The Founders’ Foundation: Part 4 – George Washington

George Washington
(Revolutionary War General, Founder, First President of the United States)

Here is quite possibly the American icon; the man who helped set the stage for how our government would run. So what was his worldview? Barry Schwartz writes:

The father of this country was very private about his beliefs, but it is widely considered that he was a Deist like his colleagues.

George Washington’s practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian… He repeatedly declined the church’s sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary… Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative.

Barry Schwartz, George Washington: the Making of an American Symbol, 1987

Now right off the back I’m not going to deny the information Mr. Schwartz presents, not because I can’t contradict his claims, but because his claim lacks sources. Perhaps the book itself sources his statement, but unfortunately I don’t have his book — but if someone does and would let me know what his sources are (or loan the book to me), that’d be great

However, this second quotation is one I was able to track down. Washington wrote:

Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.

Letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792
from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations,
Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726

Here’s the entire letter:

Philadelphia, October 20, 1792.

Dear Sir: Where your Letter of the 21st of December last has been travelling since it left you, I cannot tell; but it did not get to my hands till within a few weeks past; when I likewise received your’s of the 15th. of July, introducing Mr. Anderson. I was sorry to see the gloomy picture which you drew of the affairs of your Country [Ireland] in your letter of December; but I hope events have not turned out so badly as you then apprehended. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes, that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far, that we should never again see their religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of Society.

The Affairs of this Country still wear a prosperous aspect. Our Agriculture, Commerce and navigation are in a flourishing state. In some parts of the Country the crops of Indian corn (maize) have been injured by the drought in summer, and early frosts in autumn. We have, however, a happiness, which is scarcely in any other Country; for such is the extent of the U. S. and so great a variety of climate and soil do they embrace, that we never need apprehend a universal failure of our crops, and a consequent famine. (emphasis added)

Washington wrote this letter to Edward Newenham, a ”leading radical figure in late eighteenth-century Irish parliamentary politics” (historycooperative.org). He was known as the defender of the Protestant constitution in Ireland. Ireland, during Washington’s time, was going through serious political upheaval as Wikipedia  illustrates:

After the passing of The Test Act 1673 and the victory of the dual monarchy of William and Mary in the Williamite Wars in Ireland, Roman Catholics and nonconforming Protestant dissenters were barred from voting or attending the Irish Parliament. Under the penal laws (introduced from 1691) no Roman Catholic could sit in the Parliament of Ireland, even though the vast majority of Ireland’s population had not adopted the Anglican Church Reform. This ban was followed by others in 1703 and 1709 and 1728, as part of a comprehensive system to disadvantage Roman Catholic’s and, to a lesser extent, Protestant dissenters. The new Anglo-Irish Anglican ruling class was known as the Protestant Ascendancy. In 1782, the repeal of Poynings Law the Anglican composed Parliament of the now economically buoyant Kingdom of Ireland attained a greater degree of independence from the British Parliament than it had previously held. A failure of the ubiquitous potato crop resulted in the Irish Famine of 1740–41, however, resulted in the death of about 400,000 people from the ensuing pestilance and disease. The Irish government provided significant relief, and contained the damage as much as possible. The population of Ireland boomed in the latter part of this century.

In 1798, many members of the Protestant dissenter tradition made common cause with Roman Catholics in a rebellion inspired and led by the Society of United Irishmen. It was staged with the aim of creating a fully independent Ireland as a state with a republican constitution. Despite assistance from France the Irish Rebellion of 1798 was put down by British and Irish government, mercenary and yeomenry forces (emphasis added)

So looking at the historical context of Washington’s letter, his statement about religious controversies producing acrimony and hatred isn’t a statement about American Christianity, but about Irish Protestantism and Catholicism fighting against Anglicanism. In contrast to Ireland, Washington writes, “The Affairs of this Country [America] still wear a prosperous aspect.” It’s true that Washington isn’t referring to the religious properity of the country, but his point still makes the distinction between the religious and political tumult going on in Ireland with the economic prosperity flourishing in the U.S. The point is: Washington’s quotation is not denouncing Christianity in America.

What about this quotation?

Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself.

Thomas Jefferson, in his private journal, February 1800

Okay, TJ says that GM told him that W didn’t believe in Christianity. Really? In court, that kind of evidence would be thrown out as hearsay. So how do you verify that? Well, with evidence. Is there evidence to support Jefferson’s journal entry about Washington. I don’t know of any.

But if, for the sake of argument, we’re going to include second or even third party information about Washington, perhaps the following will be useful: 

US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall said of Washington,

Without making ostentatious professions of religion, he was a sincere believer in the Christian faith and a truly devout man

Gunning Bedford, who signed the Constitution, gave Washington’s funeral oration, in which he said:

To the character of hero and patriot, this good man added that of Christian. . . . Although the greatest man upon earth, he disdained not to humble himself before his God and to trust in the mercies of Christ.

Here’s the larger context of Bedford’s eulogy:

To the character of hero and patriot, this good man added that of christian. All his public communications breathe a pure spirit of piety, a resignation to the will of heaven, and a firm reliance upon the providence of God. In whose achievements which redounded most to his reputation, we hear him exclaiming with king David, ” Not unto us, not unto us, O Lord, but to thy name be the honour and praise.” Although the greatest man upon earth, he disciained not to humble himself before his God, and to trust in the mercies of  Christ. He regularly attended in the temples of the Most High, and joined with his fellow mortals, in paying adoration to the Supreme Governor of the Universe, and in supplicating blessmgs for his country, and pardon and forgiveness for himself.—For thyself, christian, hero, and patriot! thy prayers have been heard. Thy blessed spirit hath ascended from this terrestrial orb, to mingle with congenial spirits above!

Not quite the eulogy I’d imagined one would give to a (non-christian) Deist.

Also we get the same from Nelly Custis-Lewis (Washington’s adopted daughter) and historian Jared Sparks (who compiled a multi-volume opus on Washington’s works). They confirm George Washington was a Christian.

But in addition to all that, we don’t have to rely on second or third hand accounts of Washington’s faith; we can read his own words on the subject:

You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. (emphasis added)

 The Writings of Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XV, p. 55, from his speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779

While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian. (emphasis added)

Writings, Vol. XI, pp. 342-343, General Orders of May 2, 1778

The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger. The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier, defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country. (emphasis added)

Writings, Vol. 5, p. 245, July 9, 1776 Order

I now make it my earnest prayer that God would… most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of the mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion. 

The Last Official Address of His Excellency George Washington to the Legislature of the United States (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1783), p. 12; see also The New Annual Register or General Repository of History, Politics, and Literature, for the Year 1783 (London: G. Robinson, 1784), p. 150

I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation.

Resignation as Commander-in-Chief of the Military,
June 4, 1783

So again, the historical evidence shows us that George Washington (along with Jefferson, Adams and Madison) held distinctly Christian values that he believed were vital to personal character and national happiness.

So what do we find from this American icon? No secularism, no Deism, no political correctness, no diversity of philosophies.

The Founders’ Foundation: Part 3 – John Adams

John Adams
(Founder, First Vice President, Second President of the United States)

I continue in the series examining quotations of our Founding Fathers as to whether they supported or denounced biblical Christianity. Next up at bat: John Adams. His first “berating” of Christianity comes from a letter dated 1816:

As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?

Letter to F.A. Van Der Kemp
December 27, 1816

It looks as if Adams here is asserting that Christianity has been corrupted with myths and legends and has resulted in “the most bloody religion that ever existed”. In itself, that’s no vote of confidence for Christianity. But, as we’ve seen before in previous Founders’ Foundations, it’s important to examine the context of the passage. So below is the letter, in its entirety, Adams wrote to Mr. Van Der Kemp. Yeah, it’s long — you’re welcome to read the whole thing, but in case you just want to cut to the chase, I’ve emphasized those statements within the letter that are at the heart of this inquiry of the Founders’ Christian worldview:

TO F. A. VANDERKEMP.
Quincy, 27 December, 1816.

I do declare that I can write Greek better than you do, though I cannot say, so well as you can if you will. I can make nothing but pothooks and trammels of the frontispiece of your amiable letter of the 15th. If you had quoted your authority, I might have found it.

Jesus is benevolence personified, an example for all men. Dupuis [an opponent of Christianity] has made no alteration in my opinions of the Christian religion, in its primitive purity and simplicity, which I have entertained for more than sixty years. It is the religion of reason, equity, and love; it is the religion of the head and of the heart.

It would be idle for me to write observations upon Dupuis. I must fill thirteen volumes. If I was twenty-five years old, and had the necessary books and leisure, I would write an answer to Dupuis; but when, or where, or how should I get it printed? Dupuis can be answered, to the honor and advantage of the Christian religion as I understand it. To this end I must study astrology as well as astronomy, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Arabic, Persian, and Sanscrit.

But to leave Dupuis to be answered or reviewed in Edinburgh or London, I must inquire into the attributes given by the ancient nations to their divinities; gods with stars and new moons in their foreheads or on their shoulders; gods with heads of dogs, horns of oxen, bulls, cows, calves, rams, sheep, or lambs; gods with the bodies of horses; gods with the tails of fishes; gods with the tails of dragons and serpents; gods with the feet of goats. The bull of Mithra; the dog of Anubis; the serpent of Esculapius!!!!

Is man the most irrational beast of the forest? Never did bullock, or sheep, or snake imagine himself a god. What, then, can all this wild theory mean? Can it be any thing but allegory founded in astrology? Your Manilius would inform you as well as Dupuis.

The Hebrew unity of Jehovah, the prohibition of all similitudes, appears to me the greatest wonder of antiquity. How could that nation preserve its creed among the monstrous theologies of all the other nations of the earth? Revelation, you will say, and especial Providence; and I will not contradict you, for I cannot say with Dupuis that a revelation is impossible or improbable.

Christianity, you will say, was a fresh revelation. I will not deny this. As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed? How has it happened that all the fine arts, architecture, painting, sculpture, statuary, music, poetry, and oratory, have been prostituted, from the creation of the world, to the sordid and detestable purposes of superstition and fraud?

The eighteenth century had the honor to discover that Ocellus of Lucania, Timæus of Locris, Aristotle, Tacitus, Quintilian, and Pliny, were in the right. The philosophy of Frederic, Catharine, Buffon, De la Lande, Diderot, d’Alembert, Condorcet, d’Holbach, and Dupuis, appears to me to be no more nor less than the philosophy of those ancient men of science and letters, whose speculations came principally from India, Egypt, Chaldea, and Phœnicia. A consolatory discovery, to be sure! Let it once be revealed or demonstrated that there is no future state, and my advice to every man, woman, and child would be, as our existence would be in our own power, to take opium. For, I am certain, there is nothing in this world worth living for but hope, and every hope will fail us, if the last hope, that of a future state, is extinguished.

I know how to sympathize with a wounded leg, having been laid up with one for two or three months, and I have felt the delightful attentions of a daughter. May you have the felicity to celebrate as many more lustres of Madam Vanderkemp as human nature can bear. (emphasis added) 

Here’s Adams’ summation of Christianity:

• It’s founder, Jesus, is benevolence personified, an example for all men
• It is the religion of reason, equity, and love; the religion of the head and the heart
• It is the religion that promotes hope to all because of its declaration of a future state with God

The only reason he calls Christianity a bloody religion is because it was corrupted by pharisaical ecclesiasticism — but its “primitive purity and simplicity” can’t be matched by any other religion or philosophy; that’s the faith — the worldview — John Adams embraced.

John Adams’ quote #2:

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved– the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!

Letter to Thomas Jefferson, September 3, 1816

In the letter Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson from which this quotation is taken, there were two themes presented: 1) What are the uses of grief, that is, how can grief be a benefit, and; 2) What are the abuses of grief; how has grief been used as a detriment. It’s this second point we’ll focus on. Summarizing Mr. Adams’ letter, he gives six examples of how grief has been abused. He writes that Plato’s death and the grief his followers experience unduly overblew Plato’s reputation (yeah, Adams’ believes Plato wasn’t all that). You may not agree, but my point isn’t whether Adams was right about Plato, but that he saw that the grief his followers had led them to abuse Plato’s legacy.

He points out five other abuses of grief that resulted from the death of Julius Caesar, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Fisher Ames, and Jesus Christ. Read it for yourself and you’ll see what’s Adams’ actual point:

JOHN ADAMS TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.
Quincy, September 3, 1816.

Dear Sir

 …Now, Sir, I will tease you with another question. What have been the abuses of grief? In answer to this question, I doubt not you might write an hundred volumes. A few hints may convince you that the subject is ample.

1 st. The death of Socrates excited a general sensibility of grief at Athens, in Attica, and in all Greece. Plato and Xenophon, two of his disciples, took advantage of that sentiment, by employing their enchanting style to represent their master to be greater and better than he probably was; and what have been the effects of Socratic, Platonic, which were Pythagorian, which was Indian philosophy, in the world?

2d. The death of Caesar, tyrant as he was, spread a general compassion, which always includes grief, among the Romans. The scoundrel Mark Antony availed himself of this momentary grief to destroy the republic, to establish the empire, and to proscribe Cicero.

3d. But to skip over all ages and nations for the present, and descend to our own times. The death of Washington diffused a general grief. The old tories, the hyperfederalists, the speculators, set up a general howl. Orations, prayers, sermons, mock funerals, were all employed, not that they loved Washington, but to keep in countenance the funding and banking system; and to cast into the background and the shade, all others who had been concerned in the service of their country in the Revolution.

4th. The death of Hamilton, under all its circumstances, produced a general grief. His most determined enemies did not like to get rid of him in that way. They pitied, too, his widow and children. His party seized the moment of public feeling to come forward with funeral orations, and printed panegyrics, reinforced with mock funerals and solemn grimaces, and all this by people who have buried Otis, Sam Adams, Hancock, and Gerry, in comparative obscurity. And why? Merely to disgrace the old Whigs, and keep the funds and banks in countenance.

5th. The death of Mr. Ames excited a general regret. His long consumption, his amiable character, and reputable talents, had attracted a general interest, and his death a general mourning. His party made the most of it, by processions, orations, and a mock funeral. And why? To glorify the Tories, to abash the Whigs, and maintain the reputation of funds, banks, and speculation. And all this was done in honor of that insignificant boy, by people who have let a Dance, a Gerry, and a Dexter, go to their graves without notice.

6th. I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved—the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! With the rational respect which is due to it, knavish priests have added prostitutions of it, that fill, or might fill, the blackest and bloodiest pages of human history. (underlining added)

The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,
Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Adgate Lipscomb, et al,
pp 66-69

Do you see how context clarifies? Adams isn’t decrying the death of Jesus as symbolized in the cross; he’s decrying how people have corrupted the true intent of the cross, turning it into a weapon of immorality and cruelty. The cross of Christ was meant to bring mankind into a right relationship with God and his fellow man — knavish priests, however, transformed it into a “prostitute” for their own selfish pleasures and desire for power. That’s what Adams condemns.

Adams quote #3:

The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.

This is actually a combination of snippets of two of Adams’ diary entries (February 13 and 18, 1756). The first portion is from the following:

Major Greene this Evening fell into some conversation with me about the Divinity and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ. All the Argument he advanced was, “that a mere creature, or finite Being, could not make Satisfaction to infinite justice, for any Crimes,” and that “these things are very misterious.” (Thus mystery is made a convenient Cover for absurdity.)

Diary of John Adams, February 13, 1756

His February 18 entry reads as follow:

Spent an hour in the beginning of the evening at Major Gardiner’s, where it was thought that the design of Christianity was not to make men good riddle-solvers, or good mystery-mongers, but good men, good magistrates, and good subjects, good husbands and good wives, good parents and good children, good masters and good servants. The following questions may be answered some time or other, namely, — Where do we find a precept in the Gospel requiring Ecclesiastical Synods? Convocations? Councils? Decrees? Creeds? Confessions? Oaths? Subscriptions? and whole cart-loads of other trumpery that we find religion incumbered with in these days? (emphasis added)

Diary of John Adams, February 18, 1756,

Although you could say there’s some ambiguity in what exactly Adams referrs to as absurd (the deity of Chirst or Major Greene’s statement about the deity of Christ and His atonment), quotation #5 below I believe confirms that Adams considers absurd the belief in the deity of Christ.

There, see? Adams is another example of the diversity of philosophies that were part of our early history.  

Well, no. And I’ll explain why when we look at quote #5 in just a bit. But before we get there, did you notice what Adams believed Christianity was supposed to do? It was to produce ”good men, good magistrates, and good subjects, good husbands and good wives, good parents and good children, good masters and good servants.” What’s he saying here?

• Good men – a quality of character we are all to have
• Good magistrates – a quality of skill in the political arena (you’ll note that Adams believed that if you were going to be a good magistrate [ie., a good civil servant], that would be achieved by being a Christian)
• Good subjects – a quality of skill as citizens (you’ll note again that Adams beleived that if you were going to be a good citizen, that would be achieved by being a Christian)
• Good husbands/wives – a quality of relationship in the foundation of a society: marriage
• Good parents/children: a  quality of relationship in the perpetuation of society
• Good masters/servants: a quality of relationship in the vocational arena

Did you notice that all of these areas Adams listed are enhanced and enriched by Christianity, and all of these areas are but reflections of worldview and values: how we live our lives. I may not agree with Adams’ theology (which isn’t the issue here), but I heartily agree with his worldview (which is the issue).

Adams quotation #4:

Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?

John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 19, 1821

Adams, no doubt, was less than amicable towards Catholicism and Anglicanism. The quotation, however, doesn’t do any disservice to Adams loyalty toward biblical Christianity. He and many others were disgusted with the ecclesiasticism (as we’ve already discovered) that had become the Catholic and Anglican religions. His devotion to the scriptures, however, isn’t tarnished by this statement.

Adams quotation #5:

God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world.

Letter to Thomas Jefferson, January 22, 1825

Adams’ letter is to encourage Thomas Jefferson in his pursuit of creating what will become the University of Virginia:

Your university is a noble employment in your old age, and your ardor for its success does you honor; but I do not approve of your sending to Europe for tutors and professors. I do believe there are sufficient scholars in America, to fill your professorships and tutorships with more active ingenuity and independent minds than you can bring from Europe. The Europeans are all deeply tainted with prejudices, both ecclesiastical and temporal, which they can never get rid of. They are all infected with episcopal and presbyterian creeds, and confessions of faith. They all believe that great Principle which has produced this boundless universe, Newton’s universe and Herschell’s universe, came down to this little ball, to be spit upon by Jews. And until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world. (emphasis added)

Here I concede this point: Adams believes the deity of Christ to be blasphemy. However, it’s important for us to remember that Adams’ point is theological. As I said at the beginning of this series, I’m not here to defend the theology of the Founders (the fact is, I completely disagree with Adams regarding the deity of Jesus). Though he may consider the deity of Jesus to be blasphemous, he still embraces the foundation of Christianity for his values and worldview. Despite the conflict in theology this quotation poses to historical, orthodox Christianity, it still far from measures up to the standard needed to show a diversity of philosophies in the early years of our republic.

Adams quotation #6:

Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years?

I think by now you’re getting the picture. Here’s the rest of the story:

What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because of suspected heresy? Remember the Index Expurgato-rius, the Inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter, and the guillotine; and, oh! horrible, the rack! This is as bad, if not worse, than a slow fire. Nor should the Lion’s Mouth be forgotten. Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years: which Chateaubriand appears at this day to believe as sincerely as St. Austin did? Upon this system depend the royalty, loyalty, and allegiance of Europe. The vial of holy oil, with which the Kings of France and England are anointed, is one of the most splendid and important events in all the legends. Do you think that Mr. Adams’s system “arrests our efforts and appalls our hopes in pursuit of political good?” His maxim is, study government as you do astronomy, by facts, observations, and experiments; not by the dogmas of lying priests or knavish politicians.

Letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814 (Section XVI) 

Again, Adams writes of his antagonism toward Catholicism and Anglicanism. There isn’t a single jot or tittle in the letter above that condemns biblical Christianity.  ’Nuff said.

And finally, Adams quotation #7:

. . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.

“A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-88)”,
from Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258,
quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, “Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church (sorry about the long source)

And finally, again, the context:

Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which. are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind. The experiment is made, and has completely succeeded: it can no longer be called in question, whether authority in magistrates, and obedience of citizens, can be grounded on reason, morality, and the Christian religion, without the monkery of priests, or the knavery of politicians (emphasis added)

Adams makes the case that a good government can be established and succeed with the foundation of reason, morality and Christianity.

Do I agree with everything the Founders said and did? No, of course not. But is what they said and advocated fundamentally different from a biblical worldview? The evidence so far has robustly supported the Founders’ foundation being, without question, Christian.

The Founders’ Foundation: Part 2 – James Madison

James Madison
(Founding Father, “Father of the Constitution”, Federalist author, Fourth President of the United States)

Our first heretical quotation from Big Jim is:

Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.

By itself the above quotation looks pretty damning. Madison obviously doesn’t like Christianity. Or does he?

A careful reading of the document this quotation came from, “Memorial and Remonstrance”, reveals a radically different perspective. M and R was written to oppose a bill in Virginia that sought to create a tax that would help support religious teachers.

“See, Madison was against Christianity.”

Well, perhaps some additional quotations from “Memorial and Remonstrance” will help clarify Big Jim’s point. It’s on the lengthy side, so please bear with me (but then again, that’s what context is all about):

…we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, 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. The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe…

Later in M and R:

Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered.

…it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence.

…the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defence against the encroachments of error. (emphasis added)

“Memorial and Remonstrance” isn’t trying to abolish Christianity from Virginia or the republic; it’s trying to elevate Christianity above the political arena so that it doesn’t become soiled and degraded and eventually turns into that “ecclesiastical establishment” that suppresses liberty and encourages “pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution”. That corrupted religion was readily seen in England’s Anglicanism and in Europe’s Catholocism. Big Jim was supportive of biblical Christianty, but not ecclesiastical traditionalism — that’s what he didn’t want to happen in America.

Instead, Madison sought the “diffusion of the light of Christianity…that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind.”

Madison’s next heresy follows:

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.

Letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774

Again, context is important. Here’s the historical context from, of all places, infidels.org:

James Madison (1751-1836), the Father of our Constitution and our fourth president went to Princeton at 18 with the idea of becoming an Anglican minister, and came back to Virginia a freethinker. At age 22, he wrote, “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded project.” He then fought for religious liberty for all, believer and disbeliever, which was no easy task-then or now.

In his day, the notorious “Dade Code” was a part of the Virginia statutes, and he could have been executed for his efforts. The code was written in London by Anglican bishops who laid out a tidy list of prohibitions and punishments which were meant to keep people from thinking and speaking their honest thoughts. It meant to mold the citizens into conformity and piety. The code provided the death penalty for anyone who “spoke impiously of the Trinity or one of the divine persons, or against the known articles of Christian faith.”  The same went for “blaspheming God’s holy name.” If you were new in town you had to report to the nearest Anglican priest who would put questions to you to see if you were holy enough to stay. Arguing with a clergyman could get you jail time. If you missed church without good reason on three occasions, the death penalty could be imposed. It excluded all other religions from the colony. Every person over 16 had to supply the ministers with an annual donation of ten pounds of tobacco and one bushel of corn. When the price of tobacco waned, an additional assessment was imposed: the “20th calfe, the 20th kidd of goates, and the 20th pigge.”

These laws were fought by Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists and freethinkers who banded together in common cause. They sought to disestablish the Church of England from the colony, which meant it would have to be supported only by its supporters, not everyone, and allow all other Christian religions equality. (bold emphasis added)

Madison’s “religious bondage” quotation isn’t referring to Christianity, but to the established Anglican Church. Actually, what Big Jim wanted was a Virginia free to worship God as she saw fit (or not worship God; see “Memorial and Remonstrace” quotations above).

How about some more Big Jim heresy:

The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.

Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, December 3, 1821
Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, p. 242

I ask again your indulgence as I quote Madison’s letter

TO F. L. SCHAEFFER.
Montpellier, Dec’ 3d, 1821.

Rev’d Sir,—I have received, with your letter of November 19th, the copy of your address at the ceremonial of laying the corner-stone of St. Matthew’s Church in New York.

It is a pleasing and persuasive example of pious zeal, united with pure benevolence, and of cordial attachment to a particular creed, untinctured with sectarian illiberality. It illustrates the excellence of a system which, by a due distinction, to which the genius and courage of Luther led the way, between what is due to Caesar and what is due to God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations. The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.

In return for your kind sentiments, I tender assurances of my esteem and my best wishes.

That was Madison’s scathing indictment of Christianity. Actually…not.

Madison isn’t saying the US is proof of the “unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians” and “the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers”; he’s saying the US is disproof of (i.e. it doesn’t prove) these negative qualities. Does it make sense that Madison would write a letter to a pastor commending him on his address, praise the courage of Martin Luther, and then slam Christianity? On the contrary, Madison is drawing from the specific examples of Rev. Schaeffer and reformer Martin Luther and making the generalization that there are enlightened Christians who understand the proper and distinct roles church and state play in “practical Religion…social harmony, and…political prosperity.”

“Memorial and Remonstrance” and Madison’s letters of William Bradford and Rev. Schaeffer, instead of proving Madison’s secularism or this idea of diversity of philosophy, proves Madison’s worldview and values had a solidly biblical foundation.

The Founders’ Foundation: Part 1 – Thomas Paine and “The Age of Reason”

Jason Febery (jasonfebery.wordpress.com), a friend and student at the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign), responded to a recent blog of mine, “‘Even Finer’ Comes Across a Little Fuzzy”. “Fuzzy” demonstrates that Thomas Jefferson, though probably not a Christian, certainly wasn’t an enemy of Christianity; actually he was disposed towards it. My blog then asks, “So where’s the ‘diversity of philosophies’ as demonstrated in the life of Jefferson?” The answer is there is none.

But that’s not really the issue. The larger point is the role biblical Christianity had in the establishment of our republic as well as the worldview of our Founders (and the even larger point is the claim of divinity Jesus of Nazareth made…but that’s for another blog)

Jason did point out in his second response to “Fuzzy” that there were plenty of people (if not TJ himself) who were opposed to Christianity during the early years of the American republic. He trots out a pretty impressive list of Founders with quotations to support his point: Thomas Paine, James Madison, John Adams, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin. These guys certainly weren’t slouches when it came to laying the groundwork and setting the course for our country. So is there any substance to the claim that there were a diversity of philosophies during the early years of our republic? We’ll see in a bit.

There is one point I’d like to clarify. My goal is to examine the quotations Jason presented that apparently demonstrate the Founders had a secular and/or anti-Christian worldview – that is the values the Founders held were based on ideas other than from the Bible. It’s important to note that I’m not trying to justify the Founders’ theology, but whether their values, their philosophy, their worldview was founded on the Bible. Was it? I think it was. Here’s the evidence – will start with that rascally Thomas Paine.

 ___________________

Thomas Paine
(Founding Father, Author)

No doubt Paine was hostile towards Christianity. Jason’s quotations (see Comments in my blog, “‘Even Finer’ Comes Across a Little Fuzzy”) as well as Paine’s Age of Reason demonstrate as much. So I agree with Jason on Mr. Paine. What I find interesting, however, are several of the Founder’s responses toward Paine’s Age of Reason.

Ben Franklin was a good friend of Paine’s. Mr. Paine thought to send a manuscript of Reason to Mr. Franklin to see what he thought of his work. Ben didn’t mince his words. I encourage you to read his response to Mr. Paine (it’s not long at all), but here are a couple of points. Franklin writes:

I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece [Age of Reason] before it is seen by any other person, whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a great deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?

Jared Sparks, The Works of Benjamin Franklin,
(Boston: Tappan, Whittemore, and Mason, 1840),
Vol. X, pp. 281-282

Franklin’s advice to Thomas Paine? Burn your manuscript; don’t let anyone see it. Wow, doesn’t sound like politically-correct-enjoy-the-diversity-of-philosophy advice to me…

Franklin also wrote to Paine:

…you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind spits in his own face” (emphasis added).

What were the “general sentiments of mankind”? That religion in general, and Christianity in particular, are good for a society. Apparently the political and cultural soup of the time, according to Franklin, had a hearty Christian base. Mmm, tasty.

But it’s not just Ben who rejected Paine’s work. In 1796, on Thomas Paine’s The Age of Reason, Adams wrote:

The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will.

Samuel Adams jumped on the bandwagon too:

Do you think that your pen, or the pen of any other man can unchristianize the mass of our citizens, or have you hopes of converting a few of them to assist you in so bad a cause? We ought to think ourselves happy in the enjoyment of opinion without the danger of persecution by civil or ecclesiastical law. (emphasis added)

Did you get the phrase, “unchristianize the mass of our citizens”? If Paine wanted to unchristianize the mass of citizens, it first requires the mass to be Christians.

And this is just scratching the surface. Benjamin Rush, Charles Carroll, John Witherspoon (signers of the Declaration of Indepenence), William Paterson (signer of the Constitution), Zephaniah Swift (author of the first American legal text), and John Jay (author of The Federalist and first Chief Justice) all denounced Age of Reason. Elias Boudinot, the President of the Continental Congress from 1782-83, wrote Age of Revelation, a refutation of Paine’s work.

So, yeah, Paine was a Deist, but that wasn’t a cause for celebration or in rejoicing in the diversity of philosophy among the Founders or the citizens. Actually, one of Paine’s contributions is that he underscores the deep Christian roots our republic had by the fact that so many rejected his ideas. 

“Even Finer” Comes Across a Little Fuzzy

Previously,

• Carlos (responding to Chris): Comprehensive Reform
• Carlos (with elements from Chris): The Finer Brush
• Chris: Examining the “Finer” Things 
• Carlos: Even Finer

Welcome to the blog about Thomas Jefferson that really isn’t about him, even though it’s about him…

Carlos’ latest installment, “Even Finer” is a rebuttal to my assertion that Thomas Jefferson’s religious views were founded on biblical principles as opposed to the “diversity of philosophies” that were common during colonial times.

In “Even Finer”, Carlos writes:

My statement was not about Jefferson, per se, but about the diversity of philosophies current in our nation’s early years. My point was that casting the “way it used to be” as being guided by “Biblical Principals” as a contrast to the current day or other times in our history is a false abstraction.

True, Carlos’ statement isn’t about Jefferson per se, but if my friend is going to make the assertion that there were a “diversity of philosophies in our nation’s early years” and then use Jefferson as an example, he is then obligated to demonstrate Jefferson’s divergence from biblical principles. David Barton’s Wallbuilders website provides abundant information to the contrary. I encourage you to read it, if you haven’t already, but to highlight a few points:

• Jefferson encouraged local governments to make land available for Christian purposes
• Jefferson agreed to provide government funds to help evangelize Indians
• Jefferson’s University of Virginia wasn’t established as a secular university, but as a “trans-denominational university”, having multiple seminaries for various Christian denominations

“Okay, nice bullet points, but that doesn’t mean Jeff didn’t have other values that conflicted with biblical principles.” True enough, so then what proof does “Even Finer” provide to support its point? Well, here’s the list—Jefferson:

1. Disagreed with other founders
2. Retained slaves and had an affair with Sally Hemmings, one of his slaves
3. Extended the idea of implicit power in the Louisiana Purchase, even though he championed a strict constructionist view of the Constitution 
4. Supported going beyond the written law in certain circumstances
5. Took on personal debt
6. Didn’t honor the national debt
7. Used low brow political tactics
8. Increasingly adopted Deist views
9. Rewrote the Bible

It looks pretty substantial until you realize:

• Disagreements with others don’t necessarily mean you’re opposed to their values. Sure Jefferson disagreed with other founders – but did they disagree on biblical principles (not biblical theology, but biblical principles)? “Even Finer” fails to provide any support for this assertion.
• Though Jefferson had slaves, he was one of the leading figures that fought to end slavery, however, the British Crown forbade emancipation. When the states sought independence, it was Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence that sought emancipation of slaves; and while in the Continental Congress he tried to pass legislation to abolish slavery in all the states.
  As for the alleged affair with Sally Hemmings, there are a couple of points worth noting:
  1) Even if Jefferson had an affair with Ms. Hemmings, he never endorsed having intimate relations with slaves
  2) There is substantial evidence that Jefferson, in fact, did not have an affair with Ms. Hemmings. Unfortunately, there has been too much hearsay on this issue and very little substance. I submit Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings: The Search for Truth as evidence.
• As for the Louisiana Purchase, I suggest “How Should the Courts Interpret the Constitution”, where under the Et Tu Quoque heading I detail that Jefferson actually sought congressional (and constitutional) approval for the purchase; when that wasn’t going to pan out, he took matters into his own hands and made the deal.
  Here’s the point: if Jefferson believed in the idea of implicit powers within the Constituion (and not strict constructionism), there wouldn’t have been any need to seek out congressional approval first. But that’s exactly what he did. When Congress wouldn’t play ball with him, that’s when he decided to get implicit. 
• As for Jefferson’s liberal support for acting beyond the written law in certain circumstances: 1) “Even Finer” makes the assertion, but unfortunately fails to specify what circumstances are being referred to (definition, anyone?) 2) Even if there are specifics to support this point, acting beyond the written law was obviously the exception, not the rule – so even if this were true, Jefferson isn’t making a rule of this principle, but an exception to a principle
• Regarding Jefferson’s personal debt: so what? Again, a person may value biblical principles and not hold to them (it may make him a hypocrite, but it doesn’t demonstrate a divergent value). In other words, just because I spend my money like a drunken sailor and then tell my friends to be self-disciplined and thrifty doesn’t mean I don’t value those biblical principles, it means I don’t practice what I preach.
• Lack of support for honoring the national debt and low brow political tactics—hmm, again, I’m not sure what Carlos is specifically referring to, so I’ll limit my comments to: specifics, please…
• As for Jefferson’s alleged Deist views and rewriting the Bible, I’d recommend looking at the Wallbuilders articles that provide documentation that his beliefs weren’t deist, nor that he rewrote the Bible, but instead created a Christian primer for Indians (not a Bible) using only Jesus’ words in order to introduce them to Christianity.

So what do we see from all this? We see that Jefferson was real: a living, breathing, fallible, honorable, three-dimensional man with strengths and foibles (I love that word). There’s no argument there. Was he a Christian? Not in the orthodox sense, though he himself said, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” Did he value biblical principles? The historical record resounds with a hearty yes.

So where’s the “diversity of philosophies” as demonstrated in the life of Jefferson? Was he a fallen man like the rest of us? Yeah, he was. But I ask again, where’re his divergent philosophies that show that biblical Christianity was simply one of many many ideas swimming around in the cultural and political soup of the early days of our new republic?

[shrug] I still don’t see the evidence…

What I do see is a man who loved his country, had his faults, and saw Christianity as the foundation for our republic. As Jefferson said,

No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.

Nothing fuzzy about that.

Examining The “Finer” Things

Regarding the Founders and their religious views, Carlos De La Rosa’s blog titled “The Finer Brush” stated:

…there were a variety of views, values, and ideals at work when “the country was set up.”

The problem with this statement is that it lacks definition. It may be true that the Founders had varied views, values and ideals, but it’s one thing to say Jeff valued Unitarianism over Methodism; it’s quite another to say Jeff valued atheism over Christianity.

I know “Finer” isn’t implying Jefferson preferred atheism to Christianity, but my point is that without definition, it’s difficult to determine how accurate that statement is. Perhaps a “finer brush” is needed…?

And while we’re on the subject of brushes, it seems that “The Finer Brush” was painting quite broadly when it says:

A strong current runs through conservative commentary painting the people of the framers’ time as having a uniform political, economic, religious, and moral world view. This is a false abstraction…

I would ask what was it in the thoroughly (and dare I say it…robustly?) documented Wallbuilders articles (“Thomas Jefferson and Religion at the University of Virginia” and “The Founders and Public Religious Expressions”) that was a false abstraction about Jefferson’s religious views?

To be fair, Carlos did write:

I bring up the example of Jefferson not to paint him with the broad brush of a ‘Deist’ label. Just the opposite. I actually wish to show that there is a great deal of nuance beneath the label of “Founder’”

However, the Wikipedia article he cites did exactly that: labeled Jefferson a Deist (among other things), but said very little (i.e., to be read,  “said nothing at all”) about his religious views from the Wallbuilders articles’ perspective. Hmmm.

But the bigger issue at hand here is much more profound than a Founding Father’s religious views or a political act like the 3/5^ths Compromise. The deeper issue is that “great moral teacher” that Founding Father believed in, and what we believe about Him.

As He asked Peter two millennia ago, so He asks us today, “Who do you say that I am?”

It is that question that makes all the difference.

The Crescendo

Previously on the healthcare reform and the Constitution debate:

• Chris: A Government Healthcare Parable (Facebook)
• Carlos: A Bit of Constitutional Law
• Chris: Constitutional Law and Stare Decisis — But Where Do We Stare?
• Carlos: Constitutional Debate Continued
• Chris: How Should The Court Interpret the Constitution?
• Carlos: Leaps and Limits
• Chris: How Should The Court Interpret the Constitution? Part 2
• Carlos: Moving On, Part 1, The Rebuttal
• Carlos: Moving On, Part 2, Hamilton and Additional Points

And now — The Crescendo (mine, at least)

Before I get this thing going, I’ve got to confess: this is gonna take a while. Because I’ve got a lot I want to wrap up, I’ll try not to be boring (forgive me if I am). I just feel that this is too important a topic to just give scant attention (to which the previous blogs and Facebook posts will attest). I’ll end by simply trying to present the best case I can that our Constitution doesn’t allow for our current (or any) healthcare reform bill. I beseech your patience and willingness to hear me out. If need be, take a couple of days to read this (take three or four if you’d like). Absorb it. Have some coffee while you’re reading; listen to soothing jazz. Enjoy. But please refrain from smoking

I agree with my good friend, Carlos, that it’s probably time to wrap up our dialogue regarding the Constitution and healthcare reform. I know Carlos is in the middle of wrapping up his thoughts while continuing with all the other demands that make up our lives and I look forward to his devestating crescendo of reasons constitutionally justifying healthcare reform. In the meantime, I thought I’d get my crescendo going of why that idea is not at all constitutional (not even a little bit)…

Conventions and Sessions
There are plenty of points Carlos made regarding the constitutionality of federal healthcare reform, but since I’m crescendoing, I’ll not address each point; instead, there’s one point he made that cuts right to the heart of the issue. He writes:

I agree that understanding intent is critical – even primary – in the interpretation of any law. A few notes on this issue…
The weight of proceedings of the conventions and ratifying sessions far exceeds the later writings of those who became political actors within the system they created.

Moving On Pt 1

Yep. I agree, the Constitutional Convention where our Founders created our Counstitution as well as the ratifying state conventions that approved our Constitution ought to be examined. Even though Hamilton, Jefferson, and all my other favorite founders’ words are important after our Constitution was put into effect, Carlos is right that what was said and debated during the convention and state ratification sessions is even more important. So, what did they have to say?

Let’s Get Up To Historical Speed
If you’d allow me to quote from USConstitution.net to bring us up to speed. The point of the quotation shows that when the framers debated whether to create a Constitution that gave Congress “general powers” (i.e., they could legislate pretty much whatever they want) or “specific powers” (i.e., they could legislate within certain parameters), the framers chose specific powers:

Some advocated giving the federal government almost total power; with the ability to overrule or approve all state legislation. But most agreed that the United States was too large to follow the European model of central control. The interests of the people of the states would be best served by allowing considerable control of the law to remain with the states.

But how to grant power to the federal government? Again, there were two schools of thought. One was to grant the federal government general powers, with interpretation left up to the congress of the time. The other was to grant specific powers to the federal government. The first choice was deemed too general, with the possibility of too much abuse; the second was considered too strict, with a congress with more power than it had currently, but unable to adapt to changing conditions. The Virginia Plan opted for the former option, considering it the lesser of two evils. With a body consisting of the executive and judiciary, some control over the legislature was provided for; it also allowed the federal government to overrule the states in some cases.

But even the authors of the Plan were not satisfied with this aspect. [James] Madison and Edmund Randolph both spoke out against this detail, but seeing nothing better, this detail remained unchanged. Not until July 16, [1787] when the issue of equal suffrage in the Senate was settled, did the subject reappear in the Convention. Now that smaller states had what they wanted, and were more confident that this new Constitution would work out, they were more willing to discuss expanding the powers of the new government. But what emerged from the debates was still the Virginia Plan’s general grant.

Then, on July 23, the Convention established a Committee of Detail to take everything discussed thus far and put it into a rough draft. As delivered on August 6, the Committee, which included [Edmund] Randolph, disregarded the general grant and proposed a list of powers (or enumeration). Surprisingly, the surreptitious change came and went with no debate. The enumerated powers were taken up on August 16, and for the next several days the enumerated powers were discussed, including one seemingly small detail at the end of the list, which allowed Congress to make all laws deemed “necessary and proper for carrying into execution” the powers listed previously. There was no debate on the point; was this the result of another compromise? Were the delegates just tired and did not see the implications? The reasons this clause passed by so smoothly is unclear. But today, it is clear to us how much power the Necessary and Proper clause grants to the federal government. (yeah, I added the emphasis)

“Necessary and Proper” Ain’t Treated So Proper
So the Constitutional Convention agreed on enumerated powers. One of those enumerated powers was the Necessary and Proper Clause – many will point to that clause as giving Congress the needed authority to make a healthcare reform bill it believes is necessary and proper. Does the clause really do that? Well, not quite (actually, not at all).

The state ratifying sessions took up discussion regarding Necessary and Proper Clause. What in the world did this clause mean? Could the federal government simply say, “We’re creating this law because we believe it’s necessary and proper for us to do so”? The states had that same question as well, and here’s how they understood it:

…the subsequent [necessary and proper] clause, which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof, I understand that clause as not going a single step beyond the delegated powers. What can it act upon? Some power given by this Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the delegated powers, but can by no means depart from them, or arrogate any new powers; for the plain language of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give effect to the delegated powers.

Edmund Pendleton, President of the Virginia ratifying convention
(emphasis added)

The [Necessary and Proper] clause which was affectedly called the sweeping clause contained no new grant of power. To illustrate this position, he [George Nicholas] observed that, if it had been added at the end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the end of all, it would be obvious to any one that it was no augmentation of power. If, for instance, at the end of the clause granting power to lay and collect taxes, it had been added that they should have power to make necessary and proper laws to lay and collect taxes, who could suspect it to be an addition of power? As it would grant no new power if inserted at the end of each clause, it could not when subjoined to the whole.

George Nicholas, Virginia delegate (emphasis added)

Note also Randy Barnett’s insight on the N&P clause:

The likely reason why the Necessary and Proper Clause received no attention by the Convention became clear during the debates in the ratification conventions, as did its public meaning. There, opponents of the Constitution pointed to this power as evidence that the national government had unlimited and undefined powers. In the New York Convention, for example, John Williams contended that it ‘is perhaps utterly impossible fully to define this power. For this reason, [w]hatever they judge necessary for the proper administration of the powers lodged in them, they may execute without any check or impediment.’

Meanwhile, Federalist supporters of the Constitution repeatedly denied the charge that Congress had discretion in defining the scope of its own powers. They insisted that the Necessary and Proper Clause was not an additional freestanding grant of power, but merely made explicit what was already implicit in the grant of each enumerated power. As explained by George Nicholas to the Virginia Convention, “the Constitution had enumerated all the powers which the general government should have, but did not say how they were to be exercised. It therefore, in this clause, tells how they shall be exercised.”…

In short, “[t]his clause only enables them to carry into execution the powers given to them, but gives them no additional power.” [James] Madison added his voice to the chorus: “the sweeping clause.., only extended to the enumerated powers. Should Congress attempt to extend it to any power not enumerated, it would not be warranted by the clause.”…

The same point was made in the North Carolina Convention [by Archibald Maclaine]: “This clause specifies that they shall make laws to carry into execution all the powers vested by this Constitution; consequently, they can make no laws to execute any other power. This clause gives no new power, but declares that those already given are to be executed by proper laws.” In Pennsylvania, James Wilson explained that this Clause “is saying no more than that the powers we have already particularly given, shall be effectually carried into execution.” And [Delaware’s delegate] Thomas M’Kean insisted that “it gives to Congress no further powers than those already enumerated.”

“The Original Meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause” pp. 185-186 (emphasis added)

So Edmund Pendleton, George Nicholas, and James Madison of Virginia, Archibald Maclaine of North Carolina, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, and Thomas McKean of Delaware all understood the N&P clause to mean that Congress could do what was necessary and proper to carry out the constitutionally enumerated powers it had; N&P didn’t give Congress anything else. Those currently maintaining this view are clearly at odds with the historical facts of the founders’ position on this issue.

What you’ll find is that when the Anti-Federalists (they actually liked to call themselves Republicans) cried the N&P was foul language (politically speaking, of course ), it was the Federalists who insisted that the N&P Clause ought to be understood as substantiating the enumerated powers of Article 1 Section 8, not broadening them. This is no small point, my friends: neither the Federalists nor the Republicans supported a broad interpretation of N&P! Still, just to be on the safe side, many states ratified the Constitution with the written declaration in their ratification that they (the states) would keep all powers not specifically given up in the Constitution and the federal government wouldn’t have any additional powers not specifically delegated to them in the Constitution. And just to be doubly sure, they demanded a Bill of Rights with one of the rights being, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (what we know as our beloved 10^th Amendment).

So What Did The States Have to Say?
I’ve included excerpts below from the state ratifying conventions showing that they wanted to make sure that by ratifying the Constitution the federal government wouldn’t take on more power than what it was expressly delegated.

New Hampshire

The Convention having impartially discussed and fully considered the Constitution for the United States of America, …Do, in the name and behalf of the people of the state of New Hampshire, assent to and ratify the said Constitution for the United States of America. And as it is the opinion of this Convention, that certain amendments and alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of this state, and more effectually guard against an undue administration of the federal government, — The Convention do therefore recommend that the following alterations and provisions be introduced in the said Constitution: —
That it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised.

New Hampshire Ratification of Constitution (emphasis added)

New York

That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

New York Ratification of Constitution (emphasis added)

It’s interesting to note that New York’s own Alexander Hamilton proposed the following wording for the Constitution during the Philadelphia Convention:

I.  The Supreme Legislative power of the United States of America to be vested in two different bodies of men; the one to be called the Assembly, the other the Senate who together shall form the Legislature of the United States with power to pass all laws whatsoever subject to the Negative hereafter mentioned.

(emphasis added)

Notice that the framers had the perfect opportunity to take out all the guesswork about what power Congress had by simply approving Hamilton’s wording. Guess what? His proposal wasn’t even put to a vote.

Massachusetts
During Massachusetts’ ratifying convention, delegate William Cushing said:

The fact is (& it is a selfevident proposition)—we retain all that we do not part with.

And this is the only safe Idea that the freemen of America can rest upon when they assemble to draw up forms & delegate powers of govmt.

And therefore it is that in the Constitution of New York, & a number of others, there is no bill of rights at all; going Upon this Sure ground, that no authority could be exercised over the people but such as should be expressly granted by them; which in my opinion is better & safer than any bill of rights that the wisest mortal can draw by attempting particular enumeration of rights.

It is said still that without the guard of a bill of rights, Congress might even prescribe a religion to us; That could not be without a downright usurpation which we should have as good a right to refuse without a bill of rights as with one—I will put a plain case precisely in point.

A man makes a power of atty to his friend to receive monies due upon certain notes of hand, which he specifies, with dates Sums & names. Does such a power authorise the Atty to receive monies upon any other notes (not named) or to touch real Estate? No more can Congress impose a Religion upon us without color of warrant or authority a Shadow of authority given in anyone paragraph of the whole System.

The doctrine that rulers may have the Controll of the peoples rights, without their grant; is better adapted to the despotic monarchies of the East than to this Enlightned Country—and our Constituents will have no reason to thank us for placing their Liberties upon so dangerous a foundation, as necessarily implies that they are all born slaves, instead of being born free & equal. (emphasis added)

When it was time to vote on ratification, Massachussets did so, with their first stipulation being, “That it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised” (USConstitution.net, emphasis added)

Rhode Island
Rhode Island’s ratification states:

III.  That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness. That the rights of the states respectively to nominate and appoint all state officers, and every other power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the Constitution which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution. (emphasis added)

Virginia
During Virginia’s ratifying convention, delegate George Nicholas said—

The Constitution cannot be binding on Virginia, but with these conditions. If thirteen individuals are about to make a contract, and one agrees to it, but at the same time declares that he understands its meaning, signification, and intent, to be, (what the words of the contract plainly and obviously denote,) that it is not to be construed so as to impose any supplementary condition upon him, and that he is to be exonerated from it whensoever any such imposition shall be attempted, — I ask whether, in this case, these conditions, on which he has assented to it, would not be binding on the other twelve. In like manner these conditions will be binding on Congress. They can exercise no power that is not expressly granted them. (emphasis added)

Note Mr. Nicholas’ point: we understand this Constitution to mean that the federal government will not have power that is not expressly granted to them. That is our understanding, and if the federal government seeks to revise that understanding to mean it can have more power, then we Virginians have the right to consider our obligation to follow the Constitution null and void.

Wow, can you imagine that…?

Edmund Randolph added:

It [the Constitution] declares that all power comes from the people, and whatever is not granted by them, remains with them; that among other things remaining with them, are liberty of the press, right of conscience, and some other essential rights. Could you devise any express form of words, by which the rights contained in the bill of rights of Virginia could be better secured or more fully comprehended? What is the paper which he offers in the form of a bill of rights? Will that better secure our rights than a declaration like this? All rights are therein declared to be completely vested in the people, unless expressly given away. Can there be a more pointed or position reservation? (emphasis added)

Virginia’s ratification ultimately towed the same line, saying:

1st.   That each state in the union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the [Federal] Government.

North Carolina
North Carolina’s ratification included—

That each state in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the federal government. (emphasis added)

South Carolina

This Convention doth also declare, that no section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a construction that the states do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them, and vested in the general government of the Union.

USConstitution.net (emphasis added)

Connecticut

The powers vested in the federal government are only such as respect the common interests of the Union, and are particularly defined, so that each State retains its sovereignty in what respects its own internal government, and a right to exercise every power of a sovereign State not delegated to the United States. And tho’ the general government in matters within its jurisdiction is paramount to the constitutions and laws of the particular States, yet all acts of the Congress not warranted by the constitution would be void.

Roger Sherman (emphasis added)

Pennsylvania

It will be proper … to mark the leading discrimination between the State constitutions and the constitution of the United States. When the people established the powers of legislation under their separate governments, they invested their representatives with every right and authority which they did not in explicit terms reserve; and therefore upon every question respecting the jurisdiction of the House of Assembly, if the frame of government is silent, the jurisdiction is efficient and complete. But in delegating federal powers, another criterion was necessarily introduced, and the congressional power is to be collected, not from tacit implication, but from the positive grant expressed in the instrument of the union. Hence, it is evident, that in the former case everything which is not reserved is given; but in the latter the reverse of the proposition prevails, and everything which is not given is reserved.

James Wilson (emphasis added)

Maryland
Although I couldn’t find any direct documentation regarding Maryland’s ratification, they weren’t about to be left out of the expressly delegated party the other state ratification conventions had started:

The [Maryland] committee recommended thirteen proposed amendments. Fifteen others were rejected by the committee majority [Federalists]. The minority insisted on their right to present some of their amendments to the convention, but the majority then decided not to consider any amendments and voted not even to consider the yeas and nays. The minority, however, appealed to the court of public opinion and issued all twenty-eight proposed amendments in pamphlet form. This minority Address, was widely distributed; we know that a copy reached Jefferson in Paris. The amendments originally recommended by the Maryland committee were that (1) Congress shall exercise no power not expressly delegated…

Schwartz, Bernard, The Great Rights of Mankind: A History of the American Bill of Rights; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 1992 pp. 129-130
(emphasis added)

I couldn’t find any relevant info regarding Delaware, Georgia, or New Jersey’s conventions, but I hope it’s apparent from the ten states’ evidence I did find that this issue was no small point. Both the Constitutional Convention and the state ratifying conventions were unified in denouncing the broad, sweeping powers we today think belongs to the federal government and instead favored the limited, enumerated, expressly and specifically delegated powers written in our Constitution. Nothing more, nothing extra. No artificial sweeteners, additives or fillers…

It’s The Homestretch – We’re Almost There
So let me bring my crescendo to a crescendo:
What was discussed during the Constitution Convention and the state ratifying conventions is enormously important in understanding what the Framers wanted us to do with the Constitution they wrote:

• The Framers repeatedly emphasized that the Constitution gave the federal government no more power than what it was expressly delegated
• The N&P Clause was never meant to give the federal government broad, sweeping power to enact any laws it deemed necessary and proper, but only to substantiate the enumerated powers in the Constitution. Or, as Edmund Pendleton put it, “the plain language of the clause is, to give [Congress] power to pass laws in order to give effect to the delegated powers.”

Thus, if you look at the delegated powers the Constitution allows Congress you’ll find nothing that gives the legislature authority to enact healthcare reform; in case you don’t believe me, I listed them below for your enjoyment:

• To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

I can hear some of my friends bring up, “See there, providing for the general welfare is in the Constitution, therefore healthcare reform, which provides for the general welfare, is constitutional.”

Hold on a minute, because James Madison had a different take:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare.”

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

Federalist 41 (emphasis added)

So as far as Madison the Federalist was concerned, he wasn’t promoting a broad view of “general welfare”, he was promoting a contextual, limited view.

I continue the enumeration…

• To borrow money on the credit of the United States; 
• To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; 

Again, I can hear some of my friends say, “The Commerce Clause allows Congress to establish healthcare reform since healthcare is within the realm of commerce.”

Hold on another minute, because Madison has something to say about this as well:

The defect of power in the existing Confederacy to regulate the commerce between its several [states], is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience… It may be added that without [the Commerce Clause], the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter.

Federalist 42 (emphasis added)

What Madison is pointing out is that the Commerce Clause was meant to deal with a problem that the Articles of Confederation (our first Constitution) couldn’t deal with: that is, states imposing tariffs on other states, thus impeding commerce.

“But the framers were simply addressing an issue that was relevant to them at their time; they couldn’t possibly have imagined the current healthcare crisis we’re in.”

That may be true, but then according to our Constitution, healthcare would be an issue for the states to deal with, not the federal government (remember, enumerated powers? Whatever isn’t expressly delegated to federal government belongs to the states…). Besides, regulating commerce and becoming part of the commercial enterprise (which is what government healthcare would do) are two very different things.

Back to my enumeration…

• To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
• To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
• To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
• To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
• To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
• To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
• To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
• To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
• To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
• To provide and maintain a Navy;
• To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
• To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
• To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

You’ll remember, we’ve already looked at the N&P clause and found that it also has been given more power than was originally intended.

TA DAAA!!!
So there’s my crescendo!! Add to this all the other meanderings and soap boxings I’ve posted in the past about how the Founders (my buds, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and the whole gang) wanted the limited federal government I’ve presented and documented above, and you can see that our nation has fallen woefully from where our Constitution calls us to be.

Now this doesn’t mean that we’re to do nothing. There is a serious problem with our healthcare; it needs to be fixed and there are good alternatives out there to bring to the table. I’m not saying we shouldn’t do anything. Far be it from us to be hard-hearted and unwilling to see what solutions there are for those who fall through the cracks, who are trying but still can’t seem to stay afloat. Yes, we need to find solutions, but I’m saying we’re obligated as citizens under the Constitution to find solutions that are constitutional. For example:

• The Heritage Foundation recommends a more principled and patient-centered path for healthcare reform)
• Columnist Charles Krauthammer says we should utterly scrap the current healthcare bill and start over, tackling the issue one point at a time
• And for those who hold to more than the legal/political standard, our calling ought to be to find solutions that are biblical (see my Facebook Note, A Biblical View of Health Care)

I appreciate the time I had to dialogue with Carlos, Jason, and Alex, and all the many others who contributed on both sides of the debate. Thanks for chiming in.

I’m sure for some this was more of a long and drawn out yawn than a crescendo. Still, I laid out the historical evidence as best I could. With all this said, I’ll say no more (unless you want me to) and let you decide.

Thanks again for reading. Blessings to all, and to all a good night.