Christopher Columbus: A Historiography, 1892-1992

The beginnings of colonial American history are inescapably linked to the life and legacy of Christopher Columbus.  Even though we now accept the fact that Columbus was far from the first person to “discover” or explore the New World, the history of Christopher Columbus is foundational to all that would follow in his wake.  Columbus’ influence is so wide reaching that his name has been used when naming numerous cities, capitals and even a South American nation.  Columbus even has a holiday named for him by a nation whose lands he never walked. 

            Despite his important role in New World colonization, Columbus’ legacy is complicated to say the least.  Was he a hero? A villain?  Or something else entirely?  Analyzing how historians, over time, have viewed the history of Christopher Columbus illustrates the complexity of this important historical figure.  For example, we can easily see stark differences in how Columbus was esteemed by historians when we juxtapose the historical records of his 400^th anniversary (1892) with those of his 500^th anniversary (1992), and all the years in between.  For historians of the late 19^th century, Christopher Columbus was a figure of admiration, whose voyage was blessed by God himself, while historians of the later 20^th century placed the bulk of the blame for Native American genocide squarely on his shoulders, thereby completely shifting the paradigm of Columbus historiography from one extreme to the other.  In other words, historians of both the 19^th and 20^th centuries tended to tell only half of the story when it came to Columbus.  He was either a hero or a villain, with little wiggle room in between.  Such a black and white treatment of Columbus diluted the true history of this incredibly important figure and reflects more the popular sentiments of the days in which these histories were produced. As Historian and Columbus Biographer De Lamar Jensen put it:

Most people living one hundred years ago and celebrating the quadricentenary of Columbus’s first voyage honored Columbus as a hero who almost singlehandedly battered down the walls of medieval ignorance…others, however, have become overenthusiastic, even slanderous, in their attempts to demythologize Columbus. Their approach often serves to bolster a political cause rather than promote a search for truth.[1]

19^th Century American Exceptionalism

Understanding how and why the legacy of Christopher Columbus has experienced such a shift in only a short one-hundred-year period requires us to recognize the unique cultural and social factors that helped to shape the perspectives of both 19^th and 20^th century historians.  For both students and teachers living in the 19^th century, the American school experience was one in which the promotion of great men of virtue was of paramount importance.  As modern historians Carla and Phillip Williams point out, “the nineteenth century saw the development of textbooks in United States history that consciously aimed to create virtuous and patriotic citizens.”[2]  The heavy emphasis on the narrative of America’s providential founding and destiny, coupled with the eventual rise of nationalism, created an atmosphere in which histories featuring great men, accomplishing great feats, all for the sake of great nations, found their way to the Avant Garde of the collective American historical experience. 

The origin of these pro-Columbus narratives of the late 1800s have their genesis with the work of Washington Erving, who in 1828 wrote a four-volume work entitled, A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus.  Erving’s book, which became an instant hit in its day, was peppered with a plethora of twisted facts and downright fiction, making the work unreliable from a purely historical perspective, but deeply moving from a nationalistic sense.  Erving’s version of Columbus was very much in line with the “great man” concept of that century.  Erving called Columbus “an ardent and comprehensive genius,” endowed with an “enthusiastic nature” who “conferred with sovereigns almost with a feeling of equity.”[3]  In addition, Erving consistently inflates Columbus’ importance as a truly great man by perpetuating numerous myths, including the now debunked folklore tale of Columbus being motivated to prove that the world was not flat.[4]

            For the next 100 years, Erving’s record of Columbus would dominate society as the most popular biography on the great explorer.[5]  As a result, the gluttony of myths and distorted historical accounts filtered down into subsequent histories.  By the time Columbus’ quadricentennial had arrived, the majority of historians and causal readers of history had accepted the narrative established by Erving.  Columbus was a man of moral character to be emulated and revered, and those who endeavored to produce historical material on the explorer would be wise not to contradict that status quo.  Consequently, the histories of Columbus that emerged in the late 19^th century followed the established narrative.

One example of Erving’s influence on Columbus history of the late 19^th century can be found in the work of William Eleroy Curtis.  In his two-part biography of Columbus, Curtis refers to the explorer as, “a man of honest parentage and sober life” who was “prudent, showing a great genius, and he was gracious in manner.”[6]  Throughout the book (which focuses primarily on the works of art created to memorialize Columbus), Curtis heaps praise upon the Italian explorer who is more than deserving of all the “heroic statues” and “dignified effigies” dedicated throughout the world to his memory.[7]

In addition to Curtis’ account are several collections of Columbus’ own writings, gathered and published by historians for his quadricentennial celebration, each containing an introduction of preface by their respective historian/author.  Many of these introductions present the same complimentary treatment of Columbus, as a man worthy of admiration.  In Writings of Christopher Columbus (1892), historian Paul Leicester Ford describes Columbus as, “a man of bold disposition, good mind and education, with practical sea and cartographic experience, and withal an enthusiast, was ready to act at the time that Europe’s interests in the east forced her at last to turn westward.”[8]  In The Authentic Letters of Christopher Columbus (1895), historian William Eleroy Curtis recognizes Columbus as a man of “deep religious spirit” whose piety was so great that even kings and queens sought his wisdom because of his devotion to God.[9] And finally, in The Life of Christopher Columbus (18..), author Arthur George Knight venerated Columbus when he wrote, “As long as Englishmen are sailors and merchants, and love enterprise and greatness of courage, they ought to hold in veneration the memory of Christopher Columbus...when he departed this life he was ripe for canonization, and he even miraculously aids those who commend themselves to his powerful intersession.”[10]  The general thesis from these – and many other – records of Columbus, produced during the conclusion of the 19^th century was clear: Christopher Columbus was a great man, worthy of praise, whose deeds were sanctioned by divinity itself. 

In addition to the many primary source publications produced at this time, and their prefaced remarks from historians of the time, were numerous biographies and histories of Columbus, which also fell in line with the conventional historiographical approach of the 19^th century.  Among this vast collection is the biography by John Stephens Cabot Abbott in which Columbus is portrayed as a larger than life figure, sent from heaven above to fulfill the divine mandate of discovering the New World.  “Columbus was, by nature, a kind-hearted man…he completely won the hearts of the natives by the gift of a few glittering beads or tinkling hawk’s bells.”[11]  Abbott concluded his biography of Columbus by reminding the reader that Columbus’ life “was one of the most joyous we have on record.  That he had his faults all will admit.  That those blemishes of character were redeemed by many and exalted virtues, few candid minds will deny.”[12] 

In a world marked by new emerging technologies, newfound economic opportunities and a surging spirit of nationalism, Christopher Columbus was the perfect candidate for historical canonization.   As an explorer who braved unknown frontiers, discovered unknown lands and endeavored to strike it rich, Columbus’ story resonated on a deep and intimate level.  19^th century American society had already venerated innovators and tycoons like Thomas Edison, Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller for their contributions which had brought to pass a new world.  Comparing such achievements to those accomplished 400 years earlier by a foreign explorer with a dream was not a tough connection to make.  As such, Christopher Columbus became, in the eyes of the average American, a rags to riches success story to be emulated and admired. 

Reevaluation and Extreme Objectivity   

While the bulk of late 19^th century Christopher Columbus history was clearly over-complimentary and seeking to promote the explorer as a great and noble man to be revered, the atmosphere of admiration was not without its storms.  As the years marched on into the 20^th century, historians began the very slow process of reassessing who Christopher Columbus really was, and how his history should be presented.  In her 1915 biography, author and historian Mildred Stapley took earlier Columbus biographers to task when she wrote:

Critical research into the life of Christopher Columbus was unknown until about thirty years ago.  It was then, for the first time, that authors began to ransack the archives of Spain and Genoa for material, instead of merely repeating the long-accepted story whose outline had been ingeniously sketched by the navigator himself and as ingenously filled in by his son Fernando.  The many inaccuracies of his story had not escaped writers as shrewd as Washington Irving and Alexander Humboldt; but they, instead of subjecting disturbing misstatements to critical examination, bent all their talents to inventing plausible explanations of every discrepancy.[13]

            For researchers like Stapley, the traditional narrative of Columbus as a great man wasn’t necessarily wrong, but it wasn’t entirely accurate either.  Historians of the generation that followed Columbus’ quadricentennial understood that they had to “emancipate [themselves] from the thralldom of that uncritical admiration in which it has been fashionable to hold the Discoverer, ever since Washington Irving threw over the subject the romantic and bewitching charm of his literary skill.”[14]  Instead of relying on the interpretations of their parent’s generation, those who “inherited” the job of understanding Columbus’ legacy moving forward felt a greater responsibility to let the historical record speak for itself.  Instead of needing Columbus to be a great man, justified by history, these new historians determined to let the historical record reflect “a more correct judgement be formed” on the true character of this all-important explorer.[15]        

            This shift of agenda can be summed up in many regards as the moment when historians were able to emancipate themselves from the cultural desire to make Christopher Columbus fit with a particular social agenda.  As resources became more available, these new histories “were willing to temper their admiration of Columbus,” thereby opening up themselves to new potential conclusions.[16] These new conclusions may have flown counter to conventional narratives, but they also allowed a new historiography to bloom. 

            Arguably the most influential work of new Columbus historiography produced in the wake of his quadricentennial era was a biography by Justin Winsor entitled, Christopher Columbus and How He Received and Imparted the Spirit of Discovery (1892).  In his book, Windsor not only provides detailed scrutiny of many key Columbus biographies dating all the way to the 16^th century, but he also emerges as one of the first historians to put Columbus in his appropriate context.  Windsor wrote, “The man who becomes the conspicuous developer of any great world movement is usually the embodiment of the ripened aspirations of his time.  Such was Columbus.”[17]  Windsor’s work had not abruptly overturned the status quo view of Columbus as a great man, but it did point out the many inconsistencies in his story.  Windsor’s work did not obscure the facts.  His biography of Columbus was even-handed in its treatment of the historical record. 

            For those who still favored the traditional view of Columbus, Windsor’s work proved problematic.  The cognitive dissonance caused by Windsor’s recognition of historical blemishes in Columbus’ story caused detractors to go on the attack.  As modern-day historians Carla and William Phillips point out:

A large segment of the American public was unwilling to admit the slightest flaw in its heroes, and the reaction against Winsor and other less scholarly critics was swift and long-lasting. Several books vigorously defended Columbus against Winsor specifically.  Others simply ignored the critics and wrote modem glosses on Irving, or tried their hand at epic poetry and drama based on a laudatory view of the Admiral.[18]

Despite the misgivings of some, Windsor’s book had opened the floodgates.  A new standard, relying upon primary evidence, had inspired others to follow in Winsor’s footsteps.[19] 

            This new trend in scholarship lasted for several decades, extending even into what historians now call the progressive era.  During this time, new works, akin to that of Winsor’s biography, were produced, many of which made attempts to reconcile some of the unsavory aspects of Columbus’ history.  The progressive era had made it easier to avoid portraying Columbus as a noble man of virtue, since this era’s historians proved to be more interested in the social and economic aspects of the past as opposed to creating narratives of great men and great causes.[20]  As a result, very little change in the historiography of Christopher Columbus was created in the early decades of the 20^th century.

A Columbus for the Modern World

            It was not until the 450^th anniversary that a new book would emerge to redefine the historiography of Christopher Columbus.  Samuel Eliot Morison’s Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus (1942) emerged as the single most impactful book on the history of Christopher Columbus since Washington Irving’s 1828 biography.[21]  Morison’s new biography dwelled primarily on Columbus’ brilliance as a navigator and explorer while downplaying his other shortcomings.  This emphasis on Columbus’ understanding of navigation by the stars and other technologies which aided in his ability to navigate fit well with the 20^th century American technological revolution.[22]   

            Morison, who was himself a sailor having served in the United States Navy, traced the original route Columbus himself sailed to the New World, and in the process developed an affinity for his ability as a navigator of the oceans.  Morison also focused his attention on the details of Columbus’ surviving records, eliminating any speculation or conjecture.  For Morison, Columbus’ true history was objective and free of conjecture.  As Morison himself stated, “Speculations are for the poet and the novelist, not the historian.”[23] 

            Morison’s understanding and interpretation of Columbus’ history became the standard by which all other Columbus biographies were judged.  Morison’s history was neither overly critical nor complimentary of the great explorer but rather presented a somewhat dry chronology of a man who crossed great oceans to discover a New World.  There is little opinion or thesis to Morison’s work, but instead the reader finds obvious hints of a writer deeply determined to avoid even the slightest appearance of personal opinion. 

            The arrival of Columbus’ quincentenary marked yet another shift in historical perspective as it applied to the great explorer.  Morison’s biography had remained the dominant narrative for almost five decades, but the dawn of postmodernism meant a new interpretation of history was being pursued by yet another generation of historians.  Instead of looking objectively at the history of Columbus, these new writers converted his legacy into a litmus test meant to satisfy several competing agendas.  Or as another writer put it, “the conflicts over which academics are arguing including debates over which texts to be taught, the competing claims of western and non-western cultures and social conflicts over race, ethnicity and privilege…prove that students will need to learn to deal with them in a culturally diverse world.”[24]

            With these new perspectives on race, culture, etc. now becoming a part of history, the pendulum of scholarly inquiry had shifted from making Christopher Columbus into a great hero, to placing all blame upon his shoulders for everything from petty theft to genocide.  One of the more influential books that helped to shape popular understanding of Columbus along these lines was Howard Zinn’s controversial A People’s History of the United States (1990).  In his book, Zinn doesn’t hide his distain for the admiral of the sea, calling Columbus’ story “a history of conquest, slavery and death.”[25]  Zinn makes absolutely no attempt at a nuanced history of Columbus.  In his mind, Columbus is to blame for nearly the entirety of the slavery, rape, murder, theft and cruelty that permeated throughout the era of Spanish colonization. 

            Zinn wasn’t alone in his assessment of Columbus.  In his 1992 book, American Holocaust, author David Stannard spared no punches in his berating attack of the explorer.   Throughout the work, Columbus is portrayed as a bumbling failed explorer whose religious radicalism had inspired the man to cross the Atlantic (an achievement that was lucky at best), only to find gold and glory.[26]  Like in Zinn’s work, Columbus is blamed for the bulk of atrocities committed in the New World.  Columbus’ abilities as a navigator and governor are rarely discussed but instead the author focuses almost exclusively on the many brutalities experienced by native communities.  Columbus is, of course, the man deemed most responsible for such heinous actions. 

                This shift in the historiographical approach to Christopher Columbus, though incomplete, did yield insightful studies into how New World colonization impacted native cultures, and assisted historians in understanding how specific minority groups played important roles in the past worthy of further study.  One of the general lessons to emerge from this era of Columbus studies was to acknowledge the following:

No study of the Colombian voyages can proceed without consideration of the peoples and cultures of America before and during European contact.  A healthy recognition of the extent of the Americas’ development, the diversity of the cultures, the multiplicity of languages and interests of the people who confronted the European newcomers after 1492, provides a complete approach to understanding of the significance of the Colombian voyage.[27]

                Notwithstanding the fact that late 20^th century histories of Christopher Columbus had done a far better job of illustrating the profound impact New World colonization had on native cultures and peoples, the gap left in their accounts is glaring.  Like historians of the 19^th century, these accounts told only half of the story.  The failure to remain objective in the treatment of Columbus, as a historical figure who was a product of his time and place, was replaced with a desire to transport Columbus to the present where he could be judged by more modern practices and standards.  This failure has to many of today’s misunderstandings regarding both New World colonization in general, and Christopher Columbus’ role in that process specifically.  Historian John Herbert’s advise provides the appropriate warning.  He writes, “The study of this time period is very important since out of it came the shape of the entities that we refer to today as the Americas.  A caution to all who enter this important study.  Try to remember to consider the study of this period from the understanding of that time in history and not as we would wish it to be today.”[28]  This is good advise for any study of history, regardless of the time in which it is produced. 

---

[1] De Lamar Jensen, “Columbus and the Hand of God” Ensign (October 1992).  Online edition.

[2] Carla Phillips and William Phillips, “Christopher Columbus in United States Historiography: Biography as   Projection.”  The History Teacher, 25, no.2 (1992), Pp. 122.

[3] Washington Erving, A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, vol. I. (Paris: A & W Galignani,1828).  Pp. 63-64. 

[4] Ibid, 124. 

[5] Jack Shreve, “Christopher Columbus: A Bibliographic Voyage” Choice, vol. 29, January 1991, Pp. 703-711

[6] William Eleroy Curtis, Christopher Columbus: His Portraits and His Monuments, Part II.  (Chicago, Illinois: The W.H. Lowdermilk Company, 1893).  Pp. 4

[7] Ibid, 56-57.

[8] Paul Leicester Ford, Writings of Christopher Columbus: Descriptive of the Discovery and Occupation of the New World. (New York: Charles L. Webster & Co., 1892). Pp. 17.

[9] William Eleroy Curtis, The Authentic Letters of Columbus (Chicago, Illinois: Columbus Memorial Museum, 1895).    Pp. 105. 

[10] Arthur George Knight, The Life of Christopher Columbus: Discoverer of the New World, A Biographical Sketch. (New York: D & J Sadlier & Co. 1877). Pp. 9.

[11] John Stephens Cabot Abbott, Christopher Columbus (New York: The University Society Incorporated, 1904). Pp.   71.

[12] Ibid, 345.

[13] Mildred Stapley, Christopher Columbus (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1915). Pp.v.

[14] Charles Kendall Adams, Christopher Columbus: His Life and His Work, (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1892). Pp. viii.

[15] Abbott, Christopher Columbus, 1.

[16] Phillips, “Christopher in Historiography, 126.

[17]Justin Winsor, Christopher Columbus and How lie Received and Imparted the Spirit of Discovery (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1892).  Pp.497.

[18] Phillips, “Christopher in Historiography, 126.

[19] Ibid, 126. 

[20] Ibid, 127.

[21] Shreve, “Columbus: A Bibliographic Voyage,” 703. 

[22] Phillips, “Christopher in Historiography, 128.

[23] Samuel Eliot Morison, Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1942). Pp. 20.

[24] John S. O’Connor and Robert M. Como, “History on Trial: The Case of Columbus.” OAH Magazine of History: 12, no. 2 (1998). Pp. 47. 

[25] Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (New York: Harper & Row, 1990). Pp. 17.

[26] David Stannard, American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).  Pp. 63-64. 

[27] John Hebert, “Exploring the Colombian Quincentenary through Historiography.”  OAH Magazine of History 5, no.4 (1991). Pp. 13.

[28] Ibid, 13

Why Study History?

Human beings are interesting creatures.  We live in small bubbles that to us seem large in the moment.  These bubbles typically function as echo chambers which consistently reinforce the world view we’ve been fed ever since we were children.  We go on living day-to-day, not fully understanding the present, regularly worried about the future and lacking in a basic understanding of how we – as individuals and as a society – got to where we are to begin with.  As a result, we grasp as straws in a futile effort to make sense of the world around us.  This is especially true in our modern world where technology provides ample sound bites, quotes, memes, and even TikTok videos that do little more than distort our little bubbles of reality.

Breaking free of these distracting bubbles requires us to look into our past, both as individuals and as a larger society.  Breaking free means looking back at our past not for nostalgic purposes but instead to understand a greater narrative of who we are and who we hope to be.  It means asking difficult questions, uncovering ugly skeletons, and discovering both the failures and triumphs of bygone eras, all of which added together has created the world we now inherit both individually and collectively.  This is what history ultimately is and why history matters so much.  It is the study of humanity in all its glory, horror, triumph and tragedy. 

For us to benefit most from the study of history we must understand what we are talking about   If history were simply the understanding of important dates, events, etc. one would only need to memorize a World Almanac.  And though the assimilation of data does have its advantages, the mere memorization of dates and events does not make one historically literate.  Understanding history means thinking critically about the past in a way that protects the integrity of previous events while still providing meaning for the present.  As Historian John Fea states in his book, Why Study History, “Historians are not mere storytellers.  Not only do they have the responsibility of making sure they get the story right; they are also charged with the task of analyzing and interpreting the past.”[1]  In other words, the study of history is both art and science.  Having the ability to tell a meaningful story with a purpose that resonates in the present is the art.  Maintaining the integrity of that same story by relying on factual source material, placed in proper context, is the science.  This is why the study of history can be, for many students, either a tremendous thrill or the epitome of boredom.  The ability of the historian/teacher to effectively tell a meaningful story while maintaining historical integrity is what makes all the difference. 

in the first place.

Since history is much more than mere dates, this means every individual, organization, generation, etc. will often adopt their own understanding of the past.  In other words, we different people, from different walks of life, will write their own interpretation of the past.  As Pulitzer Prize-winning Historian Gordon Wood put it:

The past in the hands of expert historians becomes a different world, a complicated world that requires considerable historical imagination to recover with any degree of accuracy…The drama, indeed the tragedy of history comes from our understanding of the tension that exists between the conscious wills and intentions of the participants in the past and the underlying conditions that constrained their actions and shaped their future.[2]

Keeping Dr. Wood’s comments in mind, history becomes something more than just an art or a science.  History becomes a foreign language.  And as any student of foreign languages can attest, in order to truly learn that language one must be immersed in it.  You must embrace the culture, the people and the customs.  The same is true of history.  To truly appreciate and learn from history, one must understand the past on its own terms, by the rules, customs and climate in which it existed.  Instead of bringing the past to us, we must go to the past.  To become “fluent” means we have accepted and understood these rules and customs, which aren’t native to us, but still have tremendous value. 

                For many people, this practice of uncovering the past may not appear to provide a tangible value to society, like a doctor who heals the sick or a mechanic who can fix that which is broken.  This supposed frailty is superficial, since it fails to comprehend the true value history can and does provide to humanity.  As Historian Peter Stearns explains, “In a society that quite correctly expects education to serve useful purposes, the functions of history can seem more difficult to define than those of engineering or medicine. History is in fact very useful, actually indispensable, but the products of historical study are less tangible, sometimes less immediate, than those that stem from some other disciplines.”[3]  Though it may not yield tangible fruit, the study of history should be esteemed as a fundamental pillar to any society.

The Late mountaineer, George Mallory, who died while exploring Mount Everest, was once asked why he wanted to climb the world's tallest mountain.  His answer: “Because it’s there.”   The same can be said for the study of history.  We study the past because it’s there.  The value of that pursuit should be self-evident.  George Mallory’s ability to conquer tall peaks did not provide society with any palpable benefit but it did give humanity hope and inspiration.  The same can be said of the past.  We study history because it is our story, the story of humanity.  Like a distant peak, the past begs us to make the ascent up sharp cliffs and daunting terrain.  But once at the summit, the view becomes clear.  We can see for miles that which before could never be seen.  This is why the study of history matters. 

---

[1] John Fea, Why Study History? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 2013). Pp. 3.

[2] Gordon Wood, The Purpose of the Past (New York: The Penguin Press, 2008).  Pp. 10.

[3] Peter Stearns, “Why Study History?” American Historical Association.  https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/historical-archives/why-study-history-(1998).

Justice Earl Warren and the "Christian Nation" Question

Most conservatives remember Chief Justice Earl Warren with less than kind feelings.  Warren is sometimes called the "father of Judicial Activism" by those on the right.  Several of his key decisions include:

- Engel v Vitale, which prohibited mandatory prayer in public schools.
- Griswold v. Connecticut, which struck down a state law designed to limit access to contraception.
- Reynolds v. Sims, which essentially promoted federal authority over that of the state on matters of representation.

These, along with other decisions (many of which promoted federal supremacy or gave special privileges to criminals) have left a lasting bitter taste on the palette of most on the right.  After all, many of these decisions have served as precedents for the establishment of even greater federal authority and more activism on the part of the Judicial branch of government.

Despite this apparent hostility to Warren, there is one topic on which he and conservatives can find common ground. While attending a prayer breakfast in Washington D.C., Justice Warren delivered a speech in which he lauded America's unique Christian origin and heritage.  Time Magazine was there to capture the Chief Justice's words:

I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing that the Good Book and the Spirit of our Savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses.  Whether we look to the first Charter of Virginia or to the Charter of Massachusetts Bay, or to the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, the same objective is present.  A Christian government of Christian principles. I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their express belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under the law, and the reservation of power to the people.  I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion.  I like also to believe that as long as we do so no great harm can come to our country. 

When we examine the three documents referenced by Justice Warren (the first Charter of Virginia, the Charter of Massachusetts Bay and the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut), we discover that Warren wasn't wrong.  The Virginia Charter makes clear that one of its primary goals was, "the propagating of the Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God."  The Massachusetts Bay Charter has a similar goal, namely to bring "the Natives of the Country, to the Knowledge and Obedience of the only true God and Savior of Mankind, and the Christian Faith, which is...the principal end of this Plantation."  And finally from the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, we read that one of its main goals was, "to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus, which we now profess."

Naturally we should point out that these same colonies would go on to debate the specifics of what it meant to be a Christian, and whose brand of Christianity was THE true interpretation of Jesus' divine message.  Images of Ann Hutchinson squaring off with John Winthrop, or the Danbury Baptists appealing to the likes of the heathen Thomas Jefferson are too obvious to ignore.  That being said, I believe Justice Warren's message rings clear.  Despite the arguments over whose Christianity is THE American Christianity, the cultural, social and spiritual fabric of what became the United States is undeniably Christian in origin.  Benjamin Franklin's appeal to a collective "public religion" (a sort of shared Christian "Wi-Fi" network) seems to fit best.  Different faiths may access the shared Wi-Fi for different purposes, but ultimately they are sharing the same network.   

Vidal v. Girard and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State Debate

Was the United States founded as a Christian nation?  This question has occupied a place in my mind for more than a decade and has motivated me to spend countless hours researching a plethora of fascinating material.  I doubt I will ever reach a fulfilling resolution to this question but if I were to give my best answer today, I would say America was NOT founded as a Christian nation.  Having said that, I would also feel compelled to add that Judeo-Christian beliefs and teachings most certainly played a role -- and not some side show role -- in bringing to pass the founding of this nation.  Put another way, I believe America was PLANTED by Christian principles, but the tree which sprouted on this continent became something different.  Something better.  The "separation of church and state" that ensued was meant to STRENGTHEN both religion and government, not make them bitter enemies of one another.

This "wall" separating church and state is not, in my opinion, some impenetrable shield forever separating God from country.  Instead, I believe the wall of separation between church and state is best understood when compared to a human cell.  The semi-permeable membrane of our cells allows for the fluid (but also controlled) movement of material between the outside and inside of the cell.  Such is the case with the separation of church and state in America.  When one looks at history, the semi-permeable nature of the church/state wall becomes self-evident.  There has simply been too much fluid movement (usually controlled movement) between the worlds of religion and government for us to call this division an actual wall.

Over the years, supporters of the "Christian Nation" thesis, along with their more secular opponents, have appealed to various forms of evidence to support their respective camp.  One of those forms of evidence has been Supreme Court cases from the past.  Today I want to take a deep dive into my favorite Supreme Court case, which regularly seems to pop up in "Christian Nation" apologetic material, and I believe best supports my view of the church/state wall actually behaving more like the human cell.  

------------------------------------------------------------

The day after Christmas of 1831, Stephen Girard, a French immigrant who resided in Philadelphia, passed away at the age of 81.  Girard was a banker and philanthropist who had amassed an incredible fortune that made him the richest man at that time in the United States (some historians have argued that Girard was the 4th wealthiest American ever, when inflation is considered, behind John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt and John Jacob Aster).  Girard was also a widower who had no children.  As a result, Girard elected to leave a large portion of his fortune to the City of Philadelphia.  In his will, Girard wished for the City of  Philadelphia to establish an orphanage/college for "poor male white orphans." In addition, Girard's will carried a clause which called for the complete ban on the Bible and Bible readings in the orphanage, along with a ban on every type of religious minister: 

I enjoin and require that no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever, shall ever hold or exercise any station or duty whatever in the said college; nor shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor, within the premises appropriated to the purposes of the said college.

On the surface Girard's request for a ban on religious ministers and the Bible itself seems incredibly judgmental and capricious.  This is an understandable conclusion, especially when we discover that Girard was somewhat hostile to religion throughout his life.  Before passing judgement, however, there is some important historical context we should consider.

The Bible Wars: Catholics v. Protestants 

The 19th century was a period of extreme growth in the United States.  The swell of European immigrants, particularly large numbers of Irish Catholics, during the 19th century, sparked a fire of anti-Catholic sentiment that consumed large segments of the American populace to include Philadelphia.   During the first decades of the 19th century, Catholic churches and clergy grew at an exponential rate. Protestants reacted by inciting discord within their ranks.  Catholics responded to this growing disapproval of their faith by mounting an attack of their own.  The strife that ensued divided American Christians on fundamental doctrinal issues.  In addition, this division caused both Protestant and Catholic adherents to double down on their faith.  All of this tension proved to be the ideal breeding ground for paranoia and conspiracy that captured the minds of even some of America's best and brightest.  For example, Samuel F. B. Morse, inventor of the telegraph and head of the American Protestant Union, argued that Catholic immigrants were part of a plot (on the part of the Pope) to convert America and lay the groundwork for the Catholic domination of the New World.

This Protestant/Catholic battle eventually found its way into America's schools.  In Philadelphia these schools were controlled by the Protestant majority, who insisted that their religious views take center stage as part of the regular school curriculum.  Catholics tried to respond to this action by establishing schools of their own, where Catholic beliefs could be taught and practiced without opposition.  This effort proved to be extremely limited in its impact, since the church could only establish a very limited number of schools.  As a consequence, most Catholic students, who wanted an education, were required to attend schools dominated by Protestant teachings.

One of the most divisive aspects of this conflict came in the form of the Bible.  Since Protestants dominated Philadelphia, they naturally wanted their children to grow up reading the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible.  As a result, the KJV was the standard religious text of the overwhelming majority of schools in the region.  Naturally, Catholics opposed the KJV and demanded that their children be allowed to read from the Douay Bible.  Bishop Francis Patrick Kenrick, who served as the third Bishop of Philadelphia, wrote to Philadelphia school authorities on this problem, stating:

Teachers shall read and cause to be read, The Bible; by which is understood the version published by command of King James. To this regulation we are forced to object, inasmuch as Catholic children are led to view as authoritative [the King James Version] which is rejected by the Church....We do not ask you to adopt the Catholic version for general use; but we feel warranted in claiming that our conscientious scruples to recognize or use the other, be respected....The consciences of Catholics are also embarrassed by the mode of opening and closing the School exercises which... is by the singing of some hymn, or by prayer. It is not consistent with the laws and discipline of the Catholic Church for her members to unite in religious exercises with those who are not of their communion.   

Catholics were quick to point out that their taxes were being used to support Protestant schools that taught Protestant beliefs from Protestant scripture; an injustice they simply couldn't stomach.  Eventually these Catholic protests found their way to the sympathetic ear of William Henry Seward (the same W.H. Seward who would one day serve as Secretary of State to Abraham Lincoln) who stated:

The children of foreigners, found in great numbers in our populous cities and towns, and in the vicinity of our public works, are too often deprived of the advantages of our system of public education, in consequence of prejudices arising from differences of language or religion...I do not hesitate, therefore, to recommend the establishment of schools in which they may be instructed by teachers speaking the same language with themselves and professing the same faith.

To make a long story short, this division between Catholics and Protestants eventually led to violence.  In what is known as the Philadelphia Bible Riots, citizens of Philadelphia (overwhelmingly Protestant) took up arms and attacked predominantly Irish Catholic neighborhoods, resulting in bloodshed.  Eventually military force was required to quell the rioters.  Ultimately these riots were the culmination of a decade-long feud between Protestants and Catholics over a number of social issues.  The battle over the Bible was the final tipping point that sparked violence.

Now let us return to the story of Stephen Girard and his fortune.  Keeping in mind the fierce division between Catholics and Protestants at the time of his death one can understand why Girard felt that a Bible/minister free orphanage might be advantageous.  It wasn't that Girard disapproved of a particular creed or denomination.  Instead Girard likely felt disdain for the violence and hostility he saw in his community because of religious intolerance.  From Girard's will:

I enjoin and require that no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever, shall ever hold or exercise any station or duty whatever in the said college; nor shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor, within the premises appropriated to the purposes of the said college.

[...]

In making this restriction, I do not mean to cast any reflection upon any sect or person whatsoever; but, as there is such a multitude of sects, and such a diversity of opinion amongst them, I desire to keep the tender minds of the orphans, who are to derive advantage from this bequest, free from the excitement which clashing doctrines and sectarian controversy are so apt to produce; my desire is, that all the instructors and teachers in the college shall take pains to instil into the minds of the scholars the purest principles of morality, so that, on their entrance into active life, they may, from inclination and habit, evince benevolence towards their fellow-creatures, and a love of truth, sobriety, and industry, adopting at the same time such religious tenets as their matured reason may enable them to prefer.

Enter the Supreme Court

As is the case with most who leave a large fortune, the extended relatives of Girard, some still residing in France, wanted a piece of the pie.  The argument became intense enough that eventually the Supreme Court chose to deal with the matter.  The Girard family hired attorney Daniel Webster, former Senator and Secretary of State to Presidents Harrison and Tyler, while Horace Binney represented the City of Philadelphia.

The case essentially centered on two key issues: first, could the Corporation of the City of Philadelphia take real property and act as trust in the same manner as a private individual?  The second issue dealt with whether or not Girard's will violated the laws of Pennsylvania, particularly as it related to the issue of ministers being banned from the college.  In other words, did Girard's will create an institution (the orphanage) that was specifically hostile to the Christian faith?

Daniel Webster focused most of his energies on this second issue.  In his mind, Girard's will did violate Pennsylvania law and common law because it suggested that sectarian differences within Christianity meant the entire Christian institution was a waste.  Webster stated:

[T]his objection to the multitude and differences of sects is but the old story—the old infidel argument. It is notorious that there are certain great religious truths which are admitted and believed by all Christians. All believe in the existence of a God. All believe in the immortality of the soul. All believe in the responsibility, in another world, for our conduct in this. All believe in the divine authority of the New Testament...And cannot all these great truths be taught to children without their minds being perplexed with clashing doctrines and sectarian controversies?  Most certainly they can.

Webster's defense of Christianity favored Protestant, Catholic and everyone in between, and his defense of all ministers took on an almost patriotic feel:

Sir, I take it upon myself to say, that in no country in the world, upon either continent, can there be found a body of ministers of the gospel who perform so much service to man, in such a full spirit of self-denial, under so little encouragement from government of any kind, and under circumstances, always much straitened and often distressed, as the ministers of the gospel in the United States, of all denominations!

Webster then took his attack to Girard himself:

No fault can be found with Girard for wishing a marble college to bear his name, but it is not valuable unless it has a fragrance of Christianity about it. The reasons which the testator gives are objectionable and derogatory to Christianity; they assume that a difference of opinion upon some religious tenets is of more importance than a Christian education. 

Binney's rebuttal was to predictably point out that the differences between denominations were there for a reason.  It would be utter foolishness to assume that representatives of these different sects would not favor their own beliefs:

If any clergyman was to be admitted, he would of course teach the doctrines of his own church. No two sects would agree. Some would adopt one part of the Bible, some another. If they agreed as to what was to be left out as apocryphal, they would differ about the translation of the rest. The Protestant would not receive the Douay Bible. See the difficulties that exist in New York about the introduction of the Bible as a school-book.

In the end, the court ruled in favor of Girard (or better put, the City of Philadelphia).  The Supreme Court stated that a corporation could in fact receive real property willed to its trust and effectively execute the terms of a will as easily as a private individual.  On the issue of Girard's will violating Pennsylvania and common law, Justice Joseph Story, writing for the court, stated:

It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania. But this proposition is to be received with its appropriate qualifications, and in connection with the bill of rights of that state, as found in its constitution of government. The constitution of 1790, (and the like provision will, in substance, be found in the constitution of 1776, and in the existing constitution of 1838,) expressly declares, "That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship." Language more comprehensive for the complete protection of every variety of religious opinion could scarcely be used; and it must have been intended to extend equally to all sects, whether they believed in Christianity or not, and whether they were Jews or infidels. 

[...]

Is an omission to provide for instruction in Christianity in any scheme of school or college education a fatal defect, which avoids it according to the law of Pennsylvania? If the instruction provided for is incomplete and imperfect, is it equally fatal? These questions are propounded, because we are not aware that any thing exists in the constitution or laws of Pennsylvania, or the judicial decisions of its tribunals, which would justify us in pronouncing that such defects would be so fatal. Let us take the case of a charitable donation to teach poor orphans reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, and navigation, and excluding all other studies and instruction; would the donation be void, as a charity in Pennsylvania, as being deemed derogatory to Christianity?...It has hitherto been thought sufficient, if he does not require any thing to be taught inconsistent with Christianity.

Looking to the objection therefore in a mere juridical view, which is the only one in which we are at liberty to consider it, we are satisfied that there is nothing in the devise establishing the college, or in the regulations and restrictions contained therein, which are inconsistent with the Christian religion, or are opposed to any known policy of the state of Pennsylvania. (my emphasis).

In short, the court ruled that though Girard's will specifically forbade ministers of all denominations from teaching or even visiting the orphanage/college, it did not attack or persecute the Christian religion.  In other words, the court recognized that the wall of separation between church and state was not some absolute, impenetrable barrier but instead the semi-permeable membrane I mentioned above.  The court was quick to point out that Christianity was not only a part of American heritage but was also a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.  At the same time, the court was just as quick to defend Girard's will on the grounds that no Christian discrimination had been made by his ban on Christian ministers.  The Church/State cell membrane allowed the stream of Christian belief to seep into the American cell but prevented favoring specific sectarian parasites, thus protecting the delicate American cell from becoming cancerous.   

It should come as no surprise to those familiar with the arguments of both the Christian Nation apologists and their secularist opponents why this case would resonate with their respective opinions. Christian Nation advocates like David Barton and Robert Jeffress are quick to site the words of Justice Story, who in his ruling called America a "Christian country" and proclaimed Christianity to be a part of common law.  On the flip side, skeptics love to remind everyone that the court ultimately ruled in favor of Girard, upholding the orphanage's planned ban on Christian ministers.  But in their quest to out-quote the opposition both sides reveal the fundamental flaws of their respective positions.

The truth of the matter is Supreme Court decisions don't happen in a vacuum.  There are many influences that determine the outcome of a case.  Even though the court ultimately upheld Girard, they did not establish a precedent that outlawed religion entirely.  Instead the court discriminated on what it allowed to cross the semi-permeable church/state cell membrane.  As one historian put it, "Vidal was the Supreme Court's very first case dealing with the role of religion in the public schools, and it laid the foundation for an accommodationist view of the religion clauses." 

Simply put, Vidal v. Girard illustrates just how complex the issue of religion and government, church and state can become. For me personally, it underscores the importance that both religion and government have in our fine American republic.  The semi-permeable church/state barrier is one that we need to protect, for it is very delicate.  Allowing ourselves to stray too far into the "Christian Nation" or secularist camps could yield terrible consequences and destroy this beautiful barrier that has protected both religion and government for almost three centuries.