."

Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.

Page is a member of the following web rings:

The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring

Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring

American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Jan 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/11/00

PART II OF A SERIES OF POSTS

Gardiner has clamed some very remarkable things regarding James Madison.
Some of them are the tremendous influence that Luther, Calvin, Blackstone,
Witherspoon, Locke had on Madison. These claims have gone on to the point
of almost saying that anything Madsion uttered, did, thought was nothing
more then one of more of the above had influenced him into saying, doing or
thinking.

The purpose of this particular series of posts is to provide historical
documentation and commentary by others that disagrees with the claims
Gardiner has made.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Montesquieu makes much the same point when he writes that the best
way "to attack a religion is by favor, by the commodities of life, by the
hope of wealth; not by what turns away, but by what makes one forget; not
by what arouses indignation, but by what renders men lukewarm--so that
other pas- sions act on our souls, and those which religion inspires are
silent."(79) The philosophe could be confident that an indirect assault of
this type would eventually succeed because something of the sort had
gradually taken place in the "democracy founded on commerce" that was
located just across the channel from France.
In canvassing the same development, as we have already seen, Hume
placed particular emphasis on political institutions. He pointed out that
'parties from principle, especially abstract speculative principle, are
known only to modem times," and he traced that "extraordinary and
unaccountable phenomenon" to the peculiar character of the Christian faith:
to the independent authority which it vested in the clergy and to the
systematic theology--born of the awkward marriage of revelation with
philosophy--that distinguished it from all other religions." Throughout
much of Europe, factions of this sort might still pose the gravest of
difficulties. But fortunately, in England, the force of sectarian zeal had
gradually abated. In that happy island, Hume was pleased to report, time
had all but eliminated what he called the "ecclesiastical parties." As he
put it, "Liberty of thinking, and of expressing our thoughts, is always
fatal to priestly power, and to those pious frauds, on which it is always
founded."(81) As a consequence, "the progress of learning and liberty" in
the first half-century following the Glorious Revolution had brought "a
sudden and sensible change in the opinions of men." Most British subjects
had "divested themselves of all superstitious reverence to names and
authority." The clergy were in disrepute, and "the mere name of king
commands little respect." At the "least shock or convulsion," Hume
believed, "the royal power, being no longer supported by the settled
principles and opinions of men, will immediately dissolve. Indeed, "had men
been in the same disposition at the revolution, as they are at present,
monarchy would have run a great risque of being entirely lost in this
island."(82)
At the time when the Revolution took place in America, the citizens
of the thirteen colonies were in the very disposition which Hume had
mentioned, and that fact (as much as any other) helped account for their
adoption of republican government--and for Madison's sanguine outlook
regarding religious convulsions as well. Just three weeks before the
Continental Congress approved Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of
Independence, James Madison (already an intellectual force at the tender
age of twenty-five) had succeeded in persuading the Virginia convention to
add to its bill of rights a clause acknowledging that "all men are equally
entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of
conscience."(83) With regard to sectarian conflict, he had reason to be
hopeful.
FOOTNOTES:
(70)· The Federa[ist 10 (64)
(71)· The Federalist 51 (351-52).
(72). PTJ XIV 188: Letter to James Madison on 18 November 1788.
(73)· The Federalist 10 (58-59)·
(74). RFC I 135: 6 June 1787.
(75)· PJM X 213-14: Letter to Thomas Jefferson on 24 October 1787
(76). PJM VIII 302: Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious
Assessments, 20 June 1785
(77)· For an earlier statement of the argument that follows, see Paul A.
Rahe, "Church and State: Jefferson, Madison, and too Years of Religious
Freedom," The American Spectator 19, no. 1 (January 1986): 18--23. Consider
Walter Berns, Taking the Constitution Seriously (New York 1987) 147-80, in
light of Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., "The Religious Issue and the Origin of
Modem Constitutionalism, America's Constitutional Soul (Baltimore 1991)
101--19.
(78).. Voltaire, Letters Concerning the English Nation (London '733) 44-45
In French, this work is called Lettres Philosophiques.
(79)· Montesquieu, EL 5.25.12.
(80). Hume, EMPL 54-63 (esp. 60-63): "Of Parties in General."
(81). Cf. Hume, EMPL 64-72 (esp. 65-66): "Of the Parties of Great Britain,"
with the observation which Edmund Burke (WrEB I 438) registered in 1770 in
his pamphlet Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents that "the
great parties which formerly divided and agitated the kingdom are known to
be in a manner entirely dissolved," and see Tocqueville, DA 1.2.2.
(82). Hume, EMPL 47-53 (esp. 51): "Whether the British Government inclines
more to Absolute Monarchy, or to a Republic."
(83). PJM I 170-79: Virginia Declaration of Rights, 16 May-29 June 1776 See
Irving Brant, James Madison (Indianapolis 1941-61)1 234-51.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Iventions of Prudence: Constituting the American
Regime, By Paul A. Rahe, Volume III, The University of north carolina
Press, Chapel Hill & London (1994) pp 50-51

TO BE CONTINUED

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Jan 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/11/00

PART III OF A SERIES OF POSTS

The purpose of this particular series of posts is to provide historical
documentation and commentary by others that disagrees with the claims
Gardiner has made.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Madison even had grounds for optimism of a sort that Hume might
well have disputed. In his magisterial History of England, the Scottish
philosopher had argued that "the interested diligence of the clergy" was a
condition ivhich "every wise legislator will study to prevent." Where the
civil magistrate was absolutely neutral in sectarian matters, the
competition of the preachers would inevitably infuse into religion "a
strong mixture of superstition, folly, and delusion. Each ghostly
practitioner, in order to render himself more precious and sacred in the
eyes of his retainers, will inspire them with the most violent abhorrence
of all other sects, and continually endeavor, by some novelty to excite the
languid devotion of his audience. No regard will be paid to truth, morals,
or decency, in the doctrines inculcated. Every tenet will be adopted that
best suits the disorderly affections of the human frame. Only where there
was an official religious establishment would the zeal of the clergy be
greatly reduced. "The most decent and advantageous composition" which the
authorities can make "with the spiritual guides is to bribe their
indolence, by assigning stated salaries to their profession."(84)
Madison disagreed. As a recent Princeton graduate, still very much
under the influence of the pious Dr. Witherspoon, he had distrusted
"encourage[r]s of free enquiry." In a letter to a close friend, he had
called them destroyers of "the most essential Truths" and "Enemies to
serious religion." Yet, even then, Madison had openly wondered whether the
support of civil society required "an Ecclesiastical Establishment" or
whether this might not in fact be "hurtful to a dependant State." Within a
matter of weeks, he wrote back to that same friend to suggest that if his
own sect "the Church of England had been the established and general
Religion in all the Northern Colonies . . . , slavery and Subjection might
and would have been gradually insinuated among us. Union of Religious
Sentiments begets a surprizing confidence and Ecclesiastical Establishments
tend to great ignorance and Corruptoon--]all of which facilitate the
Execution of mischievous Projects." (85)
FOOTNOTES:
(84)· David Hume, The History of England (New York 1878) 1II 129.
(85) · PJM I 101, 105: Letters to William Bradford on 1 December 1773 and
24 January 1774· See also PJM I 112--17, 160--61: Letters to William
Bradford on 1 April 1774 and 28 July 1775· The notes kept by Bradford and
by Madison's other classmates indicate that, in the lectures that
Witherspoon delivered on moral philosophy in their senior year, he blasted
Shaftesbury, Hume, and Mandeville and drummed into his charges the dictum
of Aristotle and his Christian admirers that government exists not just for
the preservation of mere life but also for the promotion of good and
virtuous living. Though he opposed "lordly domination and sacerdotal
tyranny" and therefore defended religious as well as political freedom,
Witherspoon also emphasized that it was the magistrate's duty to punish
profanity and impiety, and he indicated that indirect support and even
direct, financial aid to religion was legitimate and perhaps even desirable
as along as there was no discrimination between the various Christian
sects: see Ralph Ketcham, "James Madison at Princeton," Princeton
University Library Chronicle 28 (1966): 24-54 (at 38-40, 44-46), and James
Hastings Nichols, "John Witherspoon on Church and State." Journal of
Presbyterian History 42 (1964): 166-74

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Jan 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/11/00

PART IV OF A SERIES OF POSTS

The purpose of this particular series of posts is to provide historical
documentation and commentary by others that disagrees with the claims
Gardiner has made.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To William Bradford
Copy (Historical Society of Pennsylvania).
Dec. 1. 1773.
MY KIND FRIEND
I have had the gratification of receiving both your letters, and
the Pamphlets(1) sent by Wilkinson. It is a reflection I am naturally led
into whenever I write to you that I always have occasion to be returning my
thanks for some kindness received without being able to retaliate.
Gratitude is the only fund I can pay you out of which I am sensible
your generosity accepts as sufficient: but at the same time Friendship
likes it not to be behind hand in favours. My Consolation however(2) is
that if I am in debt, it is to a liberal Benefactor who thinks as little of
his friendly offices as I think much of my Deficiencies.
I am glad you have rescued yourself from your anxiety and suspence
and have come to a determination to engage in the study of the Law,
which I hope you had better reasons for chusing(3) than I could suggest.
I intend myself to read Law occasionally and have procured books for
that purpose so that you need not fear offending me by Allusions to that
science. Indeed any of your remarks as you go along would afford me
entertainment and instruction. The principles & Modes of Government are too
important to be disregarded by an Inquisitive mind and I think are well
worthy [of] a critical examination by all students that have health &
Leisure. I should be well pleased with a scetch of the plan you have fixed
upon for your studies, the books & the order you intend to read them in;
and when you have obtained sufficient insight into the Constitution of your
Country and can make it an amusement to yourself send me a draught of its
Origin & fundamental principals of Legislation; particularly the extent of
your religious Toleration. Here allow me to propose the following Queries.
Is an Ecclesiastical Establishment absolutely necessary to support civil
society in a supream Government? & how far it is hurtful to a dependant
State? I do not ask for an immediate answer but mention them as worth
attending to in the course of your reading and consulting experienced
Lawyers & Politicians upon. When you have satisfied yourself in these
points I should listen with pleasure to the Result of your reserches.(4)
You recommend sending for the Reviews as the best way to know the
present State of Literature and the Choicest Rooks published. This I have
done and shall continue to do: but I find them loose in their principals
[and] encourage[r]s of free enquiry even such as destroys the most
essential Truths, Enemies to serious religion(5) & extreamly partial in
their Citations, seeking them rather to Justify their censures and
Commendations than to give the reader a just specimen of the Authors
genius. I can rely with greater confidence on you[r] judgment after you
have read the Authors or have known their Character from you[r] judicious
friends. I am meditating a Journey to Philada which I hope to accomplish
early in the spring if no unforeseen hindrances stop me. I shall bring a
brother with me to put to school somewhere there, perhaps at Mr Smith's.(6)
I need not say how far the desire of seeing- you and others is a powerful
Inducement and that my imagination daily anticipates the pleasure of this
Tour. who were the authors of the Sermons you sent me? what is the exchange
with you now & what is it likely to be in the spring? Write speedily &
forgive my troublesome questions, I am Dr Sir, Your &c.
JM JUNR.

FOOTNOTES:
(1) Judging from JM's query at the close of this letter, several of these
unidentified pamphlets were anonymously published sermons.
(2) Bradford used shorthand for the italicized words in this letter.
(3) In his letter to Bradford, JM may have written "engaging in" because
these words appear in the copybook. But Bradford then crossed them out and
substituted "chusing." On the study of law, see above, editorial note on
Sallteld, 1771-1774.
(4) These are JM's earliest known comments upon a subject which, within a
few years, would importantly affect his rise to Virginia-wide, and still
later to national, prominence. In 1773 he apparently was beginning to doubt
the truth of the axiom that a state church served as an indispensable
bulwark of the British Crown, and was already searching for definite
evidence that the Anglican establishment in Virginia infringed the rightful
liberties of its citizens. Here again, as in his mention of falling prices
and politics to Bradford earlier that autumn (22 September 1773), JM
apparently could not, or no longer wished to, resist the intrusion of
contemporary issues upon his studies. Perhaps, also, this growing interest
in the world about him signified that his health had improved.
(5) These views, so sharply at odds with JM's later championship of freedom
of religion, speech, and the press, may reflect the lingering influence of
Dr. Witherspoon's teaching. Students' notes taken between 1772 and 1775 on
Witherspoon's "Moral Philosophy, Rhetoric and Eloquence" lectures, now
preserved in the Princeton University Library, include warnings against
reading ephemeral works dangerous to sound religion and morality.
(6) Probably Reverend Robert Smith (1723-1793), a trustee of the College
of New Jersey, father of JM's friend and tutor, Reverend Samuel Stanhope
Smith, and head of an excellent preparatory school at Pequea, Lancaster
County, Pa. (Sprague, Annals, III. 172-75). For reasons unknown, JM's
father finally decided to enroll his son William (1762-1843) in the
preparatory school at Princeton.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The papers of James Madison, Volume I, 1751 to
1779, Ed. By William T. Hutchinson & William M. E. Rachal, University of
Chicago & university of Virginia, (1962) pp 100-02)

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Jan 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/12/00

PART V OF A SERIES OF POSTS

The purpose of this particular series of posts is to provide historical
documentation and commentary by others that disagrees with the claims
Gardiner has made.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To William Bradford

RC (Historical Society of Pennsylvania). Addressed: "To Mr.
William Bradford Junr. at the Coffee-House Philadelphia."
Bradford's copybook version is also at the Historical Society
of Pennsylvania.

Jan 24. 1774
MY WORTHY FRIEND,

Yours of the 25 of last month came into my hands a few days past.
It gave singular pleasure not only because of the kindness expressed in
it but because I had reason to apprehend the letter you reed. last from
me had miscarried and I should fail in procuring the intelligence I
wanted before the Trip I design in the Spring.

. . . However Political Contests are necessary sometimes
as well as military to afford excercise and practise and to instruct in the
Art of defending Liberty and property. I verily believe the frequent
Assaults that have been made on America[,l Boston especially [,] will
in the end prove of real advantage. If the Church of England had been
the established and general Religion in all the Northern Colonies as it
has been among us here and uninterrupted tranquility had prevailed
throughout the Continent, It is clear to me that slavery and Subjection

might and would have been gradually insinuated among us. Union of
Religious Sentiments begets a surprizing confidence and Ecclesiastical

Establishments tend to great ignorance and Corruption all of which
facilitate the Execution of mischievous Projects. But away with Politicks!

. . but have nothing to brag of as to the State and Liberty of my Country.

Poverty and Luxury prevail among all sorts: Pride ignorance and Knavery
among the Priesthood and Vice and Wickedness among the Laity. This is bad
enough But It is not the worst I have to tell you. That diabolical Hell
conceived principle of persecution rages among some and to their eternal
Infamy the Clergy can furnish their Quota of Imps for such business. This
vexes me the most of any thing whatever. There are at this [time?] in the
adjacent County not less than 5 or 6 well meaning- men in close Goal for
publishing their religious Sentiments which in the main are very
orthodox.(8) I have neither patience to hear talk or think of any thing
relative to this matter, for I have squabbled and scolded abused and
ridiculed so long about it, [to so lit]tle purpose that I am without common
patience.(9) So I [leave you] to pity me and pray for Liberty of Conscience
[to revive among us.](10)

FOOTNOTES:
(8)Near the beginning of this sentence JM either left out a word or words
between "this" and "in" or, as Bradford assumed when transcribing the
letter into his copybook, meant the "in" to be "and." Although the
unaccustomed fervor displayed by JM in this passage, together with some
stronger evidence from other sources (Lewis Peyton Little, Imprisoned
Preachers and Religious Liherty in Virginia [Lynchburg, 1938], pp. 127-40,
516-21), suggests that he was witness`ing "per secution" close by
Montpelier, the editors think he more likely had only "the adjacent county"
of Culpeper in mind. There, in 1773-1774, flagrant intolerance led to the
imprisonment of a half-dozen Baptist preachers (Robert B. Semple. A History
of the Rise and Progress of the Bapticts in Virginia [1810], revised and
extended by Reverend G. W. Beale [Richmond, 1894], pp. 382, 481-84).
(9)Judging from this statement, JM was already conspicuous in his own
locality as a defender of religious dissenters. In a brief autobiography
which he sent to James K. Paulding in 1832, he declared that he was "under
very early and strong impressions in favor of liberty both Civil and
Religious. His devotion to the latter found a particular occasion for its
exercise in the persecution instituted in his County as elsewhere, against
the preachers belonging to the sect of Baptists., Notwithstanding the
enthusiasm which contributed to render them obnoxious to sober public
opinion, as well as the laws then in force, against Preachers dissenting
from the Established Religion, he spared no exertion to save them from
impnsonment, and to promote their release from it. This interposition, tho'
a mere duty prescribed by his conscience, obtained for him a lasting place
in the favor of that particular sect." Fortunately, he concluded, American
independence brought with it religious freedom (LC: William C. Rives
Papers). Apparently it was religious issues, more than tax and trade
regulation disputes with England, which were rapidly luring JM away from
his beloved studies and arousing his interest in contemporary politics.
(10). The bracketed words in this and the preceding sentence, illegible in
the original letter, were taken from Bradford's copybook version. William
C. Rives, one of the anonymous editors of the Congressional edition of JM's
papers, made the sentence say: "So I must beg you to pity me, and pray for
liberty of conscience to all" (Madison, Letters [Cong. ed.], I, 12).Rives
sometimes made improper alterations in JM's phraseology, but it is possible
that here the handwriting may have been less faded when he read it than it
is now. In any event, JM clearly wrote "Liberty of Conscience" instead of
the expression "religious Toleration" used by him in his letter to Bradford
on 1 December 1773. If JM in each instance took special care to state
exactly what he meant, he had moved to a significantly more liberal
position during the month intervening between these two letters.

(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The papers of James Madison, Volume I, 1751 to
1779, Ed. By William T. Hutchinson & William M. E. Rachal, University of

Chicago & university of Virginia, (1962) pp 104-08)

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Jan 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/12/00

PART VII OF A SERIES OF POSTS

The purpose of this particular series of posts is to provide historical
documentation and commentary by others that disagrees with the claims
Gardiner has made.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In A Letter Concerning Toleration, John Locke had made the wry
observation that, where religious sects "have not the power to carry on
persecution and to become masters, there they desire to live upon fair
terms, and preach up toleration." Indeed, he added, "when they are not
strengthened with the civil power, they can bear most patiently and
unmovedly the contagion of idolatry, superstition, and heresy in their
neighborhood; of which in other occasions the interest of religion makes
them to be extremely apprehensive."(90) Smith drew the obvious conclusion.
In The Wealth of Nations, he quoted Hume's discussion of the problem at
length. He readily confessed that "the interested and active zeal of
religious teachers can be dangerous and
troublesome," but he argued that this condition would obtain "only where
there is, either but one sect tolerated in the society, or where the whole
of a large society is divided into two or three great sects."

That zeal must be altogether innocent where the society is divided into
two or three hundred, or perhaps into as many (as a] thousand sects,
of which no one could be considerable enough to disturb the publick
tranquillity. The teachers of each sect, seeing themselves surrounded on
all sides with more adversaries than friends, would be obliged to learn
that candour and moderation which is so seldom to be found among
the teachers of those great sects, whose tenets being supported by the
civil magistrate, are held in veneration by almost all the inhabitants of
extensive kingdoms and empires, and who therefore see nothing round
them but followers, disciples, and humble admirers. The teachers of each
little sect, finding themselves almost alone, would be obliged to respect
those of almost every other sect, and the concessions which they would
mutually find it both convenient and agreeable to make to one another,
might in time probably reduce the doctrine of the greater part of them
to that pure and rational religion, tree from every mixture of absurdity,
imposture, or fanaticism, such as wise men have in all ages of the world
wished to see established.

To support his argument, Smith pointed to Pennsylvania, where the
establishment of full religious freedom had been "productive of this
philosophical good temper and moderation"(91)
If Smith's argument came to have a considerable effect on the
young American statesman, it was largely because it accorded with his
experience. What Edmund Randolph would later write of Thomas Jefferson
could have been said of James Madison with equal justice: "His opinions
against restraints on conscience ingratiated him with the enemies of the
establishment, who did not stop to inquire how far those opinions might
border on skepticism or infidelity"(92) Of this fact, Madison was acutely,
even painfully, aware. He knew that he owed his success in promoting
religious freedom within Virginia less to the force of the Lockean
arguments he presented in his celebrated "Memorial and Remonstrance against
Religious Assessments" than to the large number of Baptists and
Presbyterians resident within the state.(93) According to his neighbor and
biographer William Cabell Rives, the great statesman was accustomed in his
later years to quoting often and "with great approbation" Voltaire's claim
that "if one religion only were allowed in England, the government would
possibly be arbitrary; if there were but two, the people would cut each
other's throats; but, as there are a multitude, they all live happy and in
peace."(94)

FOOTNOTES:
(90). Locke, LCT 36-37.
(91). Smith, WN V.i.g.j-8. The remaining paragraphs of Smith's remarkably
frank discussion deserve attention as well. Cf. PIM I 106, log, 112:
Exchange of Letters with William Bradford on 24 january, 4 March, and 1
April 1774; PIM VIII 301-3: "Memorial and Kemonstrance against Religious
Assessments," 20 lune 1785, Articles 8 and II; and WrIM V111 425-73 (at
470-32): Letter to Robert Walsh on 2 March 1819. As the last item cited
indicates, Madison was inclined in later years to describe the American
experience with disestablishment in the very terms once employed by Smith.
Note Smith's debt to Montesquieu, El. 3.19.27 (580-81)
(92). Edmund Randolph, History of Virginia, ed. Arthur H. Shaffer
(Charlottesville 1970) 183.
(93)· Thomas E. Buckley, S.I.. Church and State in Revolulionary Virginia
173-82, rightly emphasizes the influence of the evangelical Christians. See
also Rhys Isaac, "'The Rage of Malice of the Old Serpent Devil': The
Dissenters and the Making and Remaking of the Virginia Statute for
Religious Freedom," in The Virginia Statutefor Religions Freedom: Its
Evolution and Consequences in American History, ed. Merrill D. Feterson and
Robert C. Vaughan (Cambridge 1988) 139-69.
(94)· William Cabell Rives, History of the Life and Times of James Madison
(New York 1859-68) II 220--21. For the passage quoted by Madison, see
Voltaire, Letters Concerning the English Nation 44-45·
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Republics Ancient and Modern, Inventions of

Prudence: Constituting the American Regime, By Paul A. Rahe, Volume III,
The University of north carolina Press, Chapel Hill & London (1994) pp

52-53

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Jan 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/12/00

PART VIII OF A SERIES OF POSTS

The purpose of this particular series of posts is to provide historical
documentation and commentary by others that disagrees with the claims
Gardiner has made.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In 1787, prudence dictated that the Virginian be more reticent
than Hume, Smith, and Voltaire. By that time, Madison had already himself
become an encourager "of free inquiry" and an enemy to what the majority of
his contemporaries would have considered "serious religion." Political
action required discretion. The divines influential in the various states
would not have looked kindly on the proposed constitution had they
recognized that it embodied a strategy for reducing the various sects to a
"pure and rational religion" of the sort favored by "wise men"-even in
wholly pagan times. His reticence notwithstanding, Madison's purpose and
that evidenced by Hume, Smith, and Voltaire were one and the same. As he
conceded some three decades later in a letter to a prominent American lew,
the Virginian had not only long been inclined to consider "the freedom of
religious opinions & worship as equally belonging to every sect." He had
"ever regarded . . . the secure enjoyment of" that freedom "as the best
human provision for bringing all either into the same way of thinking, or
into that mutual charity which is the only substitute."(95) For Madison and
for Jefferson, freedom of conscience was as much a matter of policy as a
matter of principle. Like the author of the Declaration of Independence,
the father of the American Constitution was a Deist who looked for moral
and political guidance, not to the Holy Scriptures, but to the "law of
nature and of nature's God."(96) If his stratagem was successful, his
fellow citizens would someday be unable to distinguish the God of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob from the God of the philosophers; and when that day came,
the danger posed by parties of principle would disappear altoeether.(97)
Madison could take it for granted that religious factions were
entirely artificial because in antiquity there had been no parties of
abstract, speculative principle apart from the completely powerless
philosophical sects. Had it not been for the peculiar character of
Christianity, circumstances in modern times would have been much the same.
And even then, where good fortune and good policy combined to disarm
superstition, civil strife was most likely to arise in a fashion perfectly
familiar to the ancients.
In Madison's view, factions should normally spring into existence
because men (and the rich and the poor in particular) have conflicting
material interests. It was with this in mind that he developed the most
controversial and original aspect of his argument for the extended
republic. Alexander Hamilton had remarked on the scope given to "commercial
enterprise" in America by "the diversity in the productions of different
States."(98) Madison's sanguine experience with religious diversity in
Virginia enabled him to see that the economic diversity noted by Hamilton
could be politically advantageous as well.(99)

FOOTNOTES:
(95)· WrJM VIII 411--13: Letter to Mordecai M. Noah on 15 May 1818.
(96). It can hardly be fortuitous that, in critical documents, both resort
to the language of Deism. Cf. PTI 1 413-33 (esp. 423, 429): The
Declaration of independence with Madison, The Federalist 43 (297) See also
WrJM IX 573-607 (esp. 590, 599): Notes on Nullification, 1835-36-where "the
law of nature & of nature's God" turns out to be an extrapolation from
Thomas Hobbes's "natural right of self-preservation." For another
circumstance in which Madison appealed to "nature and nature's God," see
WrJM V1 332-40 (at 340): Address of the General Assembly to the People of
the Commonwealth of Virginia, 23 January 1799. At Princeton. if Madison
perused all of the books that Dr. Witherspoon assigned, he will have
encountered The Being and Attributes of God by Newton's Dr. Clarke. His own
testimony suggests that he was swayed from religious orthodoxy at about the
time of the Revolution by renewed study of the work. Fitty years later, he
would still endorse "reasoning from the effect to the cause, `from Nature
to Nature's God,' " and he evidently hoped that the students at the
University of Virginia would learn to do the same. Note the inclusion of
Clarke's work on the list that Madison drew up in 1824 Of theological works
appropriate for use at the university (WrJM IX 203-7n) and see WrJM IX
229--71: Letter to Frederick Beasley on 20 November 1825 Though Madison was
outwardly observant, he never joined any church, and his heterodoxy was
widely suspected at the time. For further discussion, see Brant, James
Madison I 68-71, 85· 1"-22, 127-31, 1II 268-73, and Ralph Ketcham, "James
Madison and Religion--A New Hypothesis," Journal of the Presbyterian
Historical Society 38, no. 2 (June 1960): 65-90, and James Madison: A
Biography (New York 1971) 55-58, 61, 66, 162-68. Ketcham demonstrates
Madison's inierest in metaphysical guestions but provides no evidence to
support his assertion that the mature Madison should be considered a more
or less orthodox Christian. In fact, given the political circumstances, the
absence of substantive evidence suggests the opposite opinion, for it is
far easier to explain the reticence of a statesman who holds unorthodox
opinions than to account for the silence of a politician whose views accord
well with those of his compatriots. In any case. as Madison's private
correspondence indicates, his motive for entering the fray on behalf of
freedom of conscience and against the establishment of religion was
from the outset political and not religious. Note that, from at least one
political perspective, Deism is the functional equivalent of atheism: see
Hobbes, De cive IIl.xv. 14, and consider 1I Prologue, note 46, above.
(97)· See J. G. A. Pocock, "Religious Freedom and the Desacralization of
Politics: From the English Civil Wars to the Virginia Statute," in The
Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom 43-73
(98). The Federalist 11 (71)·
(99). On this point, see Lance Banning, "James Madison, the Statute for
Religious Freedom, and the Crisis of Republican Convictions," in The
Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom 109-38.

SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Republics Ancient and Modern, Inventions of
Prudence: Constituting the American Regime, By Paul A. Rahe, Volume III,
The University of north carolina Press, Chapel Hill & London (1994) pp

53-54

END OF THIS PARTICULAR SERIES

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Jan 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/12/00

PART VI OF A SERIES OF POSTS

The purpose of this particular series of posts is to provide historical
documentation and commentary by others that disagrees with the claims
Gardiner has made.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Madison disagreed. As a recent Princeton graduate, still very much

under the influence of the pious Dr. Witherspoon, he had distrusted
"encourage[r]s of free enquiry." In a letter to a close friend, he had
called them destroyers of "the most essential Truths" and "Enemies to
serious religion." Yet, even then, Madison had openly wondered whether the
support of civil society required "an Ecclesiastical Establishment" or
whether this might not in fact be "hurtful to a dependant State." Within a
matter of weeks, he wrote back to that same friend to suggest that if his

own sect "the Church of England had been the established and general
Religion in all the Northern Colonies . . . , slavery and Subjection might

and would have been gradually insinuated among us. Union of Religious
Sentiments begets a surprizing confidence and Ecclesiastical Establishments

tend to great ignorance and Corruptoon--]all of which facilitate the
Execution of mischievous Projects." (85) This conviction, firmly held and
vigorously defended, explains why Madison expended great effort at the
Virginia convention in a futile attempt to write disestablishment into that
fledgling state's declaration of rights.(86) A decade later, he would
finally succeed, by steering Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious
Freedom through the Virginia legislature;(87) and in 1788, he was prepared
to argue that the very presence of a great "multiplicity of sects" was "the
best and only security for religious liberty in any society."(88) This
argument Madison owed to Hume's close friend and disciple Adam Smith.(89)
[for footnote 85 see POST III ]

FOOTNOTES:
(86). See note 83, above: the original draft of Madison's amendment
included the stipulation "that no man or class of men ought, on account of
religion to be invested with peculiar emoluments or privileges; nor
subjected to any penalties or disabilities unless under colour of religion,
any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or safety of society."
(87)· For a detailed history of the struggle for disestablishment, see
Thomas E. Buckley, S.J., Church and State in Revolutionary Virginia,
'776-'787 (Charlottesville 1977) 1-172· For the aftermath, see Buckley,
"Evangelicals Triumphant: The Baptists' Assault on the Virginia Glebes,
1786--1801,' WMQ 45 (1988): 33-69· For a brief account of the role played
by Madison, see Brant, James Madison I 298- 300, II 343-55· See also PTJ I
525-58: Notes and Proceedings on Discontinuing the Establishment of the
Church of England, 11 October-9 December 1776· and PJM VIII 295--306,
473-74: "Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments." 20 June
1785, and Letter to Thomas Jefferson on 22 January 1786. Madison ends his
discussion of religious matters in the latter with the comment that "the
enacting clauses past without a single alteration, and I flatter myself
have in this Country extinguished for ever the ambitious hope of making
laws for the human mind.
(88). Cf. DSSC III 330 12 June 1788 with The Federalist 51 (351-52), where
Madison advances the same argument.
(89). The Wealth of Nations was first published in 1776 At some point
during the decade that followed, Madison read the work with care. See PJM
VIII 266: Letter to Thomas lefferson on 27 April 1785

51-52

TO BE CONTINUED

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Jan 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/24/00

PART I OF THIS SERIES

TOLERATION

********************************************************************

The Despotism of Toleration

The previous essays in this chapter have demonstrated the variety of
attitudes expressed in the colonies on the subject of church and state.
With the exception of Rhode Island, all of the original settlements
accepted some form of religious establishment, along with restrictions on
the free exercise of religious faith. These restrictions, to be sure,
varied from the strict enforcements of Massachusetts Bay to the more
lenient attitudes manifest in the middle colonies. But the principle of
toleration prevailed as the underlying assumption of all efforts to deal
with church-state issues. Research reveals no precipitate move toward
religious freedom, but rather a moderating influence that called for
greater inclusiveness respecting Protestants. The life of Samuel Davies, a
Presbyterian pioneer who worked in Virginia from 1747 through 1759, offers
an excellent example of this trend, one that maintained a clear bias on the
pan of the government against "religious excesses." In many ways Davies was
a forerunner of the practices of the nineteenth century that created a de
facto Protestant establishment.

Samuel Davies differentiated clearly between toleration and religious
freedom, a difference drilled home unceasingly by Roger Williams. But
unlike Williams, Davies believed that the state has the authority to
tolerate religious diversity, and by logic, the right to restrict those
religious expressions unacceptable to it. Davies went further--assuming
that Virginia was a Protestant state, governed by Protestant presumptions.
His quarrel with the authorities lay not in the area of freedom of
conscience, but rather in the definition of tolerable religions. Thus,
Davies wished simply to incorporate his dogmatic assumptions into
government policy in place of the more restrictive ones practiced by a
government that recognized a state church, the Church of England. Indeed,
Davies did not object to that establishment, but wished merely to assert
that the Parliament's 1689 Act of Toleration applied in Virginia, to the
Presbyterians, in particular. On the other hand, he was convinced that the
authorities should not tolerate Roman Catholics.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION:The Despotism of Toleration, by Robert S. Alley,
James Madison on Religious Liberty, edited, with introductions and
interpretations by. Robert S. Alley. Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N. Y.
(1985) pp 142-49

**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."

Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.

Page is a member of the following web rings:

The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring

Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring

American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Jan 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/24/00

PART II OF THIS SERIES

TOLERATION

********************************************************************
Davies believed in a Christian (read Protestant) state responsible for
carrying out God's will. His religious convictions called upon him to
assert the same things concerning Catholics that modern-day fundamentalists
often claim about "secular humanists" and "main-line churches." Davies,
therefore, is a paradigm for what is now described as "right-wing
fundamentalism." (quite rightfully the leadership of this new wave of
evangelicalism claims models in American history consistent with their
practice. Davies's thought and actions may help to clarify the implications
of this particular American tradition,

Davies's sojourn in Virginia was highlighted by two primary concerns.
When the young Presbyterian representative of New Light theology moved
to the colony in 1747, he was faced with an implacable church
establishment, one that had successfully impeded the rise of Protestant
dissent in Virginia for 140 years. A vigorous evangelist for his faith,
Davies became the prime mover behind the application of legal toleration to
dissenters in the colony. From his earliest sermons he abided by what he
considered to be the rules of the 1689 Act of Toleration. He argued for and
ultimately won (1759) his case that the act must apply in the colony since
it was an act of Parliament.

Yet, Davies did not move to Virginia in order to make such a plea. His
motivation was singular--to preach the Gospel as a New Light witness. His
"call to preach" drove him to secure the right to do so in the colony. The
Act of Toleration required dissenting ministers to obtain licenses from
constituted authorities in order to preach at meetinghouses. Ever willing
to submit to the requirements of the law, Davis applied for licenses.
(Ultimately, he obtained eight.) He believed in an established church and
found no fault with the Church of England in that role, as long as the law
permitting dissent was observed.

The basis for this acceptance of religious establishment is found in the
second characteristic of Davies's thought. For him enemies of the British
nation were enemies of God. He identified Crown and Cross. Christ had
died, he believed, for Protestant Britain. Thus, Davies found himself
embroiled in political issues with the outbreak of the French and Indian
War in 1755. In oratory anticipating twentieth-century evangelists, Davies
warned that the French might win the conflict because God had determined to
punish Britain for a lack of dedication to the faith. To be sure, the enemy
in 1755 was not communism but Roman Catholicism; but, like his twentieth-
century successors, Davies was confident that in the end Protestantism
would triumph--in his case over godless Catholicism.

Britain was God's chosen nation. There was no fault with the system,
only with people. Failing to view the world in relative terms, Davies spoke
in absolutes, accepting war as inevitable until such time as the entire
planet became Protestant. This world view had no place for the rights
espoused by Williams and soon to be expressed in calls for religious
freedom. Davies believed that the state had the right to tolerate, or not
tolerate, religious dissent. Further, he felt that God had ordained that
Britain tolerate Protestantism, as manifest in the 1689 act, but that other
forms of Christianity, Catholicism in particular, were condemned by God.
Therefore, as God's chosen nation, Britain could not refuse toleration of
Protestant dissent, but it must condemn error and heresy, that is to say,
Catholicism.
NOTES

SOURCE OF INFORMATION:The Despotism of Toleration, by Robert S. Alley,
James Madison on Religious Liberty, edited, with introductions and
interpretations by. Robert S. Alley. Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N. Y.
(1985) pp 142-49

**********************************************

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."

Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.

Page is a member of the following web rings:

The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring

Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring

American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Jan 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/24/00

PART III OF THIS SERIES

TOLERATION

********************************************************************

Toleration became a means to an end for Davies. Religious freedom was
not a right, but a privilege. Catholics, who were opposed to God, should
not be tolerated. France was the political embodiment of Catholic error,
and therefore must be opposed by citizens on moral grounds. Hence, Davies
became the best recruiting officer in the colony.

Davies founded his thoughts on the subject of God's nation upon a
familiar view of providence: ". . . . this world is a little territory of
Jehovah's government; under the management of his providence: and
particularly, that all the blessings of life are the gifts of his bounty;
and all its calamities, the chastisements or judgments of his hand ... .
There is a set of little, conceited, smattering philosophers risen among
us, who think they disprove ail this, by alleging that earthquakes proceed
from 'natural causes.'"(1)

Davies's clear conflict with the Deism of his age grew out of its
rejection of primary causes. Davies, on the other hand, was convinced that
the earth-quake in Lisbon in 1755 was God's particular punishment of
Portugese Catholics and their support of the anti-Christ, the Pope. God
used natural events to punish and to throw "the world into ferment." He
insisted, "These extraordinary ministers of his vengeance are generally
these four: the FAMINE, SWORD, PESTILENCE, AND EARTHQUAKE."(2) Davies
placed unusual natural events in the context of a gigantic struggle between
good and evil, Christianity and paganism, Protestantism and Catholicism.
Davies was concerned for the Christian State, a term he employed to
describe Great Britain. It was a nation chosen by God and guarded by Him
against harm. "It has pleased God to choose Great Britain out of the wide
world, and to make her the object of his special care for many ages."(3) In
contrast, Roger Williams re-fused to allow the term Christian to be applied
to the state.

In sum, Davies believed in the British system and called upon people "to
be loyal to the Hanover family in which liberty, the Protestant religion,
and George III are inseparably united."(4) To the extent that he used the
phrase, religious liberty meant to Davies only the granting of certain
rights he felt were consistent with the system. While broader in his
application of toleration than the Puritans of Massachusetts, Davies
manifested a commitment to a theory of the Christian state that called upon
the magistrate to act in the name of God.

The importance of Davies lies in his advocacy of a moderating principle
that would support a broader Protestant hegemony. Already (prior to the
Revolution) Virginia was experiencing an influx of Presbyterians in the
west, and Davies's position was appealing to men like Patrick Henry. But
the Davies formula was not applied by colonial authorities--even to
Baptists, who, by the 1760s, were preaching a more radical brand of
Protestantism. Even as it incorporated greater toleration into its
policies, Virginia continued to persecute religious dissenters who insisted
on complete religious freedom.
NOTES
(1). Samuel Davies, Sermons on Important Subiecrs, 4 vols. (London: W.
Baynes, 1804-1810), III, pp. 263-64.
(2). Davies, III, p. 261.
(3). Davies, IlI, pp. 346, 370.
(4). Davies, III, p. 93.

SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Despotism of Toleration, by Robert S. Alley,
James Madison on Religious Liberty, edited, with introductions and
interpretations by. Robert S. Alley. Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N. Y.
(1985) pp 142-49

**********************************************

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."

Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.

Page is a member of the following web rings:

The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring

Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring

American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Jan 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/24/00

PART IV OF THIS SERIES

TOLERATION

********************************************************************

In the next decade, as Madison addressed the problems of establishment
and religious persecution, he did not have to look across the Atlantic, or
even to northern neighbor colonies. The conflict was homegrown. He had
noted it in a series of letters to William Bradford shortly after returning
home from Princeton at the conclusion of his education.* "If the Church of

England had been the established and general Religion in all the Northern

Colonies as it has been among us here and uninterrupted tranquility had

prevailed throughout the Continent, It is clear to me that slavery and

Subjection might and would have been gradually insinuated among us. Union

of Religious Sentiments begets a surprising confidence and Ecclesiastical
Establishments tend to great ignorance and Corruption all of which
facilitate the Execution of mischievous Projects."(5) After some comments
on the merits of various courses of study, Madison returned to the theme of
religious freedom with some of his most stinging prose, as he described the
prevailing conditions in his home colony:

I have indeed as good an Atmosphere at home as the Climate will allow:

but have nothing to brag of as to the State and Liberty of my Country.
Poverty and Luxury prevail among all sorts: Pride ignorance and Knavery

among the Priest hood and Vice and Wickedness among the Laity. This is bad

enough But It is not the worst I have to tell you. That diabolical Hell
conceived principle of persecution rages among some and to their eternal
Infamy the Clergy can furnish their Quota of Imps for such business. This

vexes me the most of anything whatever. There are at this [time!] in the
adjacent County not less than 5 or 6 well meaning men in close Goal [gaol]

for publishing their religious Sentiments which in the main are very

orthodox. I have neither patience to hear or think of any thing relative

to this matter, for I have squabbled and scolded abused and ridiculed so
long about it, [to so lit]tle purpose that I am without common patience.

So I [leave you] to pity me and pray for Liberty of Conscience [to revive

among Us.](6)

Four months later, in another letter to Bradford, Madison informed his
correspondent that there was some hope of redress for the persecuted
religious minorities: "Our Assembly is to meet the first of May When It is
expected something will be done in behalf of the Dissenters: Petitions I
hear are already forming among the Persecuted Baptists and I fancy it is in
the thoughts of the Presbyterians also to intercede for greater liberty in
matters of Religion."(7)

An 1810 history of Virginia Baptists by Robert Semple provides
information regarding Baptist sentiments at the time. (2uoting from minutes
of a May 1774 Baptist meeting in Halifax County, Semple notes: "For three
or four years, there had been severe persecutions against the Baptists, in
many parts of Virginia. Letters were received at this association from
preachers confined in prison, particularly from David Tinsley, then in
Chesterfield jail."(8) The author repeats a resolution "entered into" at
that time: "Agreed to set apart the second and third Saturday in June, as
public fast days, in behalf of our poor blind persecutors, and for the
releasement of our brethren."(9)
*It is somewhat ironic that Davies left Virginia in 1759 to assume the
presidency of the College of New Jersey in Princeton, and that Madison
appears to have first experienced an understanding of religious freedom
under the guidance of a successor to Davies, Scottish Presbyterian divine
John Witherspoon.
[whom he also disagreed with and broke with on the same subject, during the
1770s. See:
NOTES
(5). Letter from James Madison to William Bradford, January 24, 1774.
(6). Ibid. Pennsylvania, under the influence of William Penn, had a much
greater degree of freedom than did Virginia.
(7). Letter from James Madison to William Bradford, April 1, 1774.
(8). Robert Semple, A History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists in
Virginia (Richmond, 1810) p. 56.
(9). Ibid.

SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Despotism of Toleration, by Robert S. Alley,
James Madison on Religious Liberty, edited, with introductions and
interpretations by. Robert S. Alley. Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N. Y.
(1985) pp 142-49

**********************************************

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."

Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.

Page is a member of the following web rings:

The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring

Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring

American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Jan 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/24/00

PART V OF THIS SERIES

TOLERATION

********************************************************************

In April of that yeat Madison had written to Bradford: ". . . .the Clergy
are a numerous and powerful body have great influence at home by reason of
their connection with 6~ dependence on the Bishops and Crown and will
naturally employ all their art 6r Interest to depress their rising
Adversaries; for such they must consider dissenters who rob them of the
good will of the people and may in time endanger their livings and
security."(10) On this same theme, Semple draws attention to an August 1775
meeting of Baptists:

"It seems, that one great object of uniting the two districts at this
time, was to strive for the abolition of the hierarchy, or church
establishment, in Virginia. The discontents in America, arising from
British oppression, were now drawing to a crisis; most of the colonies had
determined to resist, and some were for independence. This was a very
favourable season for the Baptists. Having been much ground under the
British laws, or at least by the interpretation of them in Virginia; they
were to a man, favourable to any revolution, by which they could obtain
freedom of religion. They had known from experience, chat mere toleration
was not a sufficient check, having been imprisoned at a time, when that law
was considered by many as being in force. It was therefore resolved at
this session, to circulate petitions to the Virginia Convention or General
Assembly, throughout the state, in order to obtain signatures. The prayer
of these was, that the church establishment should be abolished, and
religion left to stand upon its own merits: And, that all religious
societies should be protected in the peaceable enjoyment of their own
religious principles, and modes of worship. (11)

In July of 1775 Madison informed Bradford that he had requested an
acquaintance at Princeton bring him two pamphlets, "An apology for the
Church of England as by Law Established" by Josiah Tucker and "An Essay
on Toleration with a particular view to the late Application of the
Dissenting Ministers to Parliament" by Phil. Turneaux.(12) The following
June Madison, a delegate to the Virginia Convention, was appointed to a
committee to prepare a constitution and a declaration of rights. The
dominant figure was George Mason. Recalling those deliberations, Madison
wrote in his "Autobiographical Notes" in 1832:

Being young 6r in the midst of distinguished and experienced members of
the Convention he [Madison] did not enter into its debates; tho' he
occasionally suggested amendments; the most material of which was a change
of the terms in which the freedom of Conscience was expressed in the
proposed Declaration of Rights. This important and meritorious instrument
was drawn by Geo. Mason, who had inadvertently adopted the word
'toleration' in the article on that subject. The change suggested and
accepted, substituted a phraseology which--declared the freedom of
conscience to be a natural and absolute right."

If Madison's memory is to be trusted, this appears to be the first occasion
these two concepts (freedom of conscience and natural rights) were linked
in his thought. And thus began James Madison's life-long struggle to secure
and maintain freedom of religion for citizens of the commonwealth and the
nation. Toleration, so decisively won by Davies in 1759, was put aside in
favor of a concept that extended far beyond his theology and belief. In
place of Mason's phrase Madison proposed the following: "all men are
equally entitled to the full and free exercise of [religion] according to
the dictates of Conscience." And he wished to add "therefore that no man or

class of men ought, on account of religion to be invested with peculiar

emoluments or privileges.))
NOTES
(10). Madison to Bradford, April 1, 1774.
(11). Semple, p. 62.
(12). Letter from James Madison to William Bradford, July 28, 1775.

**********************************************

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."

Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.

Page is a member of the following web rings:

The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring

Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring

American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Jan 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/24/00

PART VI OF THIS SERIES

TOLERATION

********************************************************************

Madison realized he could not gain passage of the disestablishment
provision at that time in Virginia, so he withdrew that portion in order to
win the basic principle of religious freedom. As it finally appeared in the
Declaration of Rights, the article read: "That religion, or the duty which
we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only
by reason and conviction, not by force and violence; and therefore, all men
are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the
dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice
Christian fetebearance, love, and charity towards each other." Historian
George Bancroft described Madison's amendment to the Declaration as "the
first achievement of the wisest civilian in Virginia."(13)

It would be another decade before establishment followed toleration into
oblivion, but already those Presbyterians who owed their origins in
Virginia to Samuel Davies were supportive of the Madison position. John
Todd, Davies's successor, sent a memorial to the General Assembly in 1776,
stating: "Therefore we ask no ecclesiastical establishments for ourselves;
neither can we approve of them when granted to others."(14) And in 1777
Virginia Presbyterians affirmed: "Therefore, as it is contrary to our
principles and interest; and, as we think, subversive of religious liberty,
we do again most earnestly entreat that our Legislature would never extend
any assessment for religious purposes to us, or to the congregations under
our care."(15) The stage was set for the introduction of Thomas Jefferson's
Act for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia, offered to the General
Assembly in 1779

Until Samuel Davies insisted on the application of the 1689 Act of
Toleration in Virginia, the establishment allowed no dissenters to worship
freely. Davies understood the limits of that act, as well as its
guarantees. After a decade of struggle, Davies successfully influenced
colonial authorities to abide by that act of Parliament: In 1759 Governor
Fauquier acted to satisfy Davies and the Presbyterians. At the time they
neither asked nor sought anything beyond toleration. Moreover, the
principle was clearly understood in the context of Davies's theology and it
was employed against that background. The implication is unmistakable:
Toleration meant acceptance of the concept of a Christian or Protestant
state.
NOTES
(13). George Bancroft, The History of the United States, 6 vols. (New York,
1883-1885), IV:416-17.
(14). William H. Foote, Sketches of Virginia Historical and Biographical,
first series (Philadelpha: William S. Martien, 1850), p. 324.
(15). Foote, p. 327

SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Despotism of Toleration, by Robert S. Alley,
James Madison on Religious Liberty, edited, with introductions and
interpretations by. Robert S. Alley. Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N. Y.
(1985) pp 142-49

**********************************************

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."

Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.

Page is a member of the following web rings:

The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring

Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring

American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Jan 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/24/00

PART VII OF THIS SERIES

TOLERATION

********************************************************************
In arguing for the elimination of the word "toleration" from the
Declaration of Rights, Madison intended to strike at the Davies definition
of the term. Some years later Thomas Paine gave expression to the
Madisonian position: "Toleration is not the opposite of intolerance, but it
is the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms. The one assumes to itself
the right of withholding liberty of conscience, the other of granting it."

The evidence is persuasive that whenever persons advocate some form of
Christian state or argue for the messianic role of the United States as
God's chosen nation, there is a corollary, the introduction of toleration
as a principle. And while the implementation may be benign in the
beginning, the departure from the Madison principle of religious freedom as
a natural right is replaced with the "despotism" of toleration.

A fitting footnote to the entire debate on the subject of toleration can
be found in an address from French Jews to the French National Assembly on
January 29, 1790: "America, to which politics will owe so many useful
lessons, has rejected the word toleration from its code, as a term tending
to compromise individual liberty and to sacrifice cartain classes of men to
other classes. To tolerate is, in fact, to suffer that which you could, if
you wish, prevent and prohibit."(16)

As will be evident in the next chapter, the Declaration of Rights
signaled the beginning of the debate between those who advocated
toleration, like Paaick Henry, and those who endorsed freedom of
conscience, like Madison and Jefferson. Virginia proved to be, once again,
the field on which the historic engagement took place.
NOTES
(16). Edward F. Humphrey, Natiaalism and Religion in America, 1774-1789
(New York: Russell & Russell, 1965), p. 404. (First published in 1924.)

SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Despotism of Toleration, by Robert S. Alley,
James Madison on Religious Liberty, edited, with introductions and
interpretations by. Robert S. Alley. Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N. Y.
(1985) pp 142-49

**********************************************

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."

Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.

Page is a member of the following web rings:

The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring

Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring

American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Jan 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/24/00

buc...@exis.net wrote:

>:|
>:|PART IV OF THIS SERIES
>:|
>:|TOLERATION
>:|
>:|********************************************************************
>:|*It is somewhat ironic that Davies left Virginia in 1759 to assume the
>:|presidency of the College of New Jersey in Princeton, and that Madison

>:|appears to have first experienced an understanding of religious freedom
>:|under the guidance of a successor to Davies, Scottish Presbyterian divine
>:|John Witherspoon.
>:|[whom he also disagreed with and broke with on the same subject, during the
>:|1770s. See:

Forgot to add the rest of the information:

[whom he also disagreed with and broke with on the same subject, during the
1770s. See:

Gardiner meet Mr. Madison

The series of 8 posts that were posted to that thread Jan 11, and Jan 12.

**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."

Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.

Page is a member of the following web rings:

The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring

Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring

American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************

Rick Gardiner

unread,

Jan 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/24/00

What Alison has posted here is certainly not citations of books, but rather
entire portions of books.

Mr. Alley's book is very kind and informative for the reader with a lot of
time on his hands.

But I wonder if Mr. Alley knows that Alison has taken it upon himself to
republish his writing here on the internet? I wonder if Alison has Alley's
permission for this republication? Has he paid him fair royalties for
republishing his book here? Having recently published a book myself, I know
that what Alison has done here is a violation of copyright laws, without
express written permission.

Not to mention the fact that Alison seems to be under the delusion that the
more he cut-and-pastes, the more he will "appear" more correct.

Insofar as these posts are all archived by Deja.com, I wouldn't want to be
Alison on the day that Alley or his publisher finds their copyrighted material
available for no purchase on the internet.

Some people will stop at nothing, not even breaking the law, when they are frustrated.

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Jan 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/28/00

Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

>:|What Alison has posted here is certainly not citations of books, but rather

>:|entire portions of books.
>:|
>:|Mr. Alley's book is very kind and informative for the reader with a lot of
>:|time on his hands.
>:|
>:|But I wonder if Mr. Alley knows that Alison has taken it upon himself to
>:|republish his writing here on the internet? I wonder if Alison has Alley's
>:|permission for this republication? Has he paid him fair royalties for
>:|republishing his book here? Having recently published a book myself, I know
>:|that what Alison has done here is a violation of copyright laws, without
>:|express written permission.

>:|

Mr. Alley, oh do you by chance mean the same Robert S. Alley who is
President of the Virginia Chapter of American United?

The same Robert S. Alley who has sent us copies of some of his articles to
use, like his article that appeared opposite Pat Robertson's Article in the
W&M BORs Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, Summer, 1995.
Title of the Article is Public Education and the Public Good, that Robert
S. Alley?

Do you mean the same Robert S. Alley who helped us track down the Rev
Jasper Adams pamphlets and other related letters and publication pertaining
to them?

The same Robert S. Alley who sent this letter to us regarding the web page
that Tom Peters, S. Batte and myself were involved in and the use of the
very book you talk about on that web page?

We had introduced Tom to Robert S. Alley the night before at a banquet that
all of us had attended at Virginia Wesleyan University here in Va Beach.
Tom had been one of the speakers. His topic had been "On being an internet
separationist."

Tom wanted to meet Robert Alley, so we S. Batte and myself introduced him.
[Robert Alley had sen the web page before, but not sure he had realized at
that time that it was Tom who actually ran the page.]

==============================================================

Is this the Robert S. Alley you mean?

>:|Not to mention the fact that Alison seems to be under the delusion that the

>:|more he cut-and-pastes, the more he will "appear" more correct.

>:|

Why don't you deal with the material contained in the posts if you feel you
have an urge to say anything/

Contrary to your opinion, the posts contained in this thread all deal with
some claim that you have made regarding Madison, And contrary to your
opinion, they show those claims to be either totally incorrect or greatly
overstated by you.

Bulk on shows how much information there is out that showing those claims
of yours to be incorrect or greatly overstated. Also, numbers have to do
with the vast number of such claims you have made in the past almost 11
months regarding Madison.

>:|Insofar as these posts are all archived by Deja.com, I wouldn't want to be

>:|Alison on the day that Alley or his publisher finds their copyrighted material
>:|available for no purchase on the internet.

>:|

You know something really funny.

My own personal experience has been, after being on here for five years in
Feb., that I don't recall anyone ever making such a point in the past. I
couldn't even begin to estimate the number of posts I have read or the
number of people that I have read that have posted. I have probably been in
and out of 20-30 or more newsgroups that have contained church state
discussions of some sort. I personally have posted, oh hell, I think at one
time de ja news listed something like six thousand of more. The ones from
95 and 96 isn't even carried anymore, I don't think, or not carried fully.

I suspect that anyone who has ever posted to any degree on the net and
provided quoted material has at some time or other pushed the envelope
pertaining to copyright laws or perhaps ever stepped over that line.

I am sure that most, if not all who have did so without any intention to
break any laws, etc..
On the other hand, I have never, in all this time, that I can recall, ever
mention the subjc6t of copyright laws to anyone. I have seen some pretty
hostile exchanges between people at times as well I have seen exchanges
between people, who do not like each other, make no bones about not liking
each other, and then I have seen casual polite exchanges between people and
everything in between.

Never have I seen anyone mention the subject of copyright to another, even
though both are providing quoted material from various publications in
their arguments, etc.

Leave it to Gardiner to be the first that I run across to bring up that
subject.

Now, I wonder what that says about Gardiner.

Something to bear in mind, if someone is going to point the finger
(correctly or incorrectly) at another, they better check out their own bar
first, to make very sure that they don't have anything in their barn that
might fit the very thing they are pointing to.

>:|Some people will stop at nothing, not even breaking the law, when they are frustrated.

Frustrated? That might describe you, after all, it is you that seems to be
looking for any angle you can possibly find, rather then actually deal with
the information being presented by a number of peopl;e.

There are all these excuses by you as to why you ignore some, and all
these attempts by you to derail the information being presented countering
you by a number of people.

Why? Why don't you counter, with information, those who are countering you
with information.

Why does it always get down to being so personal with you.?

You are the one who keeps saying, let's get back to history, but you are
also the one who doesn't seem to do that.

One can look on just about any given day, and they can find posts that
others have posted countering Gardiner that do, in fact, deal with history.
More times then not, one will not find any reply to those posts from
Gardiner. But what one can count on finding more times then not, is
Gardiner posting his personal pissing contest posts and replies.

I don't bother with those anymore. I first read who you are replying to,
and if what they posted pertains to history then I probably will read your
reply, provided it isn't something that is only a few lines long, because
if that, the chances are good you didn't reply to the historical part.

If on the other hand you are replying to non history things, I delete it.

Now, are you ready to get back to the historical record?

**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."

Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.

Page is a member of the following web rings:

The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring

Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring

American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************

0 new messages