Meet the Founding Fathers

What will the Future of this Blog Look Like?

2008-07-23T10:56:00.000-07:00

After a rather lengthy absence, I have now found some more time to update my posts. In the meantime, I have been formulating some exciting plans for the future of this blog, as well as the future of several of my other blogs.

I tend to write things in series. So it is with my blog posts. I promised some time ago that I would engage in a brief overview of several of the lesser-known Founding Fathers, starting with those from Virginia. I will commence this in the near future.

I am also planning to begin a fun project, which I will begin on this Friday. It is very similar to a photo hunters meme or "works-for-me" meme. Only this one is a "Favorite Founder's Quote" Friday. I will try to make this a regular Friday post, at least to keep this blog updated with something substantial and educational. If you would like to participate, be sure to leave a comment, with a link to your Friday blog post! Until (or unless) I get a "Mr. Linky" widget installed, we are going to have to do things the "old-fashioned way."

I have similar plans for my other blogs, but I will discuss these in their proper places.

Reviewing the Testimonies of the Reverends Wilson and Abercrombie

2008-06-06T12:28:00.001-07:00

Many of the witnesses that have been called forth from years past to testify in favor of George Washington's skepticism are the Reverends James Renwick Wilson and James Abercrombie. Their testimonies that Washington was an unbeliever are usually used as unequivocal support that he was indeed an unbeliever. These testimonies are usually used to contradict those of Washington's own family members, who were convinced that he was a Christian.

However, the testimonies of Abercrombie and Wilson are accepted as proof of Washington's unbelief because they claim that Washington refused to take communion. This supposed refusal is taken in turn, as proof that Washington was not a Christian. Let me simply say that this is very poor proof, for several reasons:

Not all Christians take communion, and one does not have to take communion to be a Christian. Christianity is not a religion of sacraments and rituals, but of faith and corresponding works.
Historians cannot always assert the motive of people for doing or not doing certain things. Since we are 200 years removed from Washington and his time (and the religious atmosphere of 18th-century America was much different than today), and there are many possible motives for Washington to have avoided taking communion, it is even more difficult for us to positively determine why, according to these two witnesses and a few others, Washington did not take communion.

I could go on this head for a while, but that is not the purpose of this post. Even in the decades succeeding Washington's death, people were debating his beliefs hotly also, although the general consensus among the American public was that he was a Christian. Others contested that consensus, and appealed to the words of men like Wilson and Abercrombie.

I would like to present to my readers a lengthy excerpt from the Appendix of Discussion on the Existence of God and the Authenticity of the Bible (1853), which is a debate in the correspondence of Origen Bacheler (the Christian) and Robert Dale Owen (the skeptic), pp. 225-235. Over the course of these pages, more was discussed than the topic in question, so only the relevant parts are presented. You can read the pages yourself here.

... The sentence from Weems' Life of Washington, produced by Mr. Owen is shown by its style to have been only designed as a sally of fancy. A wonderful reason this, for rejecting as false the grave, historical part of the account. As to Jefferson's testimony touching the skepticism of Washington, he has given none such: he did none pretend to be the author of it; nor did Morris pretend that Washington told him he did not believe in Christianity. And the statement of Jefferson, that Washington in his public documents spake favourably of Christianity but once, I have amply refuted, by extracts from the documents themselves. That the Rev. Mr. Jackson, more than thirty years after the death of Washington, has not chanced to find any of the few surviving scattered individuals who communed with him, (if indeed any are still living,) is about as strong evidence of his skepticism, as that he did not deliver a long Christian valedictory in his dying hour, when he could hardly articulate a syllable on account of his quincy. I have proved positively that he was a professor of religion; that he was a communicant; that he was in the habit of secret prayer, &c. &c.: and I have now only to add, that if he cannot be proved to have been a believer in Christianity, no man can.

I do not perceive the irrationality of the question proposed by Ethan Allen's daughter to her father. She very naturally concluded that if he would give his real opinion at such a time, and if that opinion was, that infidelity would not do to die by, it would be a reason why it should not be confided in at all, and would likewise show that the reasons which her father had urged in its behalf were unsound even in his own estimation. It was therefore the highest rationality, to put this question precisely under the circumstances that she did.

Jefferson might construe that into skepticism which perhaps another would not. As John Adams was a member of a congregational church, he was either a believer in Christianity or a hypocrite. Should Mr. Owen therefore succeed in proving him to have been a skeptic, he will in so doing likewise prove him to have been a hypocrite; in which case, he would be perfectly welcome to him. Considering, however, the mistakes to which Jefferson was liable, and the testimony furnished in Rev. Mr. Whitney's letter, I rest very easy on this point.
Franklin's case will do very well without further defence, while his epitaph remains, and his condemnation of his youthful skepticism retains a place in his memoirs.

My opponent has made a rather slim work, in his attempt to substantiate his assertion, that three quarters in our revolutionary struggle were sceptics. Ethan Allen was not a leader, unless there were a great many leaders; for he was only a colonel. Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and Patrick Henry, three of the most conspicuous leaders, were decided friends of Christianity. This will not be disputed. Washington and John Adams were communicants in churches. Franklin shows himself to have been a believer in the Bible. And there were many other distinguished leaders, such as Laurens, Gates, Greene, Putnam, Montgomery, Warren, &c., &c., none of whom has my opponent even attempted to prove have been sceptics. What then becomes of his assertion? ... ORIGEN BACHELER.

... R. D. O.
Albany, November 12, 1831.
P.S. I am now enabled to furnish two further documents relative to the private opinions of distinguished republicans. One is, an extract from a sermon delivered on the 23rd October last by Rev. Dr. Wilson, a clergyman of Albany, and reputed to be a man of as much zeal and learning as any in the city; a sermon, I may incidentally remark, in which Dr. W. says, in speaking of the framing of the Constitution of the United States, that "the proceedings as published by Thompson, the secretary, show, that the question was gravely debated in Congress whether God should be in the Constitution or not, and after solemn debate he was deliberately voted out of it;" that "the men whose arguments swayed to vote God out of the Constitution, to declare that there should be no religious test, and that Congress should make no law to establish religion, were atheists in principle; that among our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than unitarianism;* that among all of the governors of Pennsylvania and New-York only two of the former and one of the latter were professors of religion. &c." In this sermon, as reported in the Daily Advertiser of this city (of the 29th October last) occurs the following paragraph:
"Washington was a man of valour and wisdom. He was esteemed by the whole world as a great and good man, but he was not a professor of religion, at least not till after he was president. When the Congress sat in Philadelphia, President Washington attended the episcopal church. the rector, Dr. Abercrombie, has told me, that on the days when the sacrament of the Lord's supper was to be administered, Washington's custom was to rise, just before the ceremony commenced, and to walk out of the church. This became a subject of remark among the congregation, as setting a bad example. At length the doctor undertook to speak of it, with a direct allusion to the president. Washington was heard afterwards to remark, that this was the first time a clergyman had thus preached to him, and that he would henceforth neither trouble the doctor nor his congregation on such occasions. And ever after that, upon communion days, he absented himself altogether from the church."
As this important paragraph, being only from a newspaper report of a sermon, could hardly be considered authentic, I myself called, accompanied by a gentleman of this city, on Dr. Wilson, this afternoon. After giving my name, and stating the object of my visit, I read to the doctor, at his request, the above paragraph. When I had completed, he said: "I endorse every word of that." He further added: "As I conceive that truth is truth, whether it makes for or against us, I will not conceal from you any information on this subject, even such as I have not yet given to the public. At the close of our conversation on the subject, Dr. Abercrombie's emphatic expression was, for I well remember the very words, 'Sir, Washington was a deist!' Now," continued Dr. Wilson, "I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges himself as a professor of Christianity. I think any man who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a deist, and nothing more. I do not take upon myself to say positively that he was, but that is my opinion."
Dr. Abercrombie, the associate of Bishop White in the pastoral care of Christ's Church in Philadelphia, is now alive, to corroborate the statement of his brother clergyman. So much for WASHINGTON, of whom you say, if he cannot be proved a Christian, no human being can.
...
The admissions of opponents are, as you once reminded me, "so much pure gold." I therefore the more willingly adduce so unquestionable authority. R. D. O.
*John Adams and his son, he thinks, were unitarians; in inquired himself, he said, of Madison what were his opinions on religion, and Madison "evaded any expression whatever of his religious faith;" of Monroe's opinions, he says, he knows little, except that he never heard of any religious profession from him; and Jackson, he believes, though not a regular professor either, is the most religious president we have ever had.

O. B. ...
"With regard to the Postscript of Mr. Owen from Albany, I have to observe, that I have dispatch three letters to the Rev. Dr. Wilson, requesting him to give the names of those atheists whose arguments swayed the Convention that formed the Constitution of the United States to vote the name of God out of it; but no answer have I succeeded in getting from him. This assertion of the doctor must therefore pass for an unsustained one. Indeed, in the very next breath, in the sermon under consideration, he contradicts it by saying, that some of the men were deists. So much for his testimony on that point. Besides, the fact that a religious test is excluded from the Constitution, is no proof that its framers were not even Christians. I have received a letter from Rev. Dr. Abercrombie; but as he wishes not to appear before the public in print, I shall not insert it. I will only say, that he denies all recollection of having told Rev. Dr. Wilson that Washington was a deist, and says it was evidence he was a professing Christian, though he did not commune in his church. The following additional testimony relative to the religious character of Washington I have received from Rev. Mr. Jackson of Alexandria:

Alexandria, Nov. 22, 1831.
'I have heard my grandfather, the Rev. Lee Massey, who was a rector of Pohick Church, near Mount Vernon, say, that General Washington was a communicant in his church. The above information was given in answer to a question after returning from Pohick Church, where I occupied the general's pew. The substance of the grandfather's reply was, that he (the general) was a communicant, and that a better Christian never lived or died. MARGARET M. GREER

DEAR SIR,
Your letter found me in the bustle of changing my residence. I have however given it my attention. The above certificate is the best information I can at present obtain, and ought to be sufficient. Mrs. Greer is a very respectable lady, and may be depended upon. A daughter of the Rev. Mr. Massey is expected in town, from whome I have the hope of obtaining some of General Washington's letters.
The parish of Pohick has not had a rector, I believe, since the general's death. He afterwards attended in Alexandria. This accounts for the church not giving the evidence which you desire.
I beg you will make use of me again, should the case require.
Yours very respectfully,
WILLIAM JACKSON
[To] Mr. Origen Bacheler, New-York.

Alexandria, Dec. 7, 1831.
DEAR SIR,
I am sorry, after so long a delay in replying to your last, that it is not in my power to communicate something decisive in reference to General Washington's church membership. The branch of the family from whom I hoped to obtain information, are yet absent from Mount Vernon on account of sickness, and I now begin to think it doubtful whether they will be there this winter. Nor can I find any old person who ever communed with him, though not one expresses any doubt on the subject. It may seem strange that none can certify the fact; but it is not difficult to account for, when we remember, that the parish to which he belonged has not had a rector for, perhaps, thirty years; that the number of the communicants in the episcopal churches after the revolution was very small, and those probably, in general, persons advanced in years; and further, that none of the church records can be found. All these circumstances render it exceedingly difficult to obtain such testimony as is desirable. Universal tradition in the families of those whose parents or friends were acquainted with the general, is, that he was a regular communicant.
I may say again, that all his relations in this part of the country are decidedly of opinion that he was a professed and real Christian, and in full standing as a member of the protestant episcopal church. I regret that the pains I have taken to gain satisfactory evidence have not been more successful, though I think it ought and will be deemed sufficient by all but such as are determined to believe, that they have the sanction of his great name on the side of infidelity.
Wishing you may be more successful in some other quarter,
With respect yours,
WILLIAM JACKSON
[To] Mr. Origen Bacheler, New-York.

" ... In view of the foregoing, the reader will see what dependence is to be placed on the pretensions and assertions of sceptics with regard to the religious opinions of our other distinguished men. Could the inquiry be made, we have now fair grounds for concluding, that it would result in their cases as it has resulted in those now under consideration. I have but to add by way of conclusion, that it appears by the Evangelist, that Rev. Dr. Wilson is an opposer of revivals in religion. This circumstance will have its proper weight with the public, whenever they think of his concessions to Mr. Owen.
ORIGEN BACHELER.

Mr. Owen, apparently, never rebutted Mr. Bacheler's counter-arguments. The whole of this conversation is well-worth studying. Many of the lies that have been used to say that Washington was definitely an unbeliever are contradicted. First of all, the statement attributed by Abercrombie ("Sir, Washington was a deist!") is at best, unconfirmed, if not totally false. What then, did Abercrombie think of Washington's Christianity?

The letter of Rev. Abercrombie to Mr. Bacheler, which Bacheler alluded to above, did finally make it in print, and can be read in this issue of the Magazine of American History. It was found in the cover of one of the volumes of Abercrombie's published sermons, owned by himself, and it was found with the above-quoted selection of Rev. Wilson's sermon.

The Abercrombie letter is somewhat lengthy, so I will only present the last half, but you may read the reprint in its entirety here.

[O]n Sacrament Sundays, Gen'l Washington, immediately after the Desk and Pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation, always leaving Mrs. Washington with the communicants, she invariably being one, I considered it my duty, in a sermon on Public Worship, to sate the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations, who invariably turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President, and, as such, he received it. A few days after, in conversation with, I believe, a Senator of the U. S., he told me he had dined the day before with the President, who, in the course of conversation at the table, said, that on the preceding Sunday, he had received a very just reproof from the public, for always leaving the church before the administration of the Sacrament; that he honored the preacher for his integrity and candour; that he had never considered the influence of his example; that he would never again give cause for the repetition of the reproof; and that, as he had never become a communicant, were he to become one then, it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal arising altogether from his elevated station. Accordingly, he afterwards never came on the morning of Sacrament Sundays, tho', at other times, constant attending in the morning.

Of the assertion made by Dr. Wilson in the conclusion of a paragraph of your letter, I cannot say I have not the least recollection of such a conversation, but had I made use of the expression stated, it could not have extended father than the expression of private individual opinion. That Washington was a professing Christian is evident from his regular attendance in our church; but, Sir, I cannot consider any man as a real Christian who uniformly disregards an ordinance so solemnly enjoined by the divine Author of our holy religion, and considered as a channel of divine grace. This, Sir, is all that I think it proper to state on paper. In a conversation, more latitude being allowed, more light might, perhaps, be thrown upon it. I trust, however, Sir, you will not introduce my name in print.
I am, Sir,
Yrs.
James Abercrombie
(italics original; bold added)

(I, "Hercules Mulligan," apologize to Rev. Abercrombie for not honoring his wish that his letter not appear in print, but I add as my excuse the insatiable interest of the public, as well as the general good.)

These were the personal considerations of Rev. Abercrombie. There are several things I would like to point out about his letter:

Rev. Abercrombie was only an assistant rector of Christ Church in Philadelphia, which Washington attended during the latter years of his presidency, but not throughout his life. As can be detected from the letter, Abercrombie's reflections on Washington's religion come from a distant observer over a comparatively short period of time; Abercrombie was not as intimately acquainted with Washington as Washington's own friends, family members, and neighbors. As an eyewitness, Abercrombie is a good witness, and appears to be speaking sincerely from the letter above; however, he is not as qualified an authority on Washington's motives and habits as those closer to Washington.
Abercrombie said that he believed Washington a "professor of Christianity" (the fact that Washington attended church on Sunday was sufficient for him). But Abercrombie said that, in his own opinion, no one could be a real (or regenerate) Christian if he did not take the communion. Abercrombie gave the usual Anglican explanation: you can't have God's grace imparted to you without the communion, and since Washington was not a communicant, he didn't have God's grace. However, a biblical understanding of the matter does not support Abercrombie's (or the theological Anglican) opinion. The Bible says that grace comes only through faith in Jesus Christ (see, for instance, Paul's epistles). Therefore, I believe that Abercrombie's conclusion is inaccurate.
Abercrombie states that someone (who he thought was a U. S. Senator), who had dined with President Washington shortly after Abercrombie's admonition, told Abercrombie that Washington told him (the Senator) that he had never been a communicant. Supposing that this is a true relation of what Washington said (and let me say that not all witnesses agree with this; see here and here), we still cannot conclude that Washington was not a communicant because of unbelief, for the reasons already mentioned. What is further interesting about the account that Abercrombie stated above, is that Washington stated his reason for not becoming a communicant in the middle of his presidency: "were he to become one then, it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal arising altogether from his elevated station." In other words, Washington did not even want to give the slightest appearance of hypocrisy. This is totally consistent with Washington's behavior, and with the behavior of a Christian whose religion he views as an obligation to God, and not to please man.

I therefore conclude that the evidence favors Washington's Christianity (especially in light of the other evidence I have covered here and here), and that the opposition (which bears the burden of proof) has presented nothing definitive or conclusive.

I will deal with related subjects in the future, as I find the opportunity.

Response concerning Washington's Faith

2008-01-03T14:30:00.000-08:00

If you want to start a lively and heated discussion, you can talk about religion, politics, abstract philosophy, or history. EHT at History is Elementary has done just that, by bringing up the controversy going on in public schools, over the issue of displaying a famous painting of General Washington kneeling in prayer at Valley Forge. After some quick take-offs on the subject, the conversation in the comments section eventually evolved into a discussion on Washington's faith. Of all the Founding Fathers, none has had their faith more scrutinized than George Washington has. Some time ago, I wrote two posts about Washington's faith.

Instead of posting my lengthy response on the blog, I think it would be better if I put it in a post:

At last, I have a lull in my schedule, so I am able to respond to the comments above. I apologize for my delayed response. Thank you EHT for inviting the discussion, although we have drifted a bit off the original subject of Washington's prayer, onto his Christianity and the whole issue of his participation in communion.

First of all: “Holmes also rightly dismisses the accounts of GW communing in other churches as second and third hand hearsay or otherwise isolated incidents recounted years later.”

It is not entirely logical to dismiss an account altogether because it may not be as reliable as say, a notation in Washington's own diary. The accounts may not be solid proof, but the worst they could be is not accurately telling exactly what happened, rather than lying about Washington's taking the communion. And there are many accounts of this. If there were one or two 2nd- or 3rd-hand accounts, they might not be as worthy of consideration, but if there are many (and there are, as documented in William Johnson's book), the accuracy of the statements, though not granted, may be more probable.

“Bishop White, Dr. Abercrombie and Nelly Custis were the ones who observed his behavior over and over again and they testified that he didn't commune.”

But they only testified of such in INDIVIDUAL circumstances, and all at a certain period of time, and not his entire behavior. Bishop Abercrombie was not there at every service of Pohick church; many times other ministers from other denominations officiated in his place there, according to at least on of Washington's letters (in the collection of Washington's writings edited by John Fitzpatrick). Bishop White did not know Washington, and even admitted that Washington's absence at the communion services in Christ Church, Philadelphia (over which White was bishop) might not be solid proof of Washington's disbelief in Christianity. According to Bishop Meade, an author on the history of Virginia and a son of one of Washington's military staff members (Richard K. Meade), “Bishop White supposes that the General [Washington] understood the words 'turning our backs on the Lord's table' in a somewhat different sense than was designed by the preacher [Abercrombie]; that he supposed it was intended to censure those who left the church at the time of its administration, and in order not to seem to be disrespectful of that ordinance, thought it better not to be present at all on such occasions.” (Johnson, 196).

Also noteworthy is the time period from which the testimonies of White, Abercrombie, and Custis stated that he never took communion: after the Revolutionary War and during his Presidency. (BTW, remember that Nelly Custis was BORN in 1779, when the Revolutionary War was almost over and Washington had lived over half of his life already; she could not have witnessed Washington taking communion during the War or before it; she was a young child, but old enough to have a fair recollection, during his Presidency). Perhaps the urgency and amount of business that he had, as well as the disease which racked his body after his inauguration, discouraged him from communing at this time. Also note that even though Ms. Custis acknowledged that Washington didn't take communion at this time, that she found not problem with it, and she still firmly believed that he was a Christian.

Another note on Abercrombie:
He was not a supporter of the American War for Independence. Perhaps Washington's absence at the communion services over which Abercrombie officiated were related to that. In Annals of the American Clergy, volume 5, page 247, by William Bell Sprague, is written:

"At the commencement of the Revolutionary struggle, his conscientious abhorrence of civil war. as well as his distrust of the ability of Providence to accomplish the object at which they aimed, led him to endeavor to confine opposition within the bounds of constitutional allegiance; though he was never otherwise than friendly to the liberties of his country."

And as to Washington "breaking his vestryman oath," let me remind everyone that Washington was not a vestryman all of his life -- Johnson's book mentions this fact. Therefore, Washington was not bound for life to the oath. And since the testimonies of Abercrombie, White, and Custis were of events after Washington when Washington was no longer a vestryman, his lack of attendance at communion services cannot be said to have been a violation of his oath. Also, the Article which states that those who do not take the sacrament are void of faith, rest their authority on St. Augustine, and not on Scripture. The Bible never commands one to take communion, or that those who do not, do not have real Christian faith. "But is not the authority of St. Augustine still great in Christianity?" No; in fact, it should have been the other way around. Augustine was probably not a Christian, and much less a saint. He believed that the communion was so holy, that one did not need to be born again in order to have salvation; one only needed to take the Eucharist. This is totally contrary to the Scripture which says "You must be born again," but does not say "You must take the Lord's Supper."

But this is not the foundation of my argument that Washington was a Christian. It is important to recognize that whether or not an individual communes or not does not prove aye or nay that he was a Christian. True, communion does represent communion with Christ, but also with fellow believers, because the Bible says that we are one body in Christ, in numerous places. HOWEVER, to take communion is not a divine command; it is merely a SIGN of a union with Christ – it REPRESENTS communion with the body of Christ; it is NOT the actual communion with Christ. A Christian communes with Christ through prayer, meditation on God's Word, and in living a life devoted to Him. I am not a communicant; but I am a firm believer in the atonement of Christ. Perhaps people 200 years after I am dead will look at me as being heterodox.

As to the argument dismissing Washington's belief in the Apostle's Creed, etc., it is only based upon pure speculation, without any indicators from Washington's actual history: “This completely misses the social dynamic that lots of FFs nominally belonged to churches in whose doctrines they didn't believe and saw "religion" as more of a social duty. Jefferson, Madison, and Marshall for instance managed to worship, like Washington, in the Anglican/Episcopal context while not believing in their doctrines or causing a ruckess. Who knows what they mumbled when everyone was reciting those creeds or if they just, in a respectful way, kept their mouths shut.”

OK, just in case everyone noticed, “Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and Marshall” are not LOTS of Founding Fathers! They are a minute handful, and I dare say that they are only a minority of the most influential, who were obviously Christian (I.e., Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, George Mason, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Rush, Elias Boudinot, John Witherspoon, Richard Henry Lee, etc.). The last part of your objection, which I put in bold to clarify, is mere guesswork. If we are to examine the evidence the way a real historian would, we should not speculate about what evidence might have existed, but rather to examine the evidence that does exist. Judging INTENT, in our case, trying to decide why Washington did not take communion regularly, is extremely difficult, and I will confess, both sides of the argument place themselves upon shaky ground when we try to determine what INTENT lied behind his actions. I know of no writing or eyewitness testimony that tells us outright what his intent was. So then, the matter is left up to speculation. Because of this, and because of the fact that taking communion or not taking it does not solve the question “Was Washington a Christian or not?” adequately, let us leave the field of speculation about INTENT, and get down to his actual words.

I am aware of no positive evidence in Washington's writings which indicates that he denied the Trinity, Christ's divinity, the atonement, or the supremacy of divine revelation to human reason. If one is still going to assert these things without words from Washington which are not subject to different interpretations, than how does one explain that he makes a reference to “the Divine Author of our blessed religion” (obviously referring to Christianity, or that he assigned not one or two but THREE books vindicating the truth of Christianity for his adopted son John Parke Custis, as well as a translation of the Bible and a collection of Christian poems. He also seems to recognize divine revelation in the Word of God, as being an authority. In his first draft of his inaugural address (not the final draft – Washington gave a different address than that which he originally intended), he says:

"The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances be made subservient to the vilest purposes. Should, hereafter, those who are entrusted with the management of this government, incited by the lust of power and prompted by the Supineness or venality of their Constituents, overleap the known barriers of this Constitution and violate the unalienable rights of humanity: it will only serve to shew, that no compact among men (however provident in its construction and sacred in its ratification) can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchm[en]t can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other."

Deists and theistic rationalists may not believe that everybody is perfect, but I doubt that they would go so far as to say that humans are naturally depraved. One cannot believe in the atonement without the belief in human depravity, because the underlying belief in the atonement is that man cannot save himself by doing many good works or by being rational – man must let Jesus Christ renew his nature, and then man will be just and rational. Christianity does not exclude reason, it only says that reason cannot save a man from his sinful nature, which is what deists and theistic rationalists ultimately attempt to do. But here, Washington says that even the best institutions created by human reason and a high sense of justice, like the Constitution that he and the other Founders created, could not prevent political disaster because if the depravity of man was more manifest in society than adherence to “the blessed Religion revealed in the word of God.”

May I also add, that I know and acknowledge that just because Washington cannot be proven to be a strict deist in the style of Thomas Paine does not prove that Washington must have been a Christian instead. I must also emphasize in return that a lack of Washington's use of direct references to the Trinity does not imply that Washington did not believe in the Trinity, because anyone can prove anything from the "argument from silence." The claim that Washington didn't believe in the Trinity because he never mentioned it is very assumptive, because his disbelief is not the only possibility in such a scenario.

I'm sure there are other objections to his faith; however, these do not stand under the slightest scrutiny. One of these objections would be that Washington, in speeches to the Indians, made reference to the Great Spirit as a real god, and therefore, Washington must have been either a wimpy Christian, or a pantheist. I argue that this is a weak argument, because the God of the Bible is indeed a "Great Spirit." In John 4, Jesus Christ said that "God is spirit." In addition, Washington was not in any way about to accept the pantheistic religion of the Indians as valid; one merely has to search his letters for the word "Christianity" to find that he had the object of converting the Indians to Christianity in mind -- he said so himself:

"So far as I am capable of judging, the principles upon which the society is founded and the rules laid down for its government, appear to be well calculated to promote so laudable and arduous an undertaking, and you will permit me to add that if an event so long and so earnestly desired as that of converting the Indians to Christianity and consequently to civilization, can be effected, the Society of Bethlehem bids fair to bear a very considerable part in it. I am, Reverend Sir, with sentiments of esteem, &c." (To John Ettwein, May 2, 1778)

"I am clearly in sentiment with her Ladyship, that christianity will never make any progress among the Indians, or work any considerable reformation in their principles, until they are brought to a state of greater civilization; and the mode by which she means to attempt this, as far as I have been able to give it consideration, is as likely to succeed as any other that could have been devised, and may in time effect the great and benevolent object of her Ladyships wishes." (To James Jay, January 25, 1785)

OH, and by the way, the testimony by John Marshall's daughter was about John Marshall, and not about Washington -- check the context. And speaking of John Marshall, who served on George Washington's personal military staff during the Revolutionary War, wrote in his biography of Washington, "Without making ostentatious professions of religion, he [Washington] was a sincere believer in the Christian faith, and a truly devout man." (Life of Washington, Vol. 5)

The First Prayer in the United States Congress

2007-09-11T18:31:00.001-07:00

The first prayer in Congress was offered in the early days of the First Continental Congress, on September 7, 1774, after this body had heard that the British had laid laid siege to the town of Boston Massachusetts to repay the "rebels" for the Boston Tea Party. Below are presented excerpts from the Journals of the Continental Congress, volume 1, pp. 26-27 and writings of those who had attended this prayer. NOTE: Quoted footnotes will be enclosed in asterisks in parentheses "(*)".

"Resolved, That the Revd. Mr. Duché be desired to open the Congress tomorrow morning with prayers, at the Carpenter's Hall, at 9 o'Clock.1. [Note 1: 1 "After settling the mode of voting, which is by giving each Colony an equal voice, it was agreed to open the business with prayer. As many of our warmest friends are members of the Church of England, [I] thought it prudent, as well on that as on some other accounts, to move that the service should be performed by a clergyman of that denomination." Samuel Adams to J. Warren, 9 September, 1774. John Adams says it was Cushing who made the motion that business be opened with prayer, and John Jay and Rutledge opposed it on the ground of a diversity in religious sentiments. That Samuel Adams asserted he was no bigot, and could hear a prayer from any gentleman of piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his country; and nominated Duché. See note under September 7, post.]"

... "Voted, That the thanks of the Congress be given to Mr. Duché, by Mr. Cushing and Mr. Ward, for performing divine Service, and for the excellent prayer, which he composed and deliver'd on the occasion.1 [Note 1: 1 Duché attended in full pontificals, read several prayers in the established form, the collect for the day (Psalm XXXV), and then "struck out into an extemporary prayer, which filled the bosom of every man present. I must confess I never heard a better prayer, or one so well pronounced. * * * It has had an excellent effect upon everybody here." John Adams to his wife,--September, 1774. Joseph Reed thought the appointment and prayer a "masterly stroke of policy." Ward recorded "one of the most sublime, catholic, well-adapted prayers I ever heard."] "
SOURCE: volume 1, pp. 27-28 "Wednesday Morning 9 oClock September 7th [1774]

The Congress was opend with prayers by the revnd Mr Dutche [sic] which he Concluded with one suitable to the occasion. He was much admird both for his Eloquence & Composition & Mr Ward of Rhode Island movd that the Thanks of the Congress be give to him for his Services which was unanimously agreed to; & Mr Cushing & Mr Ward were appointd a Committee for the purpose. It was then movd that he should be requested to print the prayer. But it being objected that as this might possibly expose him to some disadvantage it was out of Respect to him waived."
SOURCE: James Duane's Notes of Debates 1774 Septr. 7. Wednesday.

Went to congress again. Heard Mr. Duchè read Prayers. The Collect for the day, the 7th of the Month, was most admirably adapted, tho this was accidental, or rather Providential. A Prayer, which he gave us of his own Composition, was as pertinent, as affectionate, as sublime, as devout, as I ever heard offered up to Heaven. He filled every Bosom present.(1) 1. Adams' more detailed description of this event and the reaction in Congress contained in his letter to Abigail Adams, September 16, 1774"
SOURCE: John Adams' Diary "[September 7, 1774] Wednesday Morning.

An express arrived from N York confirming the Acct. of a rupture at Boston. All is in Confussion. I can not say, that all Faces, gather paleness, but they all gather indignation, & every Tongue pronounces Revenge. The Bells Toll muffled & the people run as in a Case of extremity they know not where, nor why. The Congress met and opened with a Prayer, made by the Revd. Mr. Deshay [sic] which it was worth riding One Hundred Mile to hear. He read the Lessons of the Day which were accidentally extremely Applicable, & then prayed without Book about Ten Minutes so pertinently, with such Fervency, purity, & sublimity of Stile, & sentiment, and with such an apparent Sensibility of the Scenes, & Business before Us, that even Quakers shed Tears. The Thanks of the Congress were most Unanimously returned him, by a Select honorable Committee. We are just now formed, into Committees, and Our Business, is laid Out, which, as We mean to go to the Bottom, nothing but Genl. Gage & a greater Force than he has at Boston, will prevent Our sitting some time."
SOURCE: Silas Deane to Elizabeth Deane, September 7, 1774

Jacob Duché's First Prayer in Congress "[September 7, 1774](1) O! Lord, our heavenly father,(2) King of Kings and Lord of lords: who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers upon earth and reignest with power supreme & uncontrouled(3) over all kingdoms, empires and governments, look down in mercy,(4) we beseech thee, upon these our(5) American states who have fled to thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves upon thy gracious protection, desiring henceforth to be(6) dependent only on thee. To thee they have appealed for the righteousness of their Cause; to Thee do they look up,(7) for that countenance & support which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under thy nurturing care: give them wisdom in council, valour in the field. Defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries. Convince them of the unrighteousness of their cause. And if they persist(8) in their sanguinary purposes, O! let the voice of thy(9) unerring justice sounding in their hearts constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their enerved(10) hands in the day of battle. Be thou present, O God of Wisdom and direct the counsels(11) of this honourable Assembly. Enable them to settle things upon the best and surest foundation, that the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that(12) harmony and peace may effectually be restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety prevail and flourish amongst thy people. Preserve the health of their bodies and the vigour of their minds; shower down upon them and the millions they represent(13) such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world, and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ thy son, Our Saviour, Amen.

(*)MS (MdHi: Journals of Congress [Philadelphia: R. Aitken, 1787], J10.A15.V1). "Appendix" in the hand of Charles Thomson. 1 For the selection of the Reverend Jacob Duché to open Congress this day with a prayer and the congressional comment occasioned by his riveting performance, see these Letters, 1:31--;35, 45, 55(*)

Duché actually delivered not a single prayer but two---;a prepared one, which he read, followed by a much longer extemporaneous prayer, which led John Adams to effuse that he had "never heard a better Prayer or one so well pronounced," and Silas Deane to declare that "it was worth riding One Hundred Mile to hear" (ibid., pp. 34, 74). These glowing assessments were aimed primarily at the impromptu prayer rather than his prepared text, which is printed here.

The discovery of this text of Duché's prayer in the hand of Charles Thomson clarifies a longstanding puzzle. Historians have been reluctant to credit nineteenth-century claims for the authenticity of the prayer, and some have misidentified it as one Duché read "at his first appearance in Congress after the Declaration of Independence" on July 9, 1776. See George Hastings, "Jacob Duché, First Chaplain of Congress," The South Atlantic Quarterly 31 (October 1932): 394. See also James Thacher, A Military Journal during the American Revolutionary War. . .(Boston: Richardson & Lord, 1823), p. 145; and Lorenzo Sabine, The American Loyalists. . .(Boston: C. C. Little and J. Brown, 1847), p. 264. The first text of Duché's prayer available to the public was published in Thacher's Military Journal in 1823, although the source of Thacher's text was not explained. A second printing appeared in 1831 in volume 1 of the University of Virginia's Chameleon from a text in Thomas Jefferson's possession at his death five years earlier, which soon after disappeared. Other nineteenth-century printed versions are essentially reprintings of Thacher's. A manuscript text in the hand of John Hancock is in the collections of the Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia. The defect of the texts acquired by Hancock and Jefferson is that neither man was in Philadelphia in 1774 and they were most certainly obtained second hand. Our belief in the integrity of Thomson's text rests upon what is known of his record as secretary of Congress from 1774 and 1789 and the care he took in preserving their proceedings. The document printed here was copied by Thomson on the first blank page following the index to volume one of his personal copy of the 13-volume printed edition of the Journals of Congress (Philadelphia: R. Aitken, 1787) owned by the Maryland Historical Society. It bears the heading "Appendix. Copy of the reverend Mr Duche Prayer---;see p 11." And at page 11, which records the congressional proceedings forSeptember 7, 1774, following the entry "the Meeting was opened with Prayers by the Reverend Mr. Duche," Thomson wrote "see the appendix." A comparison of Thomson's text with the three earliest texts traced to John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, and James Thacher reveals several, generally minor, textual variations, the most significant of which are recorded in the notes below. No clear evolution between these texts is apparent. The Jefferson and Thacher texts are printed as single paragraphs; the Hancock text produces Thomson's first two paragraphs as one.
2 "High & mighty" precedes "King of Kings" in the Hancock, Jefferson, and Thacher texts.
3 "& uncontrouled" omitted in the Jefferson text.
4 "with mercy" in the Jefferson text.
5 "our" omitted in the Hancock text.
6 "to be" precedes "henceforth" in the Hancock, Jefferson, and Thacher texts.
7 "they now look up" in the Hancock, Jefferson, and Thacher texts.
8 "still persist" in the Hancock, Jefferson, and Thacher texts.
9 "thine own" in the Hancock text.
10 "unnerved" in the Hancock, Jefferson, and Thacher texts.
11 "councils" in the three other texts.
12 "that Order, Harmony & Peace" in the three other texts.
13 "they here represent" in the three other texts."

(*)MS (MdHi: Journals of Congress [Philadelphia: R. Aitken, 1787], J10.A15.V1). "Appendix" in the hand of Charles Thomson.(*)
SOURCE: Letters of the Delegates to Congress, volume 25, pages 551-552

More information on the first prayer in Congress can be found here:

John Adams to Abigail Adams, September 16, 1774

James Duane's Notes of Debates, entry for September 6, 1774

NOTE: In the middle of the war, Rev. Duche, for reasons uncertain, came to believe that resistance to Britain was futile, and urged General Washington and the Continental Congress to surrender, which they refused to do (see the discussion in this post's comment section). Duche traveled to England, but upon the success of the Americans in the War for Independence and in establishing their own government, Duche wrote to the new United States President George Washington, a letter dated August 7, 1789, in which he expressed his change of mind back to the American cause he originally espoused when he offered the first prayer at the Continental Congress.

IMPORTANT NOTIFICATION

2007-09-10T16:51:00.000-07:00

Fellow-patriots, new readers, loyal readers, and readers who disagree with my theme:

The handy-dandy resource which Hercules Mulligan has proudly presented to the public, The Founders' Bookshelf, has been relocated. It now has a blog of its own, to which I will add posts (from time to time, this will not be updated frequently) on some handy-dandy homework tips on the Founders' writings, as well as how to most successfully search the online editions.

I hope you like the new changes and find them beneficial. I might add, the page makes it feel more ... old-style -- which I like. It is reminiscent (to me, anyway) of that electric feeling one gets when he walks into a library, dusts off books that have been neither read, studied, or reprinted in ages, and embarks upon that little journey through our nation's hidden past. That kind of sense is one of the things that makes studying history an unstoppable obsession (I hear my family snicker). I just want my fellow-explorers, new and old, to share that same passion.

Revisionism: How It Works, Why Its Claims Are False, and What Can Be Done to Stop It

2007-08-13T17:58:00.000-07:00

Revisionism, though not a harsh-sounding word, is bringing about harsh consequences in our nation. Revisionism, in the negative sense of the word, is the manipulation and distortion of accurate historical record and evidence, usually to fit a selfish political agenda. This is precisely what is happening in the United States. One of the areas in which it happens so frequently is in the teaching of the history of our Founding Era, and the exploration of our Christian heritage. Because of its rampant success in the last several decades of our country’s history, revisionism has paved the way for American citizens to watch idly and blindly as our God-given freedoms, such as the right to the free exercise and expression of the Christian religion, the freedom to speak the truth openly, the right to live without government sustenance or interference, are being striped away. American youth no longer have a sense of love for their country or a duty to stand up for its principles, and as a result, are not very concerned about the rights of their fellow citizens. Because of this, generation after generation of Americans is witnessing more violent and atrocious crimes on a more and more frequent level. To make the problem worse, revisionism has established and defined the doctrine of the “separation between church and state,” which seeks to prohibit Christians from using their godly influence in the public spheres to help heal these social and cultural ills. And because many Christians are ignorant of their Scriptures and of their history, even distinguished theologians are acquiescing to this false and perverted standard. Clearly, revisionism needs to be examined, answered, and combated. My purpose shall be to demonstrate several of the methods which revisionist historians use in order to blot out our true history and our Christian heritage.

One thing revisionists do to promote their anti-God propaganda is simple, and predictable: they lie. They will declare a flatly blatant lie, declaring it with emphasis and passion; and, because of the overall ignorance and ill concern of the masses, the lie will be believed. One appalling example is a quote from renowned historian, author, and college professor Gordon S. Wood, who stated publicly that “the Founders were, at most, deists -- they believed God created the world, then left it alone to run,” and that they were terrified of Protestant Christianity playing an important role in American public life and thought. He offered no evidence whatsoever for this radical statement; he simply made the claim as if it were unquestionably true. This kind of language is now not only being incessantly repeated by today’s elite in literature, education, politics, and other circles, but it is accepted by the American public as if it were common knowledge. But such claims are at direct controversy with history and common sense. Consider, for example, the moving words of Patrick Henry, a prominent Founder and Revolutionary leader:

“Amongst other strange things said of me, I hear it is said by the deists that I am one of their number; and indeed, that some good people think I am no Christian. This thought gives me much more pain than the appellation of tory; because I think religion of infinitely higher importance than politics; and I find much cause to reproach myself that I have lived so long and have given no decided proofs of my being a Christian.” (1)

Also consider the prayer of George Washington (and keep in mind that a deist who believes in a God who leaves the world alone should see no use in praying): “I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of Thy dear Son and only Savior Jesus Christ who came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me.” (2)

In addition to these, contemplate the words of Benjamin Franklin, who, though not a Christian, proclaimed at the Constitutional Convention,

“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel." (3)

And yet, despite these examples, revisionist claims are still widely accepted that the Founders were deists and skeptics of Christianity, even though crystal-clear evidence shows the contrary.

Another example of revisionists’ attempts to promote their views with impassioned falsehoods is their bold declaration that our Founding Fathers encouraged and intended “a wall of separation between church and state.” This contorted doctrine has even gone to the extent of being accepted by Christian theologians, who have been using faulty history and misinterpretation of the Scripture to advocate the “separation.” One example is an article written by R. P. Nettelhorst at the website of Quartz Hill School of Theology. Nettelhorst is not a professional revisionist, but his thesis and arguments show how the revisionist propaganda is being made effective through the use of flatly erroneous history. Though he quotes lengthy portions of writings from our history, they fail to prove the point he tries to make, namely, that America is and was never intended to be a Christian nation, that separation of church and state lines up with the intent of the Founders, and that this separation is Scriptural. He states in many words that the Founders were unorthodox in their religious beliefs, that they opposed Christianity publicly, and were enemies of the Gospel, and that because of this, they opposed any semblance of government support of Christianity. Once again, this is blatantly untrue history. (4) There are literally reams and reams of evidence to contradict Nettelhorst’s assertion, and among the most compelling are statements affirmed and reaffirmed by our Founding Fathers. Take, for instance, a statement made by George Washington in his Farewell Address: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness." (5) In addition to these are the words of John Hancock, signer of the Declaration of Independence and Governor of Massachusetts, who declared, “Sensible of the importance of Christian virtue and piety to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement … [T]he very existence of the republics depend much upon the public institutions of religion.” (6) And consider the words of John Jay, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court: “[It is] the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to countenance and encourage virtue and religion." (7) John Witherspoon, a Christian minister and signer of the Declaration of Independence also observed: “[W]hatsoever State among us shall continue to make piety and virtue the standard of public honor will enjoy the greatest inward peace, the greatest national happiness, and in every outward conflict will discover the greatest constitutional strength.” (8) A similar observation was made by Thomas Jefferson, which he made during his presidency: “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.” (9) It is also interesting to notice the indignation of the Founders when they witnessed the disparagement of Christianity by governments, and the support of these same governments for atheism. One example of this is the evident fury of Alexander Hamilton, signer of the Constitution, who expressed it in a pamphlet decrying the French Revolution and the newly established French government. He said,

“The animosity to the Christian system is demonstrated by the single fact of the ridiculous and impolitic establishment of the decades, with the evident object of supplanting the Christian Sabbath. The inscriptions by public authority on the tombs of the deceased, affirming death to be an eternal sleep, witness the desire to discredit the belief of the immortality of the soul. The open profession of atheism in the convention, received with acclamations; the honorable mention on its journals of a book professing to prove the nothingness of all religion; the institution of a festival to offer public worship to a courtesan decorated with the pompous title of “Goddess of Reason”; the congratulatory reception of impious children appearing in the hall of the convention to lisp blasphemy against the King of kings, are among the most dreadful proofs of a conspiracy to establish atheism on the ruins of Christianity, -- to deprive mankind of its best consolations and most animating hopes, and to make a gloomy desert of the universe.” (10)

Enough evidence has been shown to sufficiently demonstrate that revisionist doctrines are clearly at contradiction with simple fact. However, revisionism still maintains influence over the general populous.

Blatantly lying against historical fact does not always effectively serve the purpose of revisionists, however. They have many other tactics as well. Perhaps the most often used ploy is to present historical fact, but to those facts to fit their views. Interestingly, one of the most famous examples of this kind of revisionism came from the United States Supreme Court in 1947 in the case of Everson vs. Board of Education, in which the court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The first sentence of this ruling by the Supreme Court was a quote taken from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson during his Presidency. The Supreme Court used an extremely minuscule portion of Jefferson’s letter to pave the way for future court decisions to be made for removing Christian influence from public schools and other places of public life. Yet the quote was misinterpreted by taking it out of context. The context of the letter, as well as the purpose of it, are both equally important in finding out what Jefferson meant by a wall of separation between church and state. The letter which Jefferson wrote was written as a reply to a Baptist congregation, which was concerned that a national denomination might possibly be established (the very thing that the First Amendment to the Constitution prevented the federal government from doing), and that their denomination, being unpopular at the time, would endure persecution at the hands of the government and of those who disliked them. They further expressed their concern by stating that, “[O]ur constitution of government is not specific . . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights.” (11) Jefferson replied to assuage their fears and told them,

“Believing with you … that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.” (12)

Here, Jefferson’s definition of separation of church and state simply means that matters of conscience belong in God’s jurisdiction only, and that the government cannot legally intermingle with the affairs of the church. The Supreme Court’s definition was exactly the opposite; they thought that they had the right to tell Christians what they could and could not do in public, and this view of the “separation” has been passed on as the view of the Founders ever since then. This is due, once again, to the flawed and yet effective methods of revisionism – methods that continue to eradicate any trace of our Christian heritage.

Another ploy used by revisionists in perverting historical evidence, or misrepresenting historical evidence, is the use the lack of evidence to prove a positive statement; in other words, using negative evidence – lack of evidence – to make a positive assertion. For example, revisionists claim that, because George Washington avoided the discussion of doctrines of the Christian faith, he was a deist, skeptic, and unbeliever. There are two problems with this statement and way of thinking. The first of them is that this sort of reasoning is pitifully faulty. One may just as boldly assert that because someone does not engage in enraptured discussions of the principles and rules of golf, that he must enjoy baseball instead. Yet, this assertion is made, the logic applied to many other instances, and it is widely believed and accepted. The only way you can reasonably assert that someone likes or dislikes golf or baseball is dependent entirely on what the person says or does; namely, that the person says that he likes either of the two sports, plays it on a regular basis, or says and does the contrary. The same kind logic is applied to this situation. The second problem with the original argument is that it is historically inaccurate. Though it is true that Washington did not seek to engage in theological discussions, yet several of his writings do implicate what he believed concerning Christianity. A good place to look for such evidence is his authenticated prayer journal entitled “Daily Sacrifice.”* Portions of these prayers not only indicate a belief in a Divine Providence that superintends and sustains the human race, but they also express his belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, as his Redeemer and Lord, and his belief in the Holy Spirit. He made such prayers as: “I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of Thy dear Son and only Savior Jesus Christ who came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me.” And also:

"Eternal and everlasting God … Direct my thoughts, words and work, wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the lamb, and purge my heart by thy holy spirit, from the dross of my natural corruption, that I may with more freedom of mind and liberty of will serve thee, the ever lasting God, in righteousness and holiness this day, and all the days of my life. Increase my faith in the sweet promises of the gospel; give me repentance from dead works …”

And it goes on. Other evidences of his strong Christian belief and character are within his correspondence, other private and public papers and statements, and eyewitness testimony. One of the most convincing of the latter category is a letter written by his granddaughter, whom he adopted. She lived with him for the first twenty years of her life, and therefore is a very good eyewitness source. She wrote a letter testifying of his Christian conduct, and then concluded with, “I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. …Is it necessary that any one should certify, ‘General Washington avowed himself to be a believer in Christianity?’ As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic, disinterested devotion to his country.” Again we see the grim fact that even though these methods of revisionism are appallingly weak under the slightest scrutiny, yet the truth is not known and these methods are being used to destroy the Founders’ vision of America.

The inevitable question then arises in the mind of the one observing these facts: “Why then, if there is a mountain of indisputable evidence that is so plain and clear, is revisionism so tremendously effective in shaping the average American’s outlook on our history?” There are several reasons. One of them is that Americans are taught such propaganda from the start, and are never shown any information to the contrary. But even though it is not difficult to find such evidence against revisionist claims, yet most Americans have no curiosity to find out whether or not the traditional view of history is right or wrong because the mass majority of Americans are not curious about their history. Even if some did not necessarily believe every word that they are taught, yet the searching for primary sources, though not impossible, is complicated and, at times, difficult and frustrating. On the other hand, it is much easier to access the opinions of modern commentators and the more one reads of them, without sufficient and solid backing from primary sources, one finds himself inevitably in a dizzy world of endless and meaningless controversy. After time, the inevitable result is that one accepts what he has heard or read, quits the search for more adequate knowledge, or becomes depressed. It is for this and other multiple reasons that Americans look upon the study of history as dull, uninteresting, and meaningless. In addition to this, most Americans are never taught to think things through and to examine information critically, and revisionism sounds intelligent to the uninformed mind. In summary, because most Americans practically have no means to effectively combat revisionism, its lies gain wide acceptance and are therefore widely effective.

Revisionism has paved the way for America to drift quite a scary distance from the track on which the Founders of our country placed it. The results of this have manifested themselves in many ways – in our schools, in our culture, in our courts – and the sacrifice our forefathers made on the battlegrounds of the Revolution are being rendered practically worthless. Yet there still may be hope. We have examined the problem, and we have observed the symptoms. The best way to treat the problem from the position of an ordinary American citizen is to find, read, and familiarize oneself with the original sources. They can be found without paying heavy expenses. The second thing to do is to learn and develop critical thinking skills; analyze what you read; otherwise those original sources will profit you nothing. Historians today who are, in all practicality, revisionists, often have very easy access to primary resources, and yet because they often do not look at the evidence critically, honestly, and entirely, that information is worthless to them. We must avoid making the same mistake. The third step is to share these sources and what you know with others around you in any way you can. The communication of new and reputable ideas is often very powerful and effective, and is the most effective practical tool in combating long unquestioned lies. Just as revisionists have been effective, so also can we be effective. By using good facts, good history, common sense, and communicating this knowledge far and wide, we can help our fellow Americans see what our country was really intended to be.

*Scholars disagree over whether or not this journal is DEFINITELY Washington's. All that we know is, is that it was discovered among his papers belonging to his descendants when they auctioned several of Washington's papers in the late 1800s. Some scholars say it is Washington's, others say it isn't. The mystery remains. However, Washington's other writings do indicate that he was a believer in the truth of Christianity, and there is nothing in his writings which proves that he was a deist, or a rationalist, or the like.

The Founding Fathers: Perspective on Their Roles

2007-08-08T12:51:00.000-07:00

As I have already said in previous posts, the names we usually associate with the term "founding father" are George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton.

These Founders have been termed the "key founders" by many, with the addition of several others to the list: Gouverneur Morris (the penman of the Constitution), James Wilson (influential delegate to the Constitutional Convention, and a signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution), Samuel Adams (the "father of the American Revolution" and signer of the Declaration), Patrick Henry (leading patriot, orator of the Revolution who stimulated the country to resist Britain's military force), George Mason (influential delegate to the Constitutional Convention, and the "father of the Bill of Rights"), Reverend John Witherspoon (signer of the Declaration and the trainer and tutor of several Founders, including Madison; also largely responsible for influencing New Jersey to pursue independence from Great Britain, according to Elias Boudinot), Roger Sherman (one of the five original framers of the Declaration of Independence, signer of that document, signer and framer of the Articles of Confederation, signer and influential framer of the Constitution, and famous for the Great Compromise, which forged the creation of the US Senate and the US House of Representatives) and the list could go on even longer.

Something that is worth noticing about the "unknowns" named above:

Most of them were most probably Bible-believing Christians. Most of the "well-known" Founders were either non-believers or probably not Christians (Jefferson, Franklin, John Adams, and probably Madison, who is a difficult character to asses due to his reservation and silence on Christianity in later years).

Of the well-known key Founders, Jefferson and Franklin are the Founders with which the average citizen is the most acquainted. But after studying the writings of the Founders in general, I think that Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin cannot be labeled as "completely indispensable to the Founding," though their accomplishments were key. The reason for my statement is that I have found that Jefferson and Franklin held the least in common politically and religiously with the rest of the Founding Fathers.

This is especially the case with Thomas Jefferson. Pre-1780s, Jefferson did not have to many problems with the rest of his fellow-founders (though he was criticized by Washington and Patrick Henry for fleeing from the enemy and giving up the capitol of Virginia without a fight, when the British advanced upon it when Jefferson was state governor). Most of his beliefs do not reflect much alienation from what the other Founders held (and Jefferson was not much devoted to politics and public life during this time anyway).

However, when Jefferson went on a voyage to France after receiving a commission from the Continental Congress appointing him as American ambassador to France, Jefferson spent many years there, and apparently absorbed much of the French Enlightenment philosophy "in religion, in science, in politics." (1) When he returned to the United States, many of the Founding Fathers alienated themselves from his politics, particularly his democratic tendencies, his pro-France foreign policy, and his deism. It is already well-known that he found such political adversaries in Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and even his best friend John Adams. His politics also repulsed Noah Webster, Patrick Henry, Gouverneur Morris, and even George Washington (towards the end of Washington's presidential term).

Thomas Jefferson had more faith in the reason and goodness of man, and of the "common man" in particular, than did any of the other Founders. His beliefs about the role of religious expression in the federal and state governments differed widely from those of his co-Founders. Jefferson's beliefs on "state sovereignty," though somewhat accepted by a few of the Founders (George Mason, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee), nevertheless denied the purpose of the Constitution, as a substitute for the Articles of Confederation. The Founding Fathers did not envision a metropolitan America, full of big crowded cities, but they did not envision the "agrarian utopia" that Jefferson talked about (he probably got this idea from French philosopher Rousseau). Jefferson's maxim was equivalent to "government that governs least governs best." This, however, was not the motto of the majority of the framers of the Constitution. Their maxim was "government that governs justly governs best." Most of the Founding Fathers leaned toward the Biblical view of government and mankind, Jefferson was perhaps the most humanistic in his beliefs. He supported the public expression of religion, and he saw it as useful and essential to all forms of republican government, but this in no wise implies that Jefferson was in agreement with Christianity. In one letter, he gave his true beliefs on religious philosophy to a private friend. The tenets he details are not at all difficult to reconcile with deism. Abigail Adams, who once had been a close friend and confidante of his, even wrote a letter labeling Jefferson as closer to a deist in his creed.

And yet, in spite of all these facts, Jefferson is treated as the "demigod of our democracy" and the great American philosopher. And yet his philosophy was unique among the Founders!

Benjamin Franklin probably had more in common with the Founding Fathers philosophically and politically (because he WAS the common man, and knew them up-front; he therefore had a very un-Jeffersonian optimism about the inherent goodness of man in general). But Franklin's contributions come largely in the form of his literary accomplishments. We do not remember Franklin for his great insights into history, and how to frame a republican government based upon republican principle. We remember Franklin for his humorous wisdom and practical sayings that affect us day-to-day. Franklin held public offices on the state and national level, and helped draft the Declaration of Independence, the Pennsylvania state constitution, and the United States Constitution. But he never wrote immensely on the subject of government, or what made republics work, whereas other Founders did, and thereby had a greater role in shaping our political philosophy.

Franklin and Jefferson both had a hand in our founding, but others did more. Others dedicated themselves to forming their government, not their print shops, plantations, and gardens (not that those things are of little or no value or significance). In the following posts, we shall look at the views and accomplishments of those Founders who did more, whose names have not been presented in our textbooks for approximately forty years. We will look at these Founders three at a time in each post. First, we shall examine a few "little-knowns" from Virginia.

Re: George Washington -- Christian or Deist?

2007-07-25T14:12:00.000-07:00

I have never gotten a comment on the Founders posts of this blog, but I did get a response on my latest post: George Washington: Christian or Deist? It is a very controversial question. Perhaps none of the Founders' faith is so disputed than Washington's, understandably, since he is the "father of our country." The response I got was from Jonathan, who said:

"The authenticity of this journal has been questioned, but handwriting experts from Washington City, Philadelphia, and New York City in the early twentieth century have verified the handwriting of the manuscript to be Washington’s."

This is not true. No handwriting expert has ever shown his alleged prayer journal to be in his own hand (and btw, the "Circular to the States" was not in his hand either) but the contrary that it was NOT in his hand.

You might also want to check out what Washington's own minister, Dr. Abercrombie, had to say on whether GW was a "real Christian" or not.

These are all good objections. But I reply, that, on the contrary, several experts and professors have said that this prayer journal is indeed Washington's, including W. Herbert Burk, who wrote a book republishing the prayers in 1907 (this book is rare, but it is available through the New York Public Library, which also holds a facsimile of the manuscript itself), and Professor S. F. Upham of Drew Theological University also acknowledged the writing to be Washington's. William J. Johnson, author of George Washington: The Christian claims that "experts in Washington City, Philadelphia, and New York are satisfied that it is Washington's handwriting without doubt." Furthermore, the manuscript in question was found among the papers of Washington still belonging to his descendants Lawrence Washington, Bushrod C. Washington, and J. R. C. Lewis in 1891. It is true that not all professors are convinced, but historians never agree on things most of the time anyway.

As to the "Circular Letter to the States," it is true that there is no surviving copy in Washington's own hand. But it was not unusual for many of Washington's letters to be written by an aide-de-camp or personal secretary. If this letter were a fraud, Washington would have insured that the mistake of this letter coming from him was cleared, and he usually did. For instance, during the time when Washington served in the French and Indian War, after a brutal battle and tremendous loss in 1755, it was rumored that Washington had been mortally wounded and had prepared a will. Washington wrote home to correct this error. He wrote:

As I have heard since my arriv'l at this place, a circumstantial acct. of my death and dying speech, I take this early oppertunity of contradicting both, and of assuring you that I now exist and appear in the land of the living by the miraculous care of Providence, that protected me beyond all human expectation; I had 4 Bullets through my Coat, and two Horses shot under me, and yet escaped unhurt.

By the way, deists REJECT the miraculous -- Washington did not. Back to the Circular Letter, it was probably written at the request and narration of Washington, because his aide-de-camp David Cobb wrote it. (1)

As to the comment by Rev. Abercrombie, he believed that Washington was a deist because Washington did not participate (after the Revolutionary War, anyways,) in communion services in Abercrombie's church -- like that PROVES Washington is a DEIST!!! Washington did take communion (mostly on important occasions) in other churches, but whether he did or not does not have anything to do with his Christianity.

But let's say that that his prayer journal was not written by him -- he was seen praying by a number of people (friends, a nephew, his adopted granddaughter, his aide-de-camps, messengers, etc.).

Let's say that the "Divine Author" portion of the Circular Letter proved to be not 100% inspired by Washington -- his "Farewell Address" expresses the same sentiment expressed in that portion of the Circular Letter:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness. ... And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.

There is still too much evidence in favor of Washington's Christianity than his deism to still assert that Washington was definitely a deist.

What is wonderful is that ordinary Americans like me and you can now access and easily search Washington's own writings. Several sets of these writings are online, and I link to them on my online library The Founders' Bookshelf. This collection is the result of four years of collecting the volumes of the Founders' writings. I hope this proves a great benefit to anyone accessing them, as they have benefited me. The majority of what I know about the Founding Fathers has come from eagerly perusing these volumes and they are more and more essential to my continuing research (once you get going, it is too hard to stop).