Religion Left to the States?

Or Were the State Constitutions
Hated by the Founding Fathers?

One of the common practices of the "Christian Nation" crowd is to try and argue that America's "Christian founding" is to be found in the verbiage of the various state constitutions (examples can be found here). Of course, they do this because the federal charters (i.e. Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.) have ZERO references to Christianity of any kind. In fact, they were kept religiously neutral on purpose. On occasion they will try to say that the language of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. is somehow, in a roundabout way, related to some obscure biblical or Christian teaching. This argument, however, holds little water and most "Christian Nation" advocates worth their salt don't really bother with them, which leaves them with the state constitutions as the only cannon fodder for their argument.

But it's mostly smoke and mirrors.

And though there are some good arguments to be had with these state constitutions (here's one I particularly like) I maintain that they still don't prove anything of substance. It's not that the state constitutions are irrelevant. Quite the contrary. They are incredibly important to America's founding. However, they do not have any basis in establishing America as a Christian nation.

Now, it is not my intention to dispute the Christian Nationalists in this particular post. Instead, I want to simply site what I see to be a strong counter-argument to the "religion was the domain of the states" thesis. In his book, Unruly Americans, historian Woody Holton's central thesis is that the federal constitution was created primarily out of a disdain for the state constitutions -- which were seen as being "too democratic" and "too misrepresenting" for a legitimate republic to function. Holton writes:

The textbooks and the popular histories give surprisingly short shrift to the Framers' motivations. What almost all of them do say is that harsh experience had exposed the previous government, under the Articles of Confederation, as too weak. What makes this emphasis strange is that the Framers' own statements reveal another, more pressing motive. Early in the Constitutional Convention, James Madison urged his colleagues to tackle "the evils...which prevail within the States individually as well as those which accrued to our national character and interest from the inadequacy of the Confederation."

Madison, preoccupation with what he later called "the internal administration of the States" was by no means unique. On the eve of the convention, expressions of concern about the weakness of Congress, numerous as they were, was vastly outnumbered by the complaints against the state governments. "What led to the appointment of this Convention?" Maryland Governor John Francis Mercer asked his colleagues. Was is not "the corruption & mutability of the Legislative Councils of the States?"

Once the Constitution had been sent out to the thirteen states for ratification, its supporters affirmed that some of the most lethal diseases it was designed to cure were to be found within those same states. William Plumer of New Hampshire embraced the new national government out of a conviction that "our rights & property are now the sport of ignorant and unprincipled legislatures." In the last of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton praised the Constitution for placing salutary "restraints" on the "ambition of powerful individuals in single states."

What was wrong with the state assemblies? Given the modern perception that the Founding Fathers had devoted their lives to the principle of government by the people, it is jarring to read their specific grievances. An essay appearing in a Connecticut newspaper in September 1786 complained that the state's representatives paid "too great an attention to popular notions." At least one of those Connecticut assemblymen thoroughly agreed. In May 1787, just as the federal convention assembled, he observed that even the southern states, which under British rule had been aristocratic bastions, had "run into the extremes of democracy" since declaring independence.

Simply put, if Holston's thesis is correct (and I believe he is) it means that state Constitutions became of little consequence, since they were esteemed to be a threat to effective republican government. Having a Christian text or invocation of God would be nothing more than just that...text. Now, I still remain unconvinced that the Founding Fathers' sole purpose for establishing a new Constitution was to eradicate the evils of state power. In addition, the Founders did compromise some power in the federal constitution to the states (not originally but later in the Bill of Rights). So clearly not everyone had such a powerful disdain for state power. But it is clear that the Constitution was created because the delegates felt that the states were too powerful...too free. A strong federal system (which did not sanction Christianity above all else) was seen as essential to preserving the new nation.

John Hanson, Historical Myths and Thanksgiving Proclamations

History and popular culture seem to regularly clash these days. Whether in the form of a Hollywood film, a fictional novel or a television series, popular culture's depiction of historical events is often anything but historical. Mel Gibson's depiction of William Wallace in Braveheart, along with his film The Patriot are a textbook example of how history can and is often twisted to make for a more entertaining story.

Such is the case with John Hanson. In recent years, John Hanson has been the target of a number of ridiculous historical myths. For example, many today insist that Hanson was African American. This charge comes from the fact that Hanson's grandfather was an indentured servant, whose services were sold from one farm to another. As a result, a small number of people have jumped to the conclusion that Hanson must have been Black, since, after all, he was sold. However, they neglect to recognize that indentured servants were often "sold" as well.

In addition, Hanson's service as the first president of the United States under the Articles of Confederation has caused some to seek for his recognition in the history books as our nation's first president. Technically speaking, their case makes sense. After all, Hanson was the first president of the United States, but it was not the United States as established by the Constitution. In fact, Hanson was a staunch anti-federalist who campaigned AGAINST the passage of the Constitution.

And while it is unlikely that Hanson will ever be recognized as America's first president, his legacy is not void of significant contributions. For example, Hanson passed legislation for America's first central bank, established the U.S. mint, called for the first national census, and created the position of Chairman of Congress, which was the predecessor to the vice-presidency.

In addition to these contributions, John Hanson was the first president to call for a national day of thanksgiving. His proclamation read as follows:

It being the indispensable duty of all nations, not only to offer up their supplications to Almighty God, the giver of all good, for His gracious assistance in a time of distress, but also in a solemn and public manner, to give Him praise for His goodness in general, and especially for great and signal interpositions of His Providence in their behalf; therefore, the Unites States in Congress assembled, taking into their consideration the many instances of Divine goodness to these States in the course of the important conflict, in which they have been so long engaged, - the present happy and promising state of public affairs, and the events of the war in the course of the year now drawing to a close; particularly the harmony of the public Councils which is so necessary to the success of the public cause, - the perfect union and good understanding which has hitherto subsisted between them and their allies, notwithstanding the artful and unwearied attempts of the common enemy to divide them, - the success of the arms of the United States and those of their allies, - and the acknowledgment of their Independence by another European power, whose friendship and commerce must be of great and lasting advantage to these States; Do hereby recommend it to the inhabitants of these States in general, to observe and request the several states to interpose their authority, in appointing and commanding the observation of THURSDAY the TWENTY-EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER next as a day of SOLEMN THANKSGIVING to GOD for all His mercies; and they do further recommend to all ranks to testify their gratitude to God for His goodness by a cheerful obedience to His laws and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness.

A Lutheran, Hanson's Thanksgiving proclamation seems typical of his day. He invokes the blessings of "Almighty God" upon the infant nation and the cause of independence. In fact, it is interesting to note just how similar it is to George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789, which also beseeches the blessings of "Providence" upon the newly established American republic:

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be – That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks – for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation – for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war –for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed – for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

Both Hanson and Washington's proclamations carry the same petition. They ask the people to recognize the hand of God -- without giving any specifics as to which God they meant -- in the formation, protection and future prosperity of the United States. In this sense, "God" is neutral and all-encompassing, which supports both Benjamin Franklin's concept of a "public religion" for the United States and Jefferson's belief in the "God of Nature." Both are all-encompassing terms that could apply to any religion of their day.

And while both Hanson and Washington's proclamations take a noticeably neutral stance on God, John Adams' proclamation of 1798 leaves no doubt as to which god is to be invoked:

I have therefore thought fit to recommend, and I do hereby recommend, that Wednesday, the 9th day of May next, be observed throughout the United States as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that the citizens of these States, abstaining on that day from their customary worldly occupations, offer their devout addresses to the Father of Mercies agreeably to those forms or methods which they have severally adopted as the most suitable and becoming; that all religious congregations do, with the deepest humility, acknowledge before God the manifold sins and transgressions with which we are justly chargeable as individuals and as a nation, beseeching Him at the same time, of His infinite grace, through the Redeemer of the World, freely to remit all our offenses, and to incline us by His Holy Spirit to that sincere repentance and reformation which may afford us reason to hope for his inestimable favor and heavenly benediction; that it be made the subject of particular and earnest supplication that our country may be protected from all the dangers which threaten it; that our civil and religious privileges may be preserved inviolate and perpetuated to the latest generations; that our public councils and magistrates may be especially enlightened and directed at this critical period; that the American people may be united in those bonds of amity and mutual confidence and inspired with that vigor and fortitude by which they have in times past been so highly distinguished and by which they have obtained such invaluable advantages; that the health of the inhabitants of our land may be preserved, and their agriculture, commerce, fisheries, arts, and manufactures be blessed and prospered; that the principles of genuine piety and sound morality may influence the minds and govern the lives of every description of our citizens and that the blessings of peace, freedom, and pure religion may be speedily extended to all the nations of the earth[my emphasis].

And though he never comes out and says it, Adams' invocation of the "Father of Mercies," and "Redeemer of the World" make his intentions clear. Adams' proclamation is clearly a petition to the Christian God -- whether orthodox or non-orthodox -- for His blessings upon a nation.

So what are we to make of these proclamations? Can they even be taken as evidence of a person's particular creed, or are they simply political in nature? Ralph Ketcham, author of the biography, James Madison argues that these are political documents with little to no actual religious "meat." He writes:

Madison's singular motivation behind his Thanksgiving Proclamations of 1814 and 1815 was to use religion for his political advantage...The less-than-successful management of the War of 1812 had turned popular support against the president...Wisely Madison put the blame for America's misfortune during the war on God rather than his presidency.

And while there is arguably a great deal of truth to Kecham's assertion, this does not suggest that Hanson, Washington, or Adams were also insincere in their respective proclamations. In addition, if Thanksgiving proclamations really were that politically advantageous, why did Jefferson never issue one? Of all the early presidents, Jefferson could have benefited more from declaring God's blessings in a presidential proclamation than anyone.

Maybe the answer to this question is...BOTH. Presidential/Thanksgiving proclamations should be seen as both political tools AND as evidence of a president's personal religious leanings. Or maybe this is the centrist in me trying to make sense of the senseless!