Gardiner meet Mr. Madison
buc...@exis.net
[You didn't really respond to this, so i thought maybe you had missed it.]
>:|>
>:|> Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
>:|> Madison
>:|>
>:|> " The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
>:|> hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
>:|> with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of
>:|> the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
>:|> increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
>:|> (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
>:|
>:|Madison is glorying in the fact that the first amendment has benefitted
>:|religion. Why would Story disagree with this?
Again I ask you, are you trying to be cute and play games, or do you truly
not understand what was really going on?
If you don't understand the dynamics of this period of time and the
dynamics of these people, fine, we can go from there. if you are trying to
be cute, I don't need it.
The men who are mist commonly identified with church state sseparation at
this time period, Madison, Jefferson, Cooper in some ways, Leland, Baccus,
and a slew of others would be on the opposite side of any spectrum with
regards to Joseph Story regarding religion and church/state,
religion/government.
>:|> " The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
>:|> hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
>:|> with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of
>:|> the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
>:|> increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
>:|> (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
>:|
>:|Madison is glorying in the fact that the first amendment has benefitted
>:|religion. Why would Story disagree with this?
What Madison is doing is commenting on how much things have improved both
for the government and religion since the total separation of church and
state as created by the Constitution.
Remember, Story and others believed that religion was essential to good
citizens, good government, etc. Madison did not believe that.
Remember this question that Madison had asked a fellow Princeton Classmate
back in 1773?
--Is an Ecclesiastical Establishment absolutely necessary to support civil
society in a supream Government? & How far is it hurtful to a dependent
state?--
Sixty years later he answers his own question in a letter to the same Rev
Jasper Adams that Story was writing
(Here is the evidence that Madison and Story were opposite ends of the
spectrum. Both men were sent a copy of the Adams sermon. Both men were
asked to comment on it, his thesis actually as presented in the sermon.
Story, as you have seen bubbled over it, Madison politely disagreed with
Adams's thesis, which is also your thesis.)
Madison stated in his reply to Adams, and in doing so answered his own
question of sixty years earlier,
**********************************************************************************
-- Waiving the rights of Conscience, not included in the surrender
implied by the social State, and more or less invaded by all religious
Establishments, the simple question to be decided is whether a support of
the best & purest religion, the Xn religion itself ought, not so far at
least as pecuniary means are involved, to be provided for by the Govt
rather than be left to the voluntary provisions of those who profess it.
And on this question experience will be an admitted Umpire, the more
adequate as the connection between Govts & Religion have [has] existed in
such various degrees & forms, and now can be compared with examples where
connection has been entirely dissolved.
In the Papal System, Government and Religion are in a manner
consolidated, & that is found to be the worst of Govts.
In most of the Govt of the old world, the legal establishment of a
particular religion and without [any] or with very little toleration of
others makes a part [pact?] of the Political and Civil organization and
there are few of the most enlightened judges who will maintain that the
system has been favorable either to Religion or to Govt.
Until Holland ventured on the experiment of combining [liberal]
toleration with the establishment of a particular creed, it was taken for
granted, that an exclusive [& intolerant](5) establishment was essential,
and notwithstanding the light thrown on the subject by that experiment, the
prevailing opinion in Europe, England not excepted, has been that Religion
could not be preserved without the support of Govt nor Govt be supported
with an established religion, that there must be a least an alliance of
some sort between them.
It remained for North America to bring the great & interesting
subject to a fair, and finally to a decisive test.
In the Colonial State of the Country, there were four examples, R.
I, N. J., Penna, and Delaware, & the greater part of N. Y. where there were
no religious Establishments; the support of Religion being left to the
voluntary associations & contributions of individuals; and certainly the
religious condition of those Colonies, will well bear a comparison with
that where establishments existed.
As it may be suggested that experiments made in Colonies more or
less under the Control of a foreign Government, had not the full scope
necessary to display their tendency, it is fortunate that the appeal can
now be made to their effects under a complete exemption from any such
Control.
It is true that the New England States have not discontinued
establishments of Religion formed under very peculiar circumstances; but
they have by successive relaxations advanced towards the prevailing
example; and without any evidence of disadvantage either to Religion or
good Government.
And if we turn to the Southern States where there was, previous to
the Declaration of independence, a legal provision for the support of
Religion; and since that event a surrender of it to a spontaneous support
by the people, it may be said that the difference amounts nearly to a
contrast in the greater purity & industry of the Pastors and in the greater
devotion of their flocks, in the latter period than in the former. In
Virginia the contrast is particularly striking, to those whose memories can
make the comparison.
It will not be denied that causes other than the abolition of the
legal establishment of Religion are to be taken into view in account for
the change in the Religious character of the community. But the existing
character, distinguished as it is by its religious features, and the lapse
of time now more than 50 years since the legal support of Religion was
withdrawn sufficiently prove that it does not need the support of Govt and
it will scarcely be contended that Government has suffered by the exemption
of Religion from its cognizance, or its pecuniary aid.
The apprehension of some seems to be that Religion left entirely to
itself may into extravagances injurious both to Religion and to social
order; but besides the question whether the interference of Govt in any
form wd not be more likely to increase than Control the tendency, it is a
safe calculation that in this as in other cases of excessive excitement,
Reason will gradually regain its ascendancy. Great excitements are less apt
to be permanent than to vibrate to the opposite extreme.
Under another aspect of the subject there may be less danger that
Religion, if left to itself, will suffer from a failure of the pecuniary
support applicable to it than that an omission of the public authorities to
limit the duration of their Charters to Religious Corporations, and the
amount of property acquirable by them, may lead to an injurious
accumulation of wealth from the lavish donations and bequests prompted by a
pious zeal or by an atoning remorse, Some monitory examples have already
appeared.--
********************************************************************************
Story and Madison totally disagreed on this point.
>:|
>:|> " Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the
>:|> Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
>:|> Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished
>:|> in their short history"
>:|> (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
>:|
>:|Of course. There is a difference between church (ecclesiastical bodies) and
>:|religion. Obviously Story knew the difference; Madison and Jefferson both knew
>:|the difference even though they occasionally used "religion" in a narrow sense
>:|meaning "church," but you don't seem to see a difference.
Nice try.
Look back at it, kindly note the words **" Strongly guarded as is the
separation between religion and Gov't in the Constitution of the United
States
Note he is talking about a separation between religion and government.
Note, he is talking about religion.
And low and behold you left these out:
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have
no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done,
in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity
the less they are mixed together"
(Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
Again, religion and government being separated.
" I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case,
to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the
civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and
doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or
the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be
best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from
interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public
order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by
others".
(Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).
More of the jasper Adams letter, and again separation between religion and
civil authority, etc.
You see, Jasper Adams wrote that this was a Christian nation, that the
government etc was based upon the Christian religion etc, used the same
examples that Justice Brewer used in the Holy Trinity case approx 150 years
later and I bet much of the same evidence that you have used in your book
as well.
**********************************************
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
Madison's "Who are the Best .Keepers of the People's
Liberties?" (1792)
"Reason, secularism, and republicanism
were inseparable elements in Madison's
intellectual universe which justified
constitutionally limited government for
Americans."
(Robert Morgan, James Madison on the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights, p. 150).
Madison's intellectual universe called for a strict separation of church
and state for the purpose of securing the natural right of Americans to
their full enjoyment of their own beliefs and because he was distrustful of
appeals to "irrational sources of authority in the American Republic" This
distrust occupied Madison's thoughts while he prepared notes on religion in
November 1791 as demonstrated when he wrote:
"For the cave of Jupiter in Crete where Mines, Epimenides and Pythagoras
pretended to have reed. A divine sanction to their laws and see
Anacharsis."
Morgan writes that Madison had the cave of Jupiter in mind when he wrote
his famous article in the National Gazett in 1792, Who Are The Best Keepers
of The People's Liberties'! "With this ironical allusion to the Platonic
cave filled with the mysterious shadows of a divine order, Madison rejected
a religious sanction for the authority of government in the American
republic.
Morgan further comments on the Article as follows:
Composing it [the article] in the form of a dramatic dialogue, Madison
ascribed to an imaginary "anti-republican" the belief that the people are
"stupid, suspicious, licentious." They cannot trust themselves and,
therefore, must resign themselves to "obedience," once they have
established government. They should leave their liberties to the care of
their "wise rulers." To this call for elite rule a "republican" replies
that the general lot of people throughout history has been that of
"slavery" in which they have been kept in ignorance and divided in order
to be ruled. The lesson to be drawn from this undoubted truth, however, is
that people ought to be "enlightened.. .awakened...and united" so that they
may oversee governments once they are established. To this optimistic
prescription the anti-republican answers that not even "the science of the
stars' can instruct the common people in the "mysteries of government." To
this charge Madison's republican answered: "mysteries indeed! But mysteries
belong to religion, not to government; to the ways of the Almighty, not to
the works of man." In religion mysteries are due to the "dimness of the
human sight." There need be no mysteries about institutions created by man,
however, "unless for those inferior beings endowed with a ray perhaps of
the twilight vouchsafed to the first order of terrestrial creation."
With this ironical allusion to the Platonic cave filled with the
mysterious shadows of a divine order, Madison rejected a religious sanction
for the authority of government in the American republic (James Madison on
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, p. 150)
Below, we reproduce Madison's article in full.
WHO ARE THE BEST KEEPERS OF THE PEOPLE'S LIBERTIES?
National Gazette, December 20; 1792
Republican---[answer to the title] The people themselves. The sacred trust
can be no where so safe as in the hands most interested in preserving it.
Anti-republican--The people are stupid, suspicious, licentious. They cannot
safely trust themselves. When they have established government they should
think of nothing but obedience, leaving the care of their liberties to
their wiser rulers.
Republican--Although all men are born free, and all nations might be so,
yet too true it is, that slavery has been the general lot of the human
race. Ignorant--they have been cheated; asleep--they have been surprised;
divided--the yoke has been forced upon them. But what is the lesson? That
because the people may betray themselves, they ought to give themselves up,
blindfold, to those who have an interest in betraying them? Rather conclude
that the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united. that
after establishing a government they should watch over it? as well as obey
Anti-republican--You look at the surface only, where errors float, instead
of fathoming the depths where truth lies hid. It is not the government that
is disposed to fly off from the people; but the people that are ever ready
to fly off from the government. Rather say then, enlighten the government,
warn it to be vigilant, enrich it with influence, ann it with force, and to
the people never pronounce but two words--Submission and Confidence.
Republican--The centrifugal tendency then is in the people, not in the
government, and the secret art lies in restraining the tendency, by
augmenting the attractive principle of the government with all the weight
that can be added to it. What a perversion of the natural order of things!
To make power the primary and central object of the social system, and
Liberty but its satellite.
Anti-republican-The science of the stars can never instruct you in the
mysteries of government. Wonderful as it may seem, the more you increase
the attractive force of power, the more you enlarge the sphere of liberty;
the more you make government independent and hostile towards the people,
the better security you provide for their rights and interests. Hence the
wisdom of the theory, which, after limiting the share of the people to a
third of the government ... establishes two grand hereditary orders...
inveterately hostile to the rights and interests of the people, vet by a
mysterious operation all combining to fortify the people in both.
Republican--Mysterious indeed! But mysteries belong to religion, not to
government; to the ways of the Almighty, not to the works of man. And in
religion itself there is nothing mysterious to its author; the mystery lies
in the dimness of the human sight. So in the institutions of man let there
be no mystery, unless for those inferior beings endowed with a ray perhaps
of the twilight vouchsafed to the first order of terrestrial creation.
Anti-republican--You are destitute, I perceive, of every quality of a good
citizen, or rather of a good subject. You have neither the light of faith
nor the spirit of obedience. I denounce you to the government as an
accomplice of atheism and anarchy.
Republican--And I forbear to denounce you to the people, though a
blasphemer of their rights and an idolater of tyranny. Liberty disdains to
persecute.
*******************************************************************************
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madlib.htm
buc...@exis.net
------------------------------------------------
>:|COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, 1833
>:|By Joseph Story
>:|In fact, every American colony, from its foundation down to the revolution,
>:|with the exception of Rhode Island, (if, indeed, that state be an exception,) did openly, by the whole >:|course of its laws and institutions, support and sustain, in some form, the Christian religion;
This is important I assume, or at least it was thought to be important.
Hmmm, slavery, contrary to the thoughts of some, was actually legal in just
about every part of the colonies at various times. [some only think that
slavery only existed in southern colonies and states, but actually existed
in almost every colony and state throughout most of the 1700's.
Get the point here? The past does not have to equal the future. A lot of
things were done, a lot of things were ok at various times in the past.
That does not men that they should always be done or would be alright, if
they truly were ever alright, in future times.
Also note, how such things began to be changed as the former colonies began
to write their own Constitutions.
>;|and almost
>:|invariably gave a peculiar sanction to some of its fundamental doctrines. And this has continued
>:|to be the case in some of the states down to the present period,
At the present time that he is referring to (1833) ONLY Massachusetts (out
of 24 states) still had an established religion. They finally
disestablished November 11, 1833.
Here is a comment by James Madison regarding the three New England States
[New Hampshire - finally disestablished in 1819; Connecticut - finally
disestablished in 1818; Massachusetts - which finally disestablished in
1833] that still had established religions into the 1800's (he made this
comment sometime after retiring from public office (1817).
"Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitutions or Codes, any
aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to
Caesar what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put asunder,
hasten to revise & purify your systems, and make the example of your
Country as pure & compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and
its allegiance to its maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects
of political & civil institutions."
[Excerpts from Madison's Detached Memoranda.
This document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell
Rives, a biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in
Madison's hand sometime between 1817 and 1832. They offer glimpses of
Madison's opinions on several topics and personalities. What follows is
that part of the "Memoranda" devoted to the subject of religious liberty.
The entire document was published by Elizabeth Fleet in the William and
Mary Quarterly of October 1946.]
>:|without the slightest suspicion, that it
>:|was against the principles of public law, or republican liberty.1
Hmmmm, one would have to examine the various state Constitutions to
determine how true this comment is. Also, one would have to know exactly
what he was referring to as well.
>:|Indeed, in a republic, there would seem
>:|to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great, basis, on which it must rest for >:|its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the >:|religion of liberty.
I know you aren't going to like this but that's ok.
Joseph Story came from the New England area, and like it or not, there was
a different mindset regarding religion in that part of the country then
there was in other parts of the country. Unions between church and state,
established religions, etc were not alien in the thinking of most of the
leadership of that area, from founding of the various colonies in the
1600's to almost mid 1800's at least. It is by no accident that so many
people who advance much of what you are advancing, that also try to claim
this is a Christian nation, founded on Christianity or Christian principles
or the Bible, etc quote New Englanders, and point to historical events in
the New England area.
Now, to put some balance in this let me add something you left out:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1841. The remaining part of the clause declares, that " no
religious test shall ever be required, as a " qualification to any office
or public trust, under the "United States." This clause is not introduced
merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable
persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any religious test, or
affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of
any alliance between church and state in the national government.
The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from
this source, marked out in the history of other ages and countries; and not
wholly unknown to our own.
(SOURCE OF MATERIAL: COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
by Joseph Story VOL III, Page 705-707. De Capo Press Reprints in AMERICAN
CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL HISTORY series, Da Capo Press NY 19700
Joseph Story's Commentaries were originally written in 1833
[There is more to that, but for right now, I am giving only this portion of
this. I will give the whole thing later]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, let me add the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM JOSEPH STORY TO REV JASPER ADAMS
Cambridge May 14'" 1833.
Dear Sir,
I am greatly obliged to you for the copy of your convention sermon,
which you have been pleased to send me. I have read it with uncommon
satisfaction, & think its tone & spirit excellent. My own private judgement
has long been, (& every day's experience more & more confirms me in it,)
that government can not long exist without an alliance with religion to
some extent; & that Christianity is indispensable to the true interests &
solid foundations of all free governments. I distinguish, as you do,
between the establishment of a particular sect, as the Religion of the
State, & the Establishment of Christianity itself, without any preference
of any particular form of it. I know not, indeed, how any deep sense of
moral obligation or accountableness can be expected to prevail in the
community without a firm persuasion of the great Christian Truths
promulgated in your South Carolina constitution of 1778. . .
Believe me with great respect,
Your obliged servant,
Joseph Story.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you note the differences between the two items presented above.
*********************************************************************************
Section 1841. The remaining part of the clause declares, that " no
religious test shall ever be required, as a " qualification to any office
or public trust, under the "United States." This clause is not introduced
merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable
persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any religious test, or
affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of
any alliance between church and state in the national government.
The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from
this source, marked out in the history of other ages and countries; and not
wholly unknown to our own.
AND
I am greatly obliged to you for the copy of your convention sermon,
which you have been pleased to send me. I have read it with uncommon
satisfaction, & think its tone & spirit excellent. My own private judgement
has long been, (& every day's experience more & more confirms me in it,)
that government can not long exist without an alliance with religion to
some extent; & that Christianity is indispensable to the true interests &
solid foundations of all free governments. I distinguish, as you do,
between the establishment of a particular sect, as the Religion of the
State, & the Establishment of Christianity itself, without any preference
of any particular form of it.
***********************************************************************************
In the first excerpt Story is actually giving what he believes was the
intent of the framers when they added that particular clause to the wording
of the Constitution.
In the excerpt from the letter to Jasper Adams, Story is giving his
personal opinion and belief.
Which of those shows up time and time again in his Commentaries regarding
1st Amendment and his other general discourses on religion in his
Commentaries of the Constitution?
In those discourses Story does the exact same thing you are doing, he looks
to European History, the Philosophers of the past, English Common Law, etc
to give authority to his own personal opinions.
In his comments on the *No religious tests* clause he cites the framers as
his authority for its meaning. How many times does he cite the framers, or
founders as his authority in the other parts of his discourses on religion
and the Constitution?
Why wouldn't he cite the Americans who wrote it?
Why wouldn't he cite any of the following as any kind of authority on
intent or meaning?
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
" The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of
the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
(Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
" Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished
in their short history"
(Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have
no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done,
in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity
the less they are mixed together"
(Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
" I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case,
to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the
civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and
doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or
the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be
best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from
interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public
order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by
others".
(Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).
OR HOW ABOUT
AUGUST 15, 1789 FIRST FEDERAL CONGRESS (Amendments)
The House again went into a Committee of the Whole on the proposed
amendments to the Constitution. Mr. Boudinot in the chair.
The fourth proposition being under consideration, as follows:
(RELIGIOUS REFERENCE)
Article 1. Section 9. Between paragraphs two and three insert 'no
religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of
conscience be infringed.
Mr. MADISON said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be,
that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforced the legal
observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner
contrary to their conscience. Whether the words are necessary or not, he
did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the state
conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion, that under the clause of
the Constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws necessary
and proper to carry into execution the constitution, and the laws made
under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the
rights of conscience, and establish a national religion; to prevent these
effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well
expressed as the nature of the language would admit.
************************************************************************************
In short, why wouldn't Story have known, especially since he accurately
defined the separation clause of the unamended constitution, that the
religious amendments only reinforced the separation between religion and
government, only closed what some had thought to be potential loopholes in
language? In short to make it doubly clear that church and state were
separated, or in his own words " It had a higher object; to cut off for
ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the
national government." The religious clauses of the amendments only
restated that.
How does Story come up with this:
" I distinguish, as you do, between the establishment of a particular
sect, as the Religion of the State, & the Establishment of Christianity
itself, without any preference of any particular form of it."
from this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof,. . . "
Story was calling for an establishment of religion, a [to use a modern
word] generic form of Protestant Christianity.
Somehow he has taken this:
" no religious test shall ever be required, as a " qualification to any
office or public trust, under the "United States."
Which he already defined as meaning -- to cut off for ever every pretence
of any alliance between church and state in the national government."
Added
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof,. . . "
and come up with the establishment of Protestant Christianity was just
fine.
Of course, he did forget to quote the clause in the Constitution that gave
Congress any authority to do that. Instead he talks about Blackstone,
English Common Law, other European philosophers, Massachusetts laws, and
traditions, European history, etc none of which means a hill of beans when
it comes to giving Congress authority that is with held by the
Constitution.
"Of the eleven states that ratified the 1st Amendment, nine (counting
Maryland) adhered to the viewpoint that support of religion and churches
should be voluntary, that any government financial assistance to religion
constituted an establishment of religion."
(THE FIRST FREEDOMS, CHURCH AND STATE IN AMERICA TO THE PASSAGE
OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, by Thomas Curry, page 220)
" The First Amendment bans laws respecting an establishment of
religion. Most of the framers of that amendment very probably meant that
government should not promote, sponsor, or subsidize religion because it is
best left to private voluntary support for the sake of religion itself as
well as for government, and above all for the sake of the individual. Some
of the framers undoubtedly believed that government should maintain a close
relationship with religion, that is, with Protestantism, and that people
should support taxes for the benefit of their own churches and ministers.
The framers who came from Massachusetts and Connecticut certainly believed
this, as did the representatives of New Hampshire, but New Hampshire was
the only one of these New England states that ratified the First Amendment.
Of the eleven states that ratified the First Amendment, New Hampshire and
Vermont were probably the only ones in which a majority of the people
believed that the government should support religion. In all the other
ratifying states, a majority very probably opposed such support. But
whether those who framed and ratified the First Amendment believed in
government aid to religion or in its private voluntary support, the fact is
that no framer believed that the United States had or should have power to
legislate on the subject of religion, and no state supported that power
either."
(The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment, By Leonard W
Levy, page 146-147)
buc...@exis.net
PART I
OF THIS PARTICULAR SERIES
There is no principle in all of Madison's wide range of private opinions
and long public career to which he held with greater vigor and tenacity
than this one of religious liberty. The strength of this consistency was
heightened significantly by the substitution of the concept of freedom of
conscience for the Lockean idea of toleration. The difference was
dramatically stated by Thomas Paine: "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 one is the pope armed with fire and faggot, the other
is the pope selling or granting. indulgences."(56)
Madison's devotion to religious liberty stemmed in part from his
repulsion at the persecution of dissenters in pre-Revolutionary Virginia.
He wrote Bradford,
that diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages. . . . This
vexes me the worst of anything whatever. There are at this time in the
adjacent country not less than five or six well-meaning men in close jail
for publishing their religious sentiments, which in the main are very
orthodox. I have neither patience to hear, talk or think of anything
relative to this matter; for I have squabbled and scolded, abused and
ridiculed, so long about it to little purpose, that I am without common
patience. So I must beg you to pity me, and pray for liberty of conscience
for all.(57)
The unusual vehemence of this plea makes it fitting that Madison's first
public act of major importance should have been the substitution of the
idea of freedom of conscience for that of "fullest toleration." In drawing
up the Virginia Declaration of Rights in June 1776, Madison was
instrumental in changing the draft proposed by George Mason to include the
doctrine making complete religious liberty one of the inalienable rights of
man."(58) In addition to being the main legislative manager in securing the
passage of Jefferson's Virginia Statute Establishing Freedom of Religion,
Madison, always using to good advantage the powerful arguments of the
Memorial and Remonstrance, guided the adoption of the first amendment to
the Federal Constitution.(59)
FOOTNOTES
(56) Thomas Paine, Rights of Man. (1791), p 74.
(57) Hunt, I, p 21
(58) Brant, I pp 241-250
(59) Elizabeth Fleet, ed., ?Madison's detached Memoranda," William and Mary
Quarterly, Third Series, III (October, 1946), p 558.
James Madison's Religion A new Hypothesis, By Ralph Ketcham, James Madison
on Religious Liberty, Edited, with introductions by Robert S. Alley.
Prometheus Books, (1985) pp 187-88
The papers of James Madison, Volume I, March 16, 1751 - December 16, 1779,
Edited by William T Hutchinson & William M.E. Rachal, University of Chicago
Press, (1962) pp 170-79
buc...@exis.net
PART II
OF THIS PARTICULAR SERIES
Declaration of Rights and Form of Government of Virginia
[16 May-29 June 1776]
EDITORIAL NOTE
When JM returned to Virginia in 1772, after three years at the College of
New Jersey, the colony was in the threes of a religious revival. Baptist
preachers, usually zealous but unlettered, itinerated through the province
paying little heed to the statutes regulating the holding of religious
services. This disregard of law was compounded by derogatory attacks on the
Established Church. As might be expected, many of these clergymen were
arrested and committed to jail, where they languished until they gave bond
not to preach. JM sympathized with them. Though the Baptists were active in
his own county of Orange, they had not been arrested there since 1768.
As early as 1 December 1773, in a letter to William Bradford, JM questioned
the need for ecclesiastical establishments and sought information about
religious toleration in Pennsylvania. (Also see JM to Bradford, 24 January
1774, and n. 9.) Both observation and extensive reading convinced him that
religious liberty was a sacred right. Virginians generally held a less
liberal view. Those who wished to relieve the dissenters of their
disabilities usually took as a model the English Toleration Act of 1689.
This led to proposals which would exempt the dissenters from legal
penalties without extending them complete religious freedom.
The necessity for some revision of the statutes relating to the
Established Church had been recognized by the House of Burgesses as early
as 8 May 1769, when a Committee for Religion was first appointed and
directed to prepare a bill exempting dissenters from the penalties of the
law. For various reasons, action on such a measure was put off from session
to session until the
House of Burgesses expired on the eve of the Revolution. Meanwhile, the
need for reform had become acute.
JM was elected a delegate from Orange County to the Revolutionary
Convention which met on 6 May 1776. Except for his appointment two days
later to its Committee on Privileges and Elections (above, Case of William
Aylett, 8-22 May 1776), he is not mentioned in the proceedings until 16
May, when he was added to the committee named the day before "to prepare a
declaration of rights, and such a plan of government as will be most likely
to maintain peace and order in this colony, and secure substantial and
equal liberty to the people" (proceedings of the Convention, May 1776, pp.
16-17).
This committee was appointed after the Convention had faced up to the fact
that a satisfactory accommodation with Great Britain was impossible and
hence that independence was essential. JM a junior member of the committee,
was not expected to take an active part in writing the constitution. George
Mason, whose great talents were acknowledged by all, was the chief
architect of both the Declaration of Rights and the Form of Government. The
only extant copy of his first draft of the Declaration, the one which he
gave to Thomas Ludwell Lee about 25 May 1776, is now in the George Mason
Papers in the Library of Congress.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
buc...@exis.net
PART III
OF THIS PARTICULAR SERIES
The committee amended Mason's draft before reporting the Declaration to
the Convention on 27 May. The report was referred to the committee of the
whole and the Declaration was ordered "printed for the perusal of the
members" (ibid., p. 25). Copies of this printed broadside were hurried
north by the postrider. In Philadelphia, where the Second Continental
Congress was sitting, the Pennsylvania Evening Post printed the committee's
draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights in full on 6 June 1776, as did
the Pennsylvania Gaazette six days later. R. Carter Pittman has called
attention to the fact that this draft became one of the most influential
constitutional documents in American history. It was republished all over
America, in England, and in Europe. Its provisions were copied by Franklin
into the Pennsylvania, and by John Adams into the Massachusetts,
declarations of rights of 1776 and 1780, respectively (Virginia Magazine of
History and Biography, LXVIII [1960], 110).
Although JM must probably was interested in all parts of the Virginia
Declaration of Rights, only its last paragraph, that providing for
religious toleration, stirred him to action. On his copy of the printed
broadside of the Declaration, he prepared an amendment designed to
establish absolute religious freedom in Virginia rather than the limited
toleration which Mason envisioned. Since JM was a junior member of the
Convention and always shrank from speaking in public, he sought an
influential sponsor for his proposal. Patrick Henry, who had pleaded
eloquently the cause of imprisoned Baptists on many occasions, was an
obvious choice. But when Henry introduced the amendment in the Convention,
he was at once asked whether he intended to disestablish the Church, for
such was the apparent intent of the amendment. Henry "disclaimed such an
object," as Edmund Randolph tells us (ibid., XI,IV [1936], 47). With the
sponsor in retreat, the amendment was doomed. JM then drafted a second
amendment providing for a degree of religious freedom without
disestablishing the Church. The key words of this proposal were written
into the last article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, adopted in its
entirety by the Convention on 12 June 1776.
This final version of the Declaration was not published outside of
Virginia for about a half-century. During this time, the committee's draft,
which contained none of JM's handiwork, passed in the world at large as the
official text. JM meanwhile continued to press for religious freedom in
Virginia and achieved success with the passage of Thomas Jeffersons Statute
for Religious Freedom on 16 January 1786. Jefferson was then in France, and
it was JM who pushed the bill through the General Assembly (Boyd, Papers of
Jefferson, II, 545-53).
The combination of circumstances set forth above contrived to deny JM the
acclaim to which he was justly entitled. By his first important public act,
he sought to assure complete religious freedom to all Virginians. Unable to
gain the support of a majority in the Convention for so advanced a measure,
he at least won a significant victory by replacing George Mason's words,
"fullest Toleration in the Exercise of Religion," with his own, more
liberal, "free exercise of Religion." Continuing to strive for the goal he
failed to reach in 1776, he attained it a decade later when the legislature
of Virginia enacted the statute mentioned above. This memorable reform,
however, became identified with Jefferson's name, even though JM mainly
deserved to be credited with its achievement.
buc...@exis.net
PART V
OF THIS PARTICULAR SERIES
Committee's Proposed Article on Religion
Broadside (LC: Madison Papers). At the top of the first of its two
sheets, JM wrote, "the original was draughted by Col[?] George Mason, &
amended by the Committee."
EDITORIAL NOTE
When the committee laid its amended draft of George Mason's proposed
Declaration of Rights before the Convention on 27 May, that body ordered it
"to be committed to a committee of the whole Convention" and "Resolved,
that this Convention will on Wednesday next [29 May], resolve itself into a
committee on the said declaration; and that, in the mean time, the same be
printed, for the perusal of the members" (Proceedings of the Convention,
May 1776, p. 25). Judging from the size of the type used and certain
characteristics of the type face, the printer of this broadside was
Alexander Purdie of Williamsburg, publisher of a Virginia Gazette, but he
did not reproduce this proposed Declaration of Rights in his paper. On the
other hand, Dixon and Hunter printed it in their Virginia Gazette on 1 June
1776. The preamble of the Declaration, as it was furnished to the members
of the Convention, reads, "A DECLARATION Of RIGHTS made by the
representatives of the good people of VIRGINIA, assembled in full and free
Convention; which rights do pertain to us, and our posterity, as the hasis
and foundation of government."
Omitting this preamble, Dixon and Hunter merely prefaced their copy of the
Declaration in the Virginia Gazette of 1 June with these Words, "A
DECLARATION Of RIGHTS reported from the committee who were appointed to
draw them ·up, now under consideration of the Convention." On the other
hand, the Pennsylvania Gazette of 12 June 1776 reproduced the preamble as
it was reported by the committee to the Convention.
[27-28 May 1776]
18.(2) That religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the
manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction,
not by force or violence; and therefore, that all men should enjoy the
fullest toleration in the exercise of religion,(3) according to the
dictates of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrate
unless, under colour of religion, any man disturb the peace, the happiness,
or safety of society. And that it is the mutual duty of all to practice
Christian forbearance, love and charity, towards each other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2). Unlike Mason's proposed Declaration of Rights, the article on
religion had now been assigned the final place in the document.
Furthermore, because the committee added articles to those proposed by
Mason, the article on religion had become No. 18, rather than No. 9.
(3). From this emphasis upon "toleration" only, it is evident that, if JM
attempted to have the committee accept his amendment (q.v.), he was
unsuccessful.
buc...@exis.net
PART VI
OF THIS PARTICULAR SERIES
Madison's Amendments to the Declaration of Rights
Broadside (LC: Madison Papers). JM wrote the earlier of his two amended
readings ("A" below) in the space beneath the article about religion in his
printed copy of the Declaration of Rights submitted to the Convention by
the committee. The Convention rejected this amendment after it had been
introduced and defended by Patrick Henry. JM then framed a second proposal
("B" below) by interlining the printed article about religion and writing
two more lines immediately under it.
A facsimile of these amendments appears in this volume.
EDITORIAL NOTE
There is no certain evidence known to the editors which fixes the time
when either JM's first or second amendment was laid before the Convention
or its committee of the whole. The official journal of the Convention
merely reveals that the drafting committee's report, having been printed,
was debated on 29 and 30 May and 3, 4, 5, and 11 June 1776. The session of
11 June seems to be
the most likely occasion since the journal for that day records that "The
Convention then proceeded to the consideration of the amendments reported
to the declaration of rights, and having gone through the same, and agreed
thereto, Ordered, That the said declaration of rights, with the amendments,
be fairly transcribed, and read a third time."
Furthermore, it perhaps may be assumed that the Convention debated the
articles in succession, from the first to the last. If so, the one on
religion would have been the final one discussed. On 12 June the Convention
unanimously adopted "A DECLARATION of RIGHTS)I (Proceedings of the
Convention, May 1776, pp. 2543, passim).
[29 May-12 June 1776]
[A]
That(4) Religion or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of
discharging it, being under the direction of reason and conviction only,
not of violence or compulsion, all men are equally entitled to the full and
free exercise of it accordg to the dictates of Conscience; and therefore
that no man or class of men ought, on account of religion to be invested
with peculiar emoluments or privileges;(5) nor subjected to any penalties
or disabilities unless under &c(6)
[B]
18. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the manner
of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by
force or violence; and therefore, that all men are equally entitled to
enjoy the free exercise of religion,(7) according to the dictates of
conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrate, Unless the
preservation of equal liberty and the existence of the State are manifestly
endangered;(8) And that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian
forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.(9)
Article on Religion Adopted by Convention
Printed text (Proceedings of the Convention, May 1776, p. 43).
[12 June 1776]
16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the manner
of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by
force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free
exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it
is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and
charity, towards each other.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(4). JM put a cross above this word, and another cross in the left-hand
margin, followed by "suggested by JM & [includes?] clause finally agreed
to." This "clause," of course, is "all men are equally entitled to the full
and free exercise of it [religion]."
(5). If this had been adopted by the Convention, it would in effect have
disestablished the Anglican Church. The proposal serves to make clear that
this amendment must have been the earlier of the two amendments, even
though both are written on the same sheet with no designation by JM as to
which preceded the other.
(6). By "&c," JM evidently meant that after "under" should follow the words
of the committee's version-"colour of religion, any man disturb the peace,
the happiness, or safety of society. And that it is the mutual duty of all
to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity, toward each other."
(7). Between the words "therefore" and "religion," the committee's version
reads, "that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise
of."
(8). Between the words "Unless" and this semicolon, the committee's
version reads, "under colour of religion, any man disturb the peace, the
happiness, or safety of society."
(9). This second amendment appears to have been introduced in the
Convention by Edmund Pendleton (Brant, Madison, I, 247). Julian Boyd in
Papers of Jefferson, I, 345 n., states that, probably before 27 May and
possibly even before 14 May when Jefferson reached Philadelphia for the
meeting of the Second Continental Congress, he had sketched a constitution
for his state and sent it to a member of the Virginia Convention. This
draft included the guarantee that "All persons shall have full & free
liberty of religious opinion, nor shall any be compelled to frequent or
maintain any religious service or institution [but seditious behavior to be
punble ... by civil magistrate accdg to the laws already made or hereafter
to be made]" (ibid., p. 344, brackets are Jefferson's; see also, pp.
330-31, 364-65 n.). Although Madison may have seen this proposal before he
prepared his amendments, he did not need it to convert him to the side of
religious freedom. He had been its passionate advocate as early as January
1774 (JM to Bradford, 24 January 1774).
(10). This final form of "A Declaration of Rights" appeared in the Virginia
Gazette (Purdie), "Postscript," on 14 June 1776, and in the Virginia
Gazette (Dixon and Hunter) on 15 June 1776.
buc...@exis.net
PART IV
OF THIS PARTICULAR SERIES
Printed below, in chronological sequence, are copies of (a) George Mason's
original draft of the article on religion in his proposed Declaration of
Rights; (b) that article as revised by the committee; (c) JM's rejected
amendment and his accepted amendment of that article; and (d) the article
on religion in the Declaration of Rights adopted by the Virginia
Convention. Finally, there is an editorial note on "independence and
Constitution of Virginia," written by JM in his old age. Most of this long
manuscript comprises a careful copy of public documents or extracts from
them. Since these were not a product of JM's thought, they will not be
reproduced in this volume. While
he was transcribing them, however, he occasionally interpolated comments of
his own or appended a footnote. These are all quoted at appropriate places
in the editorial note.
George Mason's Proposed Declaration of Rights
MS (LC: Papers of George Mason). The first and longer portion of this
manuscript, including its provision about religion, is in the hand of
George Mason. The last five lines on its third page and all of the
concluding fourth page are in the hand of another member of the committee,
Thomas Ludwell Lee, who signed this last page at its close.
EDITORIAL NOTE
This document is probably the paper mentioned by Thomas L. Lee in his
letter of 1 June 1776 to his brother, Richard Henry Lee, then in
Philadelphia attending the Second Continental Congress: "I enclosed you by
last post a copy of our declaration of rights nearly as it come through the
committee" (Kate M. Rowland, Life of George Mason, I, 240). The articles in
this copy are unnumbered. They total twelve only, and the one on religion
is the ninth. Thomas L. Lee comments, near the end of the manuscript:
Another [Article] is agreed to in committee condemning the use of
general warrants; & one other to prevent the suspension of laws, or the
execution of them. The above clauses, with some small alterations, & the
addition of one, or two more, have already been agreed to in the
Committee....
In other words, the following proposal by Mason was as he first wrote it,
and before it was amended by the committee.
[ca. 20-25 May 1776]
[9] That as Religion, or the Duty which we owe to our divine and
omnipotent Creator, and the Manner of discharging it, can be governed only
by Reason and Conviction, not by Force or Violence; and therefore that all
Men shou'd enjoy the fullest Toleration in the Exercise of Religion,
according to the Dictates of Conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the
Magistrate, unless, under Colour of Religion, any Man disturb the Peace,
the Happiness, or Safety of Society, or of Individuals. And that it is the
mutual Duty of all, to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity
towards Each other.(1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1). For many years everyone interested in the Declaration of Rights,
including JM. believed that Mason's first draft of it was a paper in his
hand, bearing the caption, "Copy of the first Daught [sic] by GM." This
paper has been reproduced in facsimile at least twice-once between p. 240
and p. 241 of Vol. I of Kate M. Rowland, Life of George Mason, and again in
Virginia Cavalcade, I [1951], 15-18. The copy in the biography, however,
omits a few marginal notes by Mason. A transcript of this "first Daught,"
made by someone unknown and also lacking those
marginal notes, came into the possession of JM and is now among his papers
in the Library of Congress. He accepted its caption as bona fide, and in
his old age he had his brother-in-law, John C. Payne, who often served as
his amanuensis, go through it and mark the variations between its text and
that of the draft recommended by the committee to the Convention. This
exercise appeared to reveal that the Convention, during its debates on the
committee's draft, struck out many of its alterations of Mason's "original"
and returned in the final version to what he had first proposed. It is now
known, however, that the "Copy of the first Daught by GM" was compiled by
him in 1778 from his true first draft-of which the article on religion is
quoted above-, from the committee's proposal, and from the draft finally
adopted by the Convention (Brant, Madison, I, 235-40). In Mason's
fictitious first draft, the article on religion corresponds in its wording
exactly with what the committee proposed to the Convention (q.v.) except
that Mason had a "the" before
"safety of society," near the close of the article. On the docket of JM's
copy of Mason's misleading document, William C. Rives, JM's first
biographer, wrote a fairly lengthy commentary, interesting today as
evidence of his unquestioned acceptance of that document as being what it
purported to be.
Gardiner
everything below in this post from?
Of course he could have: http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madlib.htm
Why didn't he? Because he is an adolescent who thinks that smothering this group
in cut and pastes makes him look smart. It doesn't. Websites are easy to cut and
paste, and any one of us could spend all day seeing who can cut and dump more
data into this group. If I cut and paste all the data on my website it would
take up a whole heck of a lot of memory, but what does that prove??
I'd prefer to have a debate, but Alison is incapable of such respectful
exchange. So, folks, I suppose the group is condemned to being Alison's
alternative Web Space Provider.
It's a real shame.
So you can get Alison's information from his page at
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madlib.htm
Or you can read this cut and paste.
Don't worry, if you don't catch it this week, he'll certainly post it again in
here next week.
buc...@exis.net
George Mason's Proposed Declaration of Rights
[ca. 20-25 May 1776]
[9] That as Religion, or the Duty which we owe to our divine and
omnipotent Creator, and the Manner of discharging it, can be governed only
by Reason and Conviction, not by Force or Violence; and therefore that all
Men shou'd enjoy the fullest Toleration in the Exercise of Religion,
according to the Dictates of Conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the
Magistrate, unless, under Colour of Religion, any Man disturb the Peace,
the Happiness, or Safety of Society, or of Individuals. And that it is the
mutual Duty of all, to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity
towards Each other.(1)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee's Proposed Article on Religion
[27-28 May 1776]
18. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the manner
of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by
force or violence; and therefore, that all men should enjoy the fullest
toleration in the exercise of religion, according to the dictates of
conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrate unless, under
colour of religion, any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or safety of
society. And that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian
forbearance, love and charity, towards each other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madison's Amendments to the Declaration of Rights
[29 May-12 June 1776]
[A]
That(4) Religion or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of
discharging it, being under the direction of reason and conviction only,
not of violence or compulsion, all men are equally entitled to the full and
free exercise of it accordg to the dictates of Conscience; and therefore
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 &c
[B]
18. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the manner
of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by
force or violence; and therefore, that all men are equally entitled to
enjoy the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of
conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrate, Unless the
preservation of equal liberty and the existence of the State are manifestly
endangered, And that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian
forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article on Religion Adopted by Convention
[12 June 1776]
16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the manner
of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by
force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free
exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it
is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and
charity, towards each other.