Queen Elizabeth II's Jubilee and the Relevance of the British Monarchy in the 21st Century
This past week has seen the British world gathered together in celebration to mark the 60th anniversary of Queen Elizabeth II's reign. Second only to Queen Victoria's reign of 63 years, 7 months (June, 1837-January, 1901), no British monarch has reigned as long as Elizabeth.
Her reign has been an eventful one to say the least. Her ascension to the throne in the aftermath of the Second World War was not only a dramatic transition for the new queen but for the British nation as well. Having already experienced the downfall of its once dominant world presence, Great Britain found itself playing a different role in the 20th century. As the United States and the Soviet Union jockeyed with one another for ultimate power, Great Britain adapted from being an empire to a commonwealth, and Elizabeth was the key to making it a smooth transition. And though she has only been a nominal head of state for most of the nations of the commonwealth, Elizabeth has become an icon of stability, grace and royalty in a modern world than now largely laughs at the idea of a monarchy.
In addition, Elizabeth has seen the role of the Monarchy change in a number of dramatic ways in order to meet the needs and expectations of the people. Instead of remaining as a stoic, uber-formal institution, the Monarchy has been forced into modernity. There is probably no better example of this fact than the life and death of Princess Diana and her surviving sons William and Harry. The days of formal, traditional reverence for the Monarchy have been replaced with "The People's Princess" and the Royal Family being on Facebook
And though it is obvious that the British monarchy is only a shell of its once great self, Elizabeth has given the throne new purpose. She reigns without ruling. She inspires without commanding. She motivates without demanding. In short, Elizabeth has helped to change the British crown from an institution of political power and divine entitlement to that of cultural custodian and solemn duty. She is head of state instead of head of the government.
But the nobility remains every bit as strong.
For Americans, the continued existence of the British monarchy probably seems strange, even wasteful. After all, why continue to maintain a nominal figurehead who has little actual power in a palace with servants? But such an opinion is more revealing of American ignorance and arrogant presumption than actual reality. Almost all relevant British polls show that the vast majority of the British people still favor retaining a monarchy. After all, the Monarchy is a fundamental part to their history. Their culture. Their sense of what it means to be British. They could no more do without the Monarchy than we Americans could do without baseball, Lady Liberty or Arlington National Cemetery. The British Monarchy is the very embodiment of their nation. It is an institution that prides itself on showing the world the glory of Great Britain. We Americans have a hard time understanding this concept because we are a nation founded on a healthy disrespect of authority, whereas Britain (and many parts of Europe) have always had a healthy respect for authority. Both perspectives are neither good or bad, they simply are what they are.
And it is worth noting that while the British people are still "required" to "support" the royal family (it actually works out to be roughly $1.00 per citizen, per year), the British Crown actually generates roughly $200 million in revenue. Of course, the issue of financially supporting the Royal Family has been a regular source of debate for many citizens, but again, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of British people favor the continued support of the Crown.
And as Queen Elizabeth II celebrated her Diamond Jubilee along with millions of her jubilant and festive "subjects," let us, the cousins across the Atlantic, join in the party. She may not be our queen, but "We the People" still smell awfully British from time to time. British history is our history. It's a wonderful and noble history. So, as an American, let me be the first to say to my distant British cousins:
Over at my group blog (American Creation) Author and Unitarian Pastor Gary Kowalski (who wrote this excellent book in 2008) explains how the orbit of Venus, which crossed in front of the Sun today, has a unique link with America's founding. In his post, Kowalski writes:
Today the planet Venus makes a rare transit across the face of the sun. During the eighteenth century, the astronomical alignment took place twice, in 1761 and 1769, drawing observations from scientific teams all over the world, including North America. Astronomers at that time were able to produce the first truly accurate measurements of the distance between the Earth and the sun, vastly expanding the known universe and kindling the human imagination with an understanding of Deep Space.
The Declaration of Independence, a short time later, would receive its first public reading from atop a tower constructed in Philadelphia to view the transit. The American Philosophical Society, the scientific body Benjamin Franklin founded, which built the tower and organized the astronomical viewing under the leadership of David Rittenhouse (who constructed the telescope, quadrant, pendulum clock and other precision instruments necessary to do the siting) is located just next door to Independence Hall. The new cosmology went hand in hand with the new political paradigm, no longer based up the heavenly mandate of a hereditary king, but upon the equal access of all to the heavenly realms and their motions.
The Royal Astronomer of England, upon receiving a report of the American measurements, wrote that “the first approximately accurate results in the measurements of the spheres given to the world [was made] not by the schooled and salaried astronomers who watched from the magnificent observatories of Europe, but by unaided amateurs and devotees to science in the youthful province of Pennsylvania.”
What else might come out of these colonies, where men by their own wits and abilities could vie with the lords of the Old World? Today you can watch the transit online or with protective filters—your last opportunity to see what America’s Founders saw and wonder at an event that won’t be repeated for 105 years.
The following is a fascinating video on the transit of the planet Venus:
John E. Remsburg (1848-1919) was, in his day, a well-known historian of early American history -- particularly religious history -- and a skeptic of the belief that George Washington was an orthodox Christian. As the author of 12 books on the topic of religion and early America, Remsburg was well versed in the historical material surrounding the founders. Here are some of the things he had to say -- in 1906 mind you -- on the religious beliefs of George Washington. I believe they are sound and help to refute a lot of the Glenn Beck/David Barton/Peter Lillback nonsense that has been all over. Remsburg provides ample proof to refute any "Washington was a devout, hard-core Christian believer" argument out there. Now, with that said, I still maintain my belief that Washington was also NOT a deist as many secularists claim. The truth is that he lies somewhere in the middle.
So, without further delay, here is Remsburg's detailed research:
Was Washington a church member? Was he in any sense a Christian? In early life he held a formal adherence to the church of England, serving, for a time, as a vestryman in the parish in which he resided. But this being merely a temporal office did not necessitate his being a communicant, nor even a believer in Christianity. In his maturer age he was connected with no church. Washington, the young Virginia planter, might, perhaps, with some degree of truthfulness, have been called a Christian; Washington, the Soldier, statesman and sage, was not a Christian, but a Deist.
This great man, like most men in public life, was reticent respecting his religious views. This rendered a general knowledge of his real belief impossible, and made it easy for zealous Christians to impose upon the public mind and claim him for their faith. Whatever evidence of his unbelief existed was, as far as possible, suppressed. Enough remains, however, to prompt me to attempt the task of proving the truth of the following propositions:
That Washington was not a Christian communicant. That he was not a believer in the Christian religion.
Was Washington A Communicant? Washington was not a communicant. This fact can be easily demonstrated. A century ago it was the custom of all classes, irrespective of their religious beliefs, to attend church. Washington, adhering to the custom, attended. But when the administration of the sacrament took place, instead of remaining and partaking of the Lord's Supper as a communicant would have done, he invariably arose and retired from the church. The closing years of his life, save the last two, were passed in Philadelphia, he being then President of the United States. In addition to his eight years' incumbency of the presidency, he was, during the eight years of the Revolutionary war, and also during the six years that elapsed between the Revolution and the establishment of the Federal government, not only a frequent visitor in Philadelphia, but during a considerable portion of the time a resident of that city. While there he attended the Episcopal churches of which the Rev. William White and the Rev. James Abercromble were rectors. In regard to his being a communicant, no evidence can be so pertinent or so decisive as that of his pastors.
Bishop White, the father of the Protestant Episcopal church of America, is one of the most eminent names in church history. During a large portion of the period covering nearly a quarter of a century, Washington, with his wife, attended the churches in which Bishop White officiated. In a letter dated Fredericksburg, Aug. 13, 1835, Colonel Mercer sent Bishop White the following inquiry relative to this question:
"I have a desire, my dear Sir, to know whether Gen. Washington was a communicant of the Protestant Episcopal church, or whether he occasionally went to the communion only, or if ever he did so at all. ... No authority can be so authentic and complete as yours on this point."
To this inquiry Bishop White replied as follows:
"Philadelphia, Aug. 15, 1835.
"Dear Sir: In regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say that Gen. Washington never received the communion in the churches of which I am the parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant.
... I have been written to by many on that point, and have been obliged to answer them as I now do you. I am respectfully.
"Your humble servant,
"WILLIAM WHITE." (Memoir of Bishop White, pp. 196, 197).
[...]
The Rev. E.D. Neill, in the Episcopal Recorder, the organ of the church of which it is claimed Washington was a communicant, says:
"As I read, a few days ago, of the death of the Rev. Richard M. Abercrombie, rector of St. Matthew's Protestant Episcopal church in Jersey City, memories of my boyhood arose. He was born not far from my father's house in Philadelphia and was the son of the Rev. James Abercrombie, a fine scholar and preacher, who had in early life corresponded with the great lexicographer, Dr. Samuel Johnson, and in later years was the assistant minister of Christ's and St. Peter's churches, in Philadelphia, where my maternal ancestors had worshiped for more than one generation. One day, after the father had reached four score years, the lately deceased son took me into the study of the aged man, and showed me a letter which President George Washington had written to his father, thanking him for the loan of one of his manuscript sermons. Washington and his wife were regular attendants upon his ministry while residing in Philadelphia. The President was not a communicant, notwithstanding all the pretty stories to the contrary, and after the close of the sermon on sacramental Sundays, had fallen into the habit of retiring from the church while his wife remained and communed."
Referring to Dr. Abercrombie's reproof of Washington, Mr. Neill says:
"Upon one occasion Dr. Abercromble alluded to the unhappy tendency of the example of those dignified by age and position turning their backs upon the celebration of the Lord's Supper. The discourse arrested the attention of Washington, and after that he never came to church with his wife on Communion Sunday."
The Rev. Dr. Wilson, in his famous sermon on the Religion of the Presidents, also alludes to this subject. He says:
"When the Congress sat in Philadelphia, President Washington attended the Episcopal church. The rector, Dr. Abercrombie, 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 walk out of church. This became a subject of remark in 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 he should 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.'
The Rev. Bird Wilson, D.D., author of the "Memoir of Bishop White," says:
"Though the General attended the churches in which Dr. White officiated, whenever he was in Philadelphia during the Revolutionary war, and afterwards while President of the United States, he never was a communicant in them" (Memoir of Bishop White, p. 188).
The Rev. Beverly Tucker, D.D., of the Episcopal church, has attempted to prove that Washington was a churchman. But while professing to believe that he was a communicant before the Revolution he is compelled to admit that there is a doubt about his communing after the Revolution. He says:
"The doubt has been raised partly on the strength of a letter written by Bishop White in 1832. He says that Washington attended St. Peter's church one winter, during the session of the Continental Congress, and that during his Presidency he had a pew in Christ church, 'which was habitually occupied by himself, by Mrs. Washington, who was regularly a communicant, and by his secretaries. This language is taken to mean, and probably correctly, that Washington did not commune."
Dr. Tucker is evidently not acquainted with Bishop White's letter to Col. Mercer in 1835. There is no question as to the meaning of that letter. Continuing, Dr. Tucker says:
"The doubt rests again on the recollection of Mrs. Fielding Lewis, Nelly Custis, Gen. Washington's step- granddaughter, written in 1833, who states that after the Mount Vernon family removed from Pohick church to Christ church, Alexandria, the General was accustomed, on Communion Sundays, to leave the church with her, sending the carriage back for Mrs. Washington."
Washington's biographer, the Rev. Jared Sparks, who seems to have entertained the popular notion that Washington was in early life a communicant, admits that at a latter period he ceased to commune. He says:
"The circumstance of his withdrawing himself from the communion service at a certain period of his life has been remarked as singular. This may be admitted and regretted, both on account of his example and the value of his opinions as to the importance and practical tendency of this rite" (Life of Washington, Vol. ii, p. 361).
OrigenBacherer, in his debate with Robert Dale Owen in 1831, made an effort to prove that Washington was a Christian communicant. He appealed for help to the Rev. Wm. Jackson, rector of the Episcopal church of Alexandria, the church which Washington had attended. Mr. Jackson was only too willing to aid him. He instituted an exhaustive investigation for the purpose of discovering if possible some evidence of Washington having been a communicant. Letters of inquiry were addressed to his relatives and friends. But his efforts were unsuccessful. While he professed to believe that Washington was a Christian, he was compelled to say:
"I find no one who ever communed with him" (Bacheler-Owen Debate, Vol. ii, p. 262).
This, as might be supposed, did not satisfy Mr. Bacherer, and he entreated the rector to make another attempt. The second attempt was as fruitless as the first.' He writes:
"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" (Ibid., ii, p. 370.)
In the same letter Mr. Jackson says:
"Nor can I find any old person who ever communed with him."
The "People's Library of Information" contains the following:
"The question has been raised as to whether any one of our Presidents was a communicant in a Christian church. There is a tradition that Washington asked permission of a Presbyterian mister in New Jersey to unite in communion. But it is only a tradition. Washington was a vestryman in the Episcopal church. But that office required no more piety than it would to be mate of a ship. There is no account of his communing in Boston, or in New York, or Philadelphia, or elsewhere, during the Revolutionary struggle."
The tradition of Washington's wishing to unite with a Presbyterian minister in communion, like many other so-called traditions of the same character, has been industriously circulated. And yet it is scarcely possible to conceive of a more improbable story. Refusing to commune with the members of the church in which he was raised, and the church he was in the habit of attending, and going to the priest of another church -- a stranger -- and asking to commune with him! Had Washington been some intemperate vagabond, the story might have been believed. But Washington was not an inebriate, and was never so pressed for a drink as to beg a sup of sacramental wine from a Calvinistic clergyman.
Gen. A.W. Greely, U.S.A., in an article on "Washington's Domestic and Religious Life" which was published in the Ladies' Home Journal for April, 1896, says:
"But even if he was ever confirmed in its [the Episcopal] faith there is no reliable evidence that he ever took communion with it or with any other church."
Some years ago, I met at Paris, Texas, an old gentlemen, Mr. F.W. Miner, who was born and who lived for a considerable time near Mt. Vernon. He told me that when a boy he was once in company with a party of old men, neighbors in early life of Washington, who were discussing the question of his religious belief. He says that it was admitted by all of them that he was not a church member, and by the most of them that he was not a Christian.
Mr. George Wilson of Lexington, Mo., whose ancestors owned the Custis estate, and founded Alexandria, where Washington attended church, writes as follows: "My great-grandmother was Mary Alexander, daughter of 'John the younger,' who founded Alexandria. The Alexander pew in Christ church was next to Washington's, and an old lady, a kinswoman of mine, born near Alexandria and named Alexander, told me that the tradition in the Alexander family was that Washington NEVER took communion."
In regard to Washington being a vestryman, Mr. Wilson says: "At that time the vestry was the county court, and in order to have a hand in managing the affairs of the county, in which his large property lay, regulating the levy of taxes, etc., Washington had to be a vestryman."
The St. Louis Globe contained the following in regard to the church membership of Washington:
"It is a singular fact that much as has been written about Washington, particularly with regard to his superior personal virtue, there is nothing to show that he was ever a member of the church. He attended divine service, and lived an honorable and exemplary life, but as to his being a communicant, the record is surprisingly doubtful."
In an article conceding that Washington was not a communicant, the Western Christian Advocate says:
"This is evident and convincing from the Life of Bishop White, bishop of the Episcopal church in America from 1787 to 1836. Of this evidence it has been well said: 'There does not appear to be any such undoubtable evidence existing. The more scrutinously the church membership of Washington is examined, the more doubtful it appears. Bishop White seems to have had more intimate relations with Washington than any clergyman of his time. His testimony outweighs any amount of influential argumentation on the question.'
The following is a recapitulation of the salient points in the preceding testimony, given in the words of the witnesses. It is in itself an overwhelming refutation of the claim that Washington was a communicant:
"Gen. Washington never received the communion in the churches of which I am the parochial minister." -- Bishop White.
"On sacramental Sundays, Gen. Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the Congregation." -- Rev. Dr. Abercromble.
"After that, [Dr. Abercrombie's reproof,] upon communion days, he absented himself altogether from the church." -- Rev. Dr. Wilson.
"The General was accustomed, on communion Sundays, to leave the church with her [Nelly Custis], sending the carriage back for Mrs. Washington. " -- Rev. Dr. Beverly Tucker.
"He never was a communicant in them [Dr. White's churches]." -- Rev. Dr. Bird Wilson.
"I find no one who ever communed with him." -- Rev. William Jackson.
"The President was not a communicant." -- Rev. E.D. Neill.
"This [his ceasing to commune] may be admitted and regretted." -- Rev. Jared Sparks.
"There is no reliable evidence that he ever took communion." -- Gen. A.W. Greely.
"There is nothing to show that he was ever a member of the church." -- St. Louis Globe.
"I have never been a communicant." -- Washington, quoted by Dr. Abercrombie.
The claim that Washington was a Christian communicant must be abandoned; the claim that he was a believer in Christianity, I shall endeavor to showy is equally untenable. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was Washington A Christian? In the political documents, correspondence, and other writings of Washington, few references to the prevailing religion of his day are found. In no instance has he expressed a disbelief in the Christian religion, neither can there be found in all his writings a single sentence that can with propriety be construed into an acknowledgment of its claims. Once or twice he refers to it in complimentary terms, but in these compliments there is nothing inconsistent with the conduct of a conscientious Deist. Religions, like their adherents, possess both good and bad qualities, and Christianity is no exception. While there is much in it deserving the strongest condemnation, there is also much that commands the respect and even challenges the admiration of Infidels. Occupying the position that Washington did, enjoying as he did the confidence and support of Christians, it was not unnatural that he should indulge in a few friendly allusions to their religious faith. In his "Farewell Address," the last and best political paper he gave to the Christian religion is not once named. In this work he manifests the fondest solicitude for the future of his country. His sentences are crowded with words of warning and fatherly advice. But he does not seem to be impressed with the idea that the safety of the government or the happiness of the people depends upon Christianity. He recommends a cultivation of the religious sentiment, but evinces no partiality for the popular faith.
In the absence of any recorded statements from Washington himself concerning his religious belief, the most conclusive evidence that can be presented is the admissions of his clerical acquaintances. Among these there has been preserved the testimony of his pastors, Bishop White and Dr. Abercromble.
In a letter to Rev. B.C.C. Parker of Massachusetts, dated Nov. 28, 1832, in answer to some inquiries respecting Washington's religion, Bishop White says:
"His behavior [in church] was always serious and attentive, but as your letter seems to intend an inquiry on the point of kneeling during the service, I owe it to the truth to declare that I never saw him in the said attitude. ... Although I was often in company with this great man, and had the honor of dining often at his table, I never heard anything from him which could manifest his opinions on the subject of religion. ... Within a few days of his leaving the presidential chair, our vestry waited on him with an address prepared and delivered by me. In his answer he was pleased to express himself gratified by what he had heard from our pulpit; but there was nothing that committed him relatively to religious theory" ("Memoir of Bishop White," pp. 189-191; Sparks' "Life of Washington," Vol. ii., p. 359).
The Rev. Parker, to whom Bishop White's letter is addressed, was, it seems, anxious to obtain some evidence that Washington was a believer in Christianity, and, not satisfied with the bishop's answer, begged him, it would appear, to tax his mind for some fact that would tend to show that Washington was a believer. In a letter dated Dec. 21, 1832, the bishop writes as follows:
"I do not believe that any degree of recollection will bring to my mind any fact which would prove General Washington to have been a believer in the Christian revelation further than as may be hoped from his constant attendance upon Christian worship, in connection with the general reserve of his character" ("Memoir of Bishop White," p. 193).
Bishop White's testimony does not afford positive proof of Washington's unbelief, but it certainly furnishes strong presumptive evidence of its truth. It is hardly possible to suppose that he could have been a believer and have let his most intimate Christian associates remain in total ignorance of the fact. Bishop White indulges a faint hope that he may have been, but this hope is simply based on his "constant attendance" at church, and when we consider how large a proportion of those who attend church are unbelievers, that many of our most radical Freethinkers are regular church-goers, there are very small grounds, I think, upon which to indulge even a hope. But even this "constant attendance" on the part of Washington cannot be accepted without some qualification; for, while it is true that he often attended church, he was by no means a constant attendant. Not only did he uniformly absent himself on communion days, but the entries in his diary show that he remained away for several Sundays in succession, spending his time at home reading and writing, riding out into the country, or in visiting his friends.
But if Bishop White cherished a faint hope that Washington had some faith in the religion of Christ, Dr. Abercrombie did not. Long after Washington's death, in reply to Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him as to his illustrious auditor's religious views, Dr. Abercrombie's brief but emphatic answer was:
"Sir, Washington was a Deist."
Washington rarely attended, as we have seen, any church but the Episcopal, hence, if any denomination of Christians could claim him as an adherent, it was this one. Yet here we have two of its most distinguished representatives, pastors of the churches which he attended, the one not knowing what his belief was, the other disclaiming him and asserting that he was a Deist.
The Rev. Dr. Wilson, who was almost a contemporary of our earlier statesmen and presidents, and who thoroughly investigated the subject of their religious beliefs, in his sermon already mentioned affirmed that the founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected -- George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson -- not one had professed a belief in Christianity. From this sermon I quote the following:
"When the war was over and the victory over our enemies won, and the blessings and happiness of liberty and peace were secured, the Constitution was framed and God was neglected. He was not merely forgotten. He was absolutely voted out of the Constitution. The proceedings, as published by Thompson, the secretary, and the history of the day, show that the question was gravely debated whether God should be in the Constitution or not, and, after a solemn debate he was deliberately voted out of it. ... There is not only in the theory of our government no recognition of God's laws and sovereignty, but its practical operation, its administration, has been conformable to its theory. Those who have been called to administer the government have not been men making any public profession of Christianity. ... Washington was a man of valor and wisdom. He was esteemed by the whole world as a great and good man; but he was not a professing Christian."
Dr. Wilson's sermon was published in the Albany Daily Advertiser in 1831, and attracted the attention of Robert Dale Owen, then a young man, who called to see its author in regard to his statement concerning Washington's belief. The result of his visit is given in a letter to Amos Gilbert. The letter is dated Albany, November 13, 1831., and was published in New York a fortnight later. He says:
"I called last evening on Dr. Wilson, as I told you I should, and I have seldom derived more pleasure from a short interview with anyone. Unless my discernment of character has been rievously at fault, I met an honest man and sincere Christian. But you shall have the particulars. A gentleman of this city accompanied me to the Doctor's residence. We were very courteously received. I found him a tall, commanding figure, with a countenance of much benevolence, and a brow indicative of deep thought, apparently approaching fifty years of age. I opened the interview by stating that though personally a stranger to him, I had taken the liberty of calling in consequence of having perused an interesting sermon of his, which had been reported in the Daily Advertiser of this city, and regarding which, as he probably knew, a variety of opinions prevailed. In a discussion, in which I had taken a part, some of the facts as there reported had been questioned; and I wished to know from him whether the reporter had fairly given his words or not. ... I then read to him from a copy of the Daily Advertiser the paragraph which regards Washington, beginning, 'Washington was a man,' etc., and ending, 'absented himself altogether from the church.' 'I indorse,' said Dr. Wilson, with emphasis, 'every word of that. Nay, I do not wish to conceal from you any part of the truth, even what I have not given to the public. Dr. Abercrombie said more than I have repeated. At the close of our conversation on the subject his emphatic expression was -- for I well remember the very words -- 'Sir, Washington was a Deist.'"
In concluding the interview, Dr. Wilson said: "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 believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more.),
In February, 1800, a few weeks after. Washington's death, Jefferson made the following entry in his journal:
"Dr. Rush told me (he had it from Asa Green) that when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice" (Jefferson's Works, Vol. iv., p. 572).
Jefferson further says: "I know that Gouverneur Morris, who claimed to be in his secrets, and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more in that system [Christianity] than he did" (Ibid).
Gouverneur Morris was the principal drafter of the Constitution of the United States; he was a member of the Continental Congress, a United States senator from New York, and minister to France. He accepted, to a considerable extent, the skeptical views of French Freethinkers.
The "Asa" Green mentioned by Jefferson was undoubtedly the Rev. Ashbel Green, chaplain to Congress during Washington's administration. In an article on Washington's religion, contributed to the Chicago Tribune, B.F. Underwood says:
"If there were an Asa Green in Washington's time he was a man of no prominence, and it is probable the person referred to by Jefferson was the Rev. Dr. Ashbel Green, who served as chaplain to the Congress during the eight years that body sat in Philadelphia, was afterwards president of Princeton College, and the only clerical member of Congress that signed the Declaration of Independence. His name shines illustriously in the annals of the Presbyterian church in the United States."
Some years ago I received a letter from Hon. A.B. Bradford of Pennsylvania, relative to Washington's belief. Mr. Bradford was for a long time a prominent clergyman in the Presbyterian church, and was appointed a consul to China by President Lincoln. His statements help to corroborate the statements of Dr. Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, and Mr. Underwood. He says:
"I knew Dr. Wilson personally, and have entertained him at my house, on which occasion he said in my hearing what my relative, the Rev. Dr. Ashbel Green of Philadelphia, frequently told me in his study, viz., that during the time that Congress sat in that city the clergy, suspecting from good evidence that Washington was not a believer in the Bible as a revelation from heaven, laid a plan to extort from him a confession, either pro or con, but that the plan failed. Dr. Green was chaplain to Congress during all the time of its sitting in Philadelphia; dined with the President on special invitation nearly every week; was well acquainted with him, and after he had been dead and gone many years, often said in my hearing, though very sorrowfully, of course, that while Washington was very deferential to religion and its ceremonies, like nearly all the founders of the Republic, he was not a Christian, but a Deist."
Mr. Underwood's article contained the following from the pen of Mr. Bradford:
"It was during his [Dr. Green's] long residence in Philadelphia that I became intimately acquainted with him as a relative, student of theology at Princeton, and a member of the same Presbytery to which he belonged. Many an hour during my student and clergyman days did I spend with him in his study at No. 150 Pine street, Philadelphia, listening to his interesting and instructive conversation on Revolutionary times and incidents. I recollect well that during one of these interviews in his study I inquired of him what were the real opinions Washington entertained on the subject of religion. He promptly answered pretty nearly in the language which Jefferson says Dr. Rush used. He explained more at length the plan laid by the clergy of Philadelphia at the close of Washington's administration as President to get his views of religion for the sake of the good influence they supposed they would have in counteracting the Infidelity of Paine and the rest of the Revolutionary patriots, military and civil. But I well remember the smile on his face and the twinkle of his black eye when he said: 'The old fox was too cunning for Us.' He affirmed, in concluding his narrative, that from his long and intimate acquaintance with Washington he knew it to be the case that while he respectfully conformed to the religious customs of society by generally going to church on Sundays, he had no belief at all in the divine origin of the Bible, or the Jewish-Christian religion."
The testimony of General Greely, whose thorough investigation of Washington's religious belief makes him an authority on the subject, is among the most important yet adduced. From his article on "Washington's Domestic and Religions Life" I quote the following paragraphs:
"The effort to depict Washington as very devout from his childhood, as a strict Sabbatarian, and as in intimate spiritual communication with the church is practically contradicted by his own letters."
"In his letters, even those of consolation, there appears almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind. A particularly careful study of the man's letters convinces me that while the spirit of Christianity, as exemplified in love of God and love of man [Theophilauthropy or Deism], was the controlling factor of his nature, yet he never formulated his religious faith."
"It is, however, somewhat striking that in several thousand letters the name of Jesus Christ never appears, and it is notably absent from his last will."
"His services as a vestryman had no special significance from a religious standpoint. The political affairs of a Virginia county were then directed by the vestry, which, having the power to elect its own members, was an important instrument of the oligarchy of Virginia."
"He was not regular in attendance at church save possibly at home. While present at the First Provencal Congress in Philadelphia he went once to the Roman Catholic and once to the Episcopal church. He spent four mouths in the Constitutional Convention, going six times to church, once each to the Romish high mass, to the Friends', to the Presbyterian, and thrice to the Episcopal service."
"From his childhood he traveled on Sunday whenever occasion required. He considered it proper for his negroes to fish, and on that day made at least one contract. During his official busy life Sunday was largely given to his home correspondence, being, as he says, the most convenient day in which to spare time from his public burdens to look after his impaired fortune and estates."
Dr. Moncure D. Conway, who made a study of Washington's life and character, who had access to his private papers, and who was employed to edit a volume of his letters, has written a monograph on "The Religion of Washington," from which I take the following:
"In editing a volume of Washington's private letters for the Long Island Historical Society, I have been much impressed by indications that this great historic personality represented the Liberal religious tendency of his tune. That tendency was to respect religious organizations as part of the social order, which required some minister to visit the sick, bury the dead, and perform marriages. It was considered in nowise inconsistent with disbelief of the clergyman's doctrines to contribute to his support, or even to be a vestryman in his church."
"In his many letters to his adopted nephew and young relatives, he admonishes them about their manners and morals, but in no case have I been able to discover any suggestion that they should read the Bible, keep the Sabbath, go to church, or any warning against Infidelity."
"Washington had in his library the writings of Paine, Priestley, Voltaire, Frederick the Great, and other heretical works."
Conway says that "Washington was glad to have Volney as his guest at Mount Vernon," and cited a letter of introduction which Washington gave him to the citizens of the United States during his travels in this country.
In a contribution to the New York Times Dr. Conway says:
"Augustine Washington, like most scholarly Virginians of his time, was a Deist. ... Contemporary evidence shows that in mature life Washington was a Deist, and did not commune, which is quite consistent with his being a vestryman. In England, where vestries have secular functions, it is not unusual for Unitarians to be vestrymen, there being no doctrinal subscription required for that office. Washington's letters during the Revolution occasionally indicate his recognition of the hand of Providence in notable public events, but in the thousands of his letters I have never been able to find the name of Christ or any reference to him."
There is no evidence to show that Washington, even in early life, was a believer in Christianity. The contrary is rather to be presumed. His father, as Dr. Conway states, was a Deist; while his mother was not excessively religious, His brother, Lawrence Washington, was, it is claimed, the first advocate of religious liberty in Virginia, and evidently an unbeliever, so that instead of being surrounded at home by the stifling atmosphere of superstition, he was permitted to breathe the pure air of religious freedom.
It is certain that at no time during his life did he take any special interest in church affairs. Gen. Greely says that "He was not regular in church attendance save possibly at home." At home he was the least regular in his attendance. His diary shows that he attended about twelve times a year. During the week he Superintended the affairs of his farm; on Sunday he usually attended to his correspondence. Sunday visitors at his house were numerous. If he ever objected to them it was not because they kept him from his devotions, but because they kept him from his work. In his diary he writes:
"It hath so happened, that on the last Sundays -- call them the first or seventh [days] as you please, I have been unable to perform the latter duty on account of visits from strangers, with whom I could not use the freedom to leave alone, or recommend to the care of each other, for their amusement."
When he visited his distant tenants to collect his rent, their piety, and not his, prevented him from doing the business on Sunday, as the following entry in his diary shows:
"Being Sunday, and the people living on my land very religious, it was thought best to postpone going among them till to-morrow."
His diary also shows that he "closed land purchases, sold wheat, and, while a Virginia planter, went fox hunting on Sunday."
He did not, like most pious churchmen, believe that Christian servants are better than others. When on one occasion he needed servants, he wrote:
"If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa, or Europe; they may be Mahomedans, Jews, or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists."
These extracts contain no explicit declarations of disbelief in Christianity, but between the lines we can easily read, "I am not a Christian."
The United States is a wonderful nation. The United States may be the greatest nation in the history of history. It is good to love and revere the United States. But the United States is not a perfect nation...far from it. In fact, our history is full of ugly skeletons that we would rather ignore or sweep under the rug. The War of 1812 happens to be one of those skeletons.
As unpopular as it may be to say, the United States both caused and lost the War of 1812. It was a horrible war. A stupid war. A war of idiocy and greed, and we were to blame.
And it isn't just historians of the modern era who feel this way. Reality is that the War of 1812 was an incredibly unpopular war in the eyes of those who witnessed it. In the official congressional declaration of war, the House voted in favor 79-59, while the Senate was 19-13. This was the closest vote for a declaration of war in American history. Of the 50,000 slots authorized for the U.S. Army, only 10,000 volunteers came forth. In many states (particularly in the New England area) people flew the flag at half-mast, closed up shops, and protested in the mob-like fashion that was typical of the early 19th century. Even Massachusetts Governor Caleb Strong attempted to conduct secret negotiations with England, and suggested that the northern states should secede from the Union.
So if the War of 1812 was so unpopular, why did we fight it in the first place? The answer is simple: Greed.
At the beginning of the 19th century, the United States was a nation that was beginning to flirt with what would eventually become the doctrine of Manifest Destiny. The lands to the west seemed like an endless source of wealth, resources and prosperity just waiting to be plucked. In addition, the lands to the north (Canada) and Florida (which was controlled primarily by Native Americans) were equally as enticing. For many Americans there was a real sense of entitlement to these lands. In Congress, influential leaders like Henry Clay (who was Speaker of the House) and John C. Calhoun led a crusade to claim these neighboring lands at whatever the cost. Having been given the nickname "War Hawks," these congressional leaders ignited a fever for war among the Democratic-Republicans by invoking the "savagery" of the Indians and their rightful claim to neighboring lands. As historian Walter Borneman states in his book 1812: The War That Forged a Nation:
These twin issues of Indian unrest and a lust for additional territory beyond the Great Lakes heated the pot of war sentiment on the western frontier. Thoughts of quelling Indian influence for good and ousting Great Britain from Canada became the rallying cry for Henry Clay and his close-knit circle of political compatriots who came to be called "war hawks."
[...]
Nationalistic in policy, prompt with a dueling pistol when polite discussion failed, the war hawks were the young Turks of the era: too young to remember the devastation of the last war and certain of their invincibility in the next. (Pp. 28-29).
The arrogance of the "war hawks" is one of the most underrated aspects of the War of 1812. Case in point, Secretary of War William Eustis stated publicly that America would "take Canada without soldiers. We only have to send officers into the province and the people will rally round our standard." John C. Calhoun echoed those sentiments when he said that America would win "in four weeks from the time that a declaration of was is heard on our frontier, and the whole of Canada will be on our possession." Henry Clay arrogantly boasted that "I trust I shall not be deemed presumptuous when I state that I verily believe that the militia of Kentucky are alone competent to place Montreal and Upper Canada at your feet."
Another justification that is regularly cited as a cause for the War of 1812 was the alleged impressment practices of the British Navy. During the 18th and 19th centuries, it was not uncommon for nations to impress (force) other sailors they encountered to join their fleet. For many Americans, the thought of U.S. naval merchants being obligated to join the British navy via impressment was unacceptable. But just how prevalent was this practice? According to Smithsonian historians Tony Horwitz and Brian Wolly, these allegations were greatly sensationalized:
One of the strongest impetuses for declaring war against Great Britain was the impressment of American seamen into the Royal Navy...President James Madison's State Department reported that 6,257 Americans were pressed into service from 1807 through 1812. But how big a threat was impressment, really?
"The number of cases which are alleged to have occurred, is both extremely erroneous and exaggerated," wrote Massachusetts Sen. James Lloyd, a Federalist and political rival of Madison's. Lloyd argued that the president's allies used impressment as "a theme of party clamor, and party odium," and that those citing as a casus belli were "those who have the least knowledge and the smallest interest in the subject."
Other New England leaders, especially those whit ties to the shipping industry, also doubted the severity of the problem. Timothy Pickering, the Bay State's other senator, commissioned a study that counted the total number of impressed seamen from Massachusetts and slightly more than 100 and the total number of Americans as just a few hundred.
Needless to say, the notion that impressment was a legitimate cause for war was more the stuff of sensationalized rhetoric than actual fact.
Regardless of the unpopularity and the ridiculous rhetoric, President James Madison and the "War Congress" took the nation into a war that had no legitimate justification. It was a decision that would come to haunt the United States for a generation. American forces learned almost from the start that the war wasn't going to be a walk in the park. Attempts to invade Canada failed in spectacular fashion. General William Hull, who commanded the primary American invasion of Canada, surrendered his entire army to the British at Detroit without firing a single shot. Hunger, cold, and the superior forces and tactics of the British had backed General Hull into an impossible corner. In addition, Canadian (British) citizens proved to not be as willing to join the American cause as had been thought by the War Hawks. Canadians opposed American forces at virtually every opportunity.
The massive failure to capture Canada was only part of the story of how the U.S. lost the War of 1812. Throughout the course of the war, British forces systematically dismantled American forces throughout the countryside, leaving towns and communities completely destroyed in their wake. In 1813, Buffalo and large portions of New York were burned to the ground, while the budding communities of Detroit and Chicago were captured. In 1814, almost all of Maine was captured by the British, who forced the citizenry to swear an oath of allegiance to King George. Later that same year, the British conquered Maryland and burned the Capitol city to the ground. In fact, President James Madison barely made it out of town before the city fell. In short, the superior forces of the British had virtually strangled the United States to death.
So why did the British stop? The answer is simple: Napoleon. Though the British had virtually dominated the war of 1812, they had bigger fish to fry in Europe. As a result, a petition of peace was issued by the British. With the threat of an invasion to Boston, Richmond and New Orleans, President Madison and the now subdued War Hawks accepted the invitation to cut their losses and conclude their stupid conflict. The only saving grace of the Treaty of Ghent was that it restored relations between the two nations to Status Quo Ante Bellum (the state in which things were before the war). All of the lost lands and cities were restored to the United States and British forces, who were desperately needed in Europe, left without resistance. In essence, this treaty allowed the United States to call the war a draw, when in reality the war was anything but. Sure, the United States had a few small victories to call their own but they were largely insignificant. Oliver Hazard Perry's naval victories had little impact on the overall outcome of the war, just as Andrew Jackson's attack on New Orleans (which came after the treaty of Ghent) was more of a moral victory than anything substantial. Even the defense of Fort McHenry (where the Star-Spangled Banner was born) was more a survival of a bombardment than an actual victory. The "rockets red glare" and "bombs bursting in air" reveal that the British onslaught was severe, but fortunately "the flag was still there" at the end of the conflict. Whew!
And though it is clear that the United States lost the War of 1812, we can take solace in the fact that much good came from the conflict. This "second war of independence" helped to unite a nation that was still in its infancy. It gave birth to patriotic symbols like our National Anthem (which didn't become our anthem until 1931), Uncle Sam and Andrew Jackson. With all of that said, the War of 1812 was an American disaster. It was a war of greed. A war of pride. A war of stupidity. We were lucky that things didn't turn out worse than they did. I've often wondered why the War of 1812 wasn't given a better name. Could it be due to the fact that we cannot put a positive spin on its outcome? On its origins? What else would we call it? The War of American Idiocy? The "Bit Off More Than We Could Chew War?" It's time that Americans face the facts: the War of 1812 was largely a waste.
On this day, Americans from all over the nation pay homage to our brave men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom (and no, that isn't just some cliche thing that we say but is the literal truth). This is a solemn day of reflection, reverence and remembrance that should inspire every citizen of this nation to be a better and more grateful person.
Most Americans are probably unfamiliar with the history of Memorial Day, a history that dates back quite a ways in our nation's book of remembrance. Officially, Memorial Day (which was actually called Decoration Day) began in May of 1868, almost immediately following the American Civil War. General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, declared May 30th of that year to be a day set aside for the "decoration of graves with flowers for Union and Confederate forces at Arlington National Cemetery...and all other cemeteries of the nation." This first "Decoration Day" was to remember the high price that the nation had paid in the cause of freedom.
And make no mistake, this first generation of Americans that celebrated "Decoration Day" knew very well the high price of war. The American Civil war, unlike any American war before or since, gave our nation a front row seat to the carnage of war. With more than 750,000 dead (more than all other American wars combined) Americans everywhere had cause to mourn. This massive loss of life was an obvious reality for every American in every corner of the still infant nation. Celebrating a memorial/decoration day only made good sense.
But the story of General Logan and the first "official" Memorial Day celebration of 1868 was not the precedent-setter for this national holiday that so many have come to accept. The very first Memorial Day is actually a beautiful (an forgotten) story that deserves recognition. The story takes place in the city of Charleston, South Carolina, where by the end of the Civil War the town lay in virtual ruins. The city had been abandoned by White citizens and Confederate troops and was on the verge of surrendering to the Union. Finally on April 29th, Union forces, including the 21st U.S. Colored Infantry, took the city and accepted the official surrender of Charleston.
Just a couple of days after the official surrender of the city (on May 1 to be exact), thousands of Black Charlestonians, most former slaves, held a series of memorials to those who had paid the ultimate price for their new found freedom. Scores of Black citizens made their way to Charleston's horse race track, the Washington Race Course and Jockey Club, which had been converted into a prison for Union soldiers. The conditions in the prison had been horrific, and at least 260 men perished due to disease. Most of the dead had been hastily buried in mass graves just months prior. On this day, this group of Black citizens worked tirelessly to see that all of these deceased Union soldiers received the proper burial they deserved. The grounds of the race track were also repaired, cleansed and given a sense of reverence all to honor a small group of fallen heroes.
This simple act of kindness, in memory of a group of "enemy" soldiers, spawned a massive movement that captured the entire city of Charleston. As Yale historian David W. Blight points out:
Black Charlestonians in cooperation with white missionaries and teachers, staged an unforgettable parade of 10,000 people on the slaveholders' race course. The symbolic power of the low-country planter aristocracy's horse track (where they had displayed their wealth, leisure, and influence) was not lost on the freedpeople. A New York Tribune correspondent witnessed the event, describing "a procession of friends and mourners as South Carolina and the United States never saw before."
At 9 am on May 1, the procession stepped off led by three thousand black schoolchildren carrying arm loads of roses and singing "John Brown's Body." The children were followed by several hundred black women with baskets of flowers, wreaths and crosses. Then came black men marching in cadence, followed by contingents of Union infantry and other black and white citizens. As many as possible gathering in the cemetery enclosure; a childrens' choir sang "We'll Rally around the Flag," the "Star-Spangled Banner," and several spirituals before several black ministers read from scripture. No record survives of which biblical passages rung out in the warm spring air, but the spirit of Leviticus 25 was surely present at those burial rites: "for it is the jubilee; it shall be holy unto you… in the year of this jubilee he shall return every man unto his own possession."
Following the solemn dedication the crowd dispersed into the infield and did what many of us do on Memorial Day: they enjoyed picnics, listened to speeches, and watched soldiers drill. Among the full brigade of Union infantry participating was the famous 54th Massachusetts and the 34th and 104th U.S. Colored Troops, who performed a special double-columned march around the gravesite. The war was over, and Decoration Day had been founded by African Americans in a ritual of remembrance and consecration. The war, they had boldly announced, had been all about the triumph of their emancipation over a slaveholders' republic, and not about state rights, defense of home, nor merely soldiers' valor and sacrifice.
According to a reminiscence written long after the fact, "several slight disturbances" occurred during the ceremonies on this first Decoration Day, as well as "much harsh talk about the event locally afterward." But a measure of how white Charlestonians suppressed from memory this founding in favor of their own creation of the practice later came fifty-one years afterward, when the president of the Ladies Memorial Association of Charleston received an inquiry about the May 1, 1865 parade. A United Daughters of the Confederacy official from New Orleans wanted to know if it was true that blacks had engaged in such a burial rite. Mrs. S. C. Beckwith responded tersely: "I regret that I was unable to gather any official information in answer to this." In the struggle over memory and meaning in any society, some stories just get lost while others attain mainstream dominance.
We are fortunate to have the history of this first Memorial Day for all to enjoy. The imagery of Black slaves, reverently and humbly providing a proper burial for Union soldiers, is a reminder of just how precious freedom really is, and the high cost that we are sometimes required to pay for it. On this Memorial Day, I am grateful to the God of Heaven for the freedoms I enjoy. God bless this great land that we live in!
“The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanation of complex facts. We are apt to fall into the error of thinking that the facts are simple because simplicity is the goal of our quest. The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be “Seek simplicity and distrust it.” – Alfred North Whitehead
Most people are familiar with the philosophical principle known as Occam's Razor, which suggests that whenever faced with competing hypotheses to a particular problem, the one with the fewest and simplest assumptions is probably best. Occam's Razor implies that there is an inherant virtue to simplicity, even from a scientific or philosophical perspective, and that by taking a minimalist stance to a given problem the truth can become more clear. Occam's Razor has become a staple for theological skeptics and nominalists who prefer a more deliberate and palpable view of the metaphysical world. In many respects, Occam's Razor has been wielded as the ultimate dagger against those who put their faith in the intangible. As actress Jodi Foster demonstrates:
The portrayal of Occam's Razor in the movie Contact is probably the best known allusion to this philosophical principle in modern culture. In fact, when most people refer to Occam's Razor they usually end up quoting the very lines that Jodi Foster used in the film: "All things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one." And though the idea behind Occam's Razor seems simple enough, the reality of Occam's Razor is that it is far from being the Holy Grail to all logical pursuits, and in many respects is an outdated relic of a time gone by. Of course, by no means am I suggesting that Occam's Razor is completely worthless. I personally find much to be desired by appealing to simplicity. However, Occam's Razor, like any blade, has two sides to it.
**********
The origins of Occam's Razor date all the way back to the early 14th century, when a brilliant man named William of Ockham began to challenge some of the standard orthodoxy of his day. William was, without question, one of the greatest and most important thinkers of the Middle Ages. Next only to perhaps Thomas Aquinas, there are few who can claim to have shaped Western philosophy and Christian epistomology more in that era than William of Ockham. His ideas gave birth to a more deliberate, logical and nominalistic interpretation of philosophy and religion, many of which continue to this day.
As a member of the Franciscan Order, William had become well-aquainted with the strict orthodoxy that persisted in much of Christianity. Pious priests and monks had faithfully maintained the status quo with little resistance to the chuch's central teachings. Most of the faithful had grown accustomed to the ritualized lifestyle of Medeival Catholicism, complete with its emphasis on faithful discipleship through humble acquiesance to heavenly guidance and passive acceptance of Vatican supremacy. And while William of Ockham had no apparent problem with church authority (he was, after all, a devout Franciscan monk), he did have one basic character flaw: he was a genius.
It didn't take long for William of Ockham to begin questioning and revising some of his personal beliefs. As a man who prided himself upon logic and reason, William took issue with some of the doctrinal aspects of his faith, particularly surrounding the Trinity and the church's growth and dependence upon wealth. As William himself stated in his now infamous Summa Logicae:
Plurality ought never be posited without necessity.
And:
It is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer.
William was never a fan of the convoluted doctrine of the Trinity. On many occasions, he argued that the Bible nor logic and reason would support such a view. In addition, it troubled William deeply when he saw the massive expanse of wealth that was being enjoyed by the chief officers of the church in his day. As a result, William embraced a minimalist view of theology in where logic and reason were seen as tools to purify one's personal faith. As a result, William of Ockham is often hailed as being the father of Medieval Nominalism. Needless to say, many of William's ideas landed him in trouble with the church, and eventually led to his excommunication. But these developments did not change the fact that William's ideas were here to stay...for the long haul.
And even though William of Ockham's contributions are praised for their reliance upon logic, reason and the pursuit of basic simplicity, it would be wrong to say that he had no room for accepting matters of faith. As William himself stated:
Only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover.
These don't sound like the words of a man who supposedly believed that the simplest ideas are always the best. In fact, William of Ockam seemed to be less interested in the ideas of Occam's Razor (the philosophical idea that was named after him) than most people want to believe. While it is true that he maintained many nominalist ideas, I disagree that William of Ockham was truly a nominalist at heart. It is presumptuous for us to say that William's dependance upon logic and reason somehow negated his belief in faith and the intangible. It did not. Occam's Razor may be based in principle upon many of the teaching of William, but the end substance of this philosophical concept is far from being in harmony with the man whose name it now immortalizes.
William of Ockham would never have foreseen the day when the pursuit of objective reason and logic would somehow be put in conflict with a life of faith. As a result, I wonder if it is even right for us to call Occam's Razor after William of Ockham. After all, the phrase didn't come into existence until 1852 by Sir William Hamilton, more than 500 years after William of Ockham's death. Since that day, Occam's Razor has evolved to become something that William would never have embraced himself. For scientists and philosophers today, Occam's Razor has been employed as a heuristic (general guiding rule) to guide scientists in the the development of theoretical models, rather than simply being an arbitrary tool between conflicting theories. In other words, Occam's Razor has become a nearly irrefutable principle of logic that no objective scientist would dare to question.
But the fact of the matter is that Occam's Razor is not a crystal ball to all logic and objectivity. In fact, there are quite a few problems with this supposed gem of philosophical thought. The bottom line is that validity of a theory and simplicity are not automatically related. Whether an idea or a set of facts is littered with complexities or is stripped down to its absolute bare simplicity has no bearing on its veracity. Sure, the simpler concept may be easier to understand, but it is not inherantly more correct than a complex theory. The danger of "appealing to simplicity" is that there are many cases in which factual scientific theories and ideas are incredibly complex. The theories behind quantum mechanics and general relativity for example are so complex that appealing to Occam's Razor wouldn't be practical. As a result, Occam's Razor can become, at times, a logical fallacy.
Occam’s Razor is actually a vestigial remnant of medieval science. It is literally a historical artifact: William of Ockham employed this principle in his own 13th century work on divine omnipotence and other topics “resistant” to scientific methods. The continuing use of parsimony in modern science is an atavistic practice equivalent to a cardiologist resorting to bloodletting when heart medication doesn’t work.
And it is in the life sciences where Occam’s razor cuts most sharply in the wrong direction, for at least three reasons.
1) First, life itself is a fascinating example of nature’s penchant for complexity. If parsimony applies anywhere, it is not here.
2) Second, evolution doesn’t design organisms as an engineer might – instead, organisms carry their evolutionary history along with them, advantages and disadvantages alike (your appendix is the price you pay for all your inherited immunity to disease). Thus life appears to result from a cascading “complexifying” process – an understanding of organisms at the macroscale will be anything but simple.
3) Third, we know that the even the simplest rules of life can give rise to intractable complexity. Unless you’re a biophysicist, the mechanisms at your preferred level of analysis are likely to be incredibly heterogenous and complex, even at their simplest.
[...]
Thus, the utility of Occam’s Razor is highly questionable. Theories which it would soundly eliminate are usually questionable for other reasons, while useful theories might be discarded for a lack of parsimony relative to their over-simplified competitors. The theory which states “height determines weight” can do a reasonable job of providing evidence that seems to support that theory. And it’s highly parsimonious – Ockham would love it! But the theory which says “nutrition, exercise, and a collection of more than 100 genes predict both height and weight” is highly unparsimonious, even though we know it’s better than its competitor theory. Statisticians have quantified the appropriate penalty for various theories based on the number of variables they involve, but the more theoretical modes of quantitative science have yet to catch up.
In other words, Occam's Razor is wonderful for grasping at the low lying fruit that is easy to reach, but offers little in terms of understanding many of the complex realities of the modern world. Sure, we would all love to have simplicity reign supreme. It makes life easier. But sadly, this cannot always be the case. No matter what Lynyrd Skynyrd has to say on the matter, there really are no "Simple Men."
Challenges to a Long-held Archaeological Assumption
From a fascinating article in the New York Times, archaeologists are beginning to challenge some of the traditionally accepted explanations for the origins of Homo Sapiens in the Americas:
For many decades, archaeologists have agreed on an explanation known as the Clovis model. The theory holds that about 13,500 years ago, bands of big-game hunters in Asia followed their prey across an exposed ribbon of land linking Siberia and Alaska and found themselves on a vast, unexplored continent. The route back was later blocked by rising sea levels that swamped the land bridge. Those pioneers were the first Americans.
[...]
Over the years, hints surfaced that people might have been in the Americas earlier than the Clovis sites suggest, but the evidence was never solid enough to dislodge the consensus view. In the past five years, however, a number of discoveries have posed major challenges to the Clovis model. Taken together, they are turning our understanding of American prehistory on its head.
The first evidence to raise significant questions about the Clovis model emerged in the late 1970s, when the anthropologist Tom Dillehay came across a prehistoric campsite in southern Chile called Monte Verde. Radiocarbon dating of the site suggested that the first campfires were lighted there, all the way at the southern tip of South America, well before the first Clovis tools were made. Still, Professor Dillehay’s evidence wasn’t enough to persuade scholars to abandon the Clovis model.
But in 2008, that began to change. That year, researchers from the University of Oregon and the University of Copenhagen recovered human DNA from coprolites — preserved human feces — found in a dry cave in eastern Oregon. The coprolites had been deposited 14,000 years ago, suggesting that Professor Dillehay and others may have been right to place humans in the Americas before the Clovis people.
The Clovis model suffered yet another blow last year when Professor Waters announced finding dozens of stone tools along a Texas creekbed. After using a technique that measures the last time the dirt around the stones was exposed to light, Professor Waters concluded, in a paper in Science, that the site was at least 15,000 years old — which would make it the earliest reliably dated site in the Americas.
These remarkable archaeological discoveries are only augmented by the fact that genetic markers in the DNA of modern American Indians and their predominantly Asian forefathers reveal that both shared a common ancestor that lived more than 16,000 years ago, more than 3,000 years before the traditional Clovis land bridge hypothesis.
So where does this leave us? It is difficult to say. There is still much about the Clovis model that is desirable to archaeologists. With that said, it is crystal clear that we are far from certain when it comes to explaining the ultimate origins of Native American people. The most likely explanation is that scores of people from all over the world (with Asian colonizers being the obvious dominant party) made their way to the Americas over a very long period of time, much longer and older than we previously have believed. What is very clear is that these early colonizers were fully developed Homo Sapiens, predominantly from Asia, who made their way to the American continent in a variety of ways. But, in the end, nobody can say for sure, and these new discoveries actually give us more questions than answers; questions that we will probably never have full answers to either. Archaeology, particularly ancient American archaeology, has a lot of hurdles to overcome.
I am always fascinated to hear people today complaining about the Supreme Court. For whatever reason, it seems as though a large number of Americans these days esteem our Supreme Court as a group of corrupt, disinterested socialites who care more about individual status than about delivering justice. And while I am certain that some Supreme Court justices of the modern era have given a less-than-stellar performance while in office, I firmly believe that the past 2-3 generations of Americans have been blessed to have (overall) a strong Supreme Court. Of course, I am not suggesting that our judges (and their decisions) have been perfect. Far from it. Mistakes have been made and I am sure that with the 20/20 hindsight of history, future generations will come to question a number of the court decisions made in our day. With that said, I again maintain that the past couple of generations has been very fortunate to have the justices and court decisions that we have seen.
Sadly, the same cannot be said of past generations. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, for example, Americans witnessed first-hand how the decisions of the highest court of our land could utterly devastate a nation and its people. Cases like Elk v. Wilkinsin 1884, which essentially stated that Native Americans could not become American citizens and were considered "less human" than Whites. Or the 1927 case Buck v. Bell, whichgranted mental health institutions the right to sterilize the "unfit" and "mentally retarded" for the "protection and health of the state." And then there is the infamous 1857 case, Dread Scott v. Sandford(in my opinion, the worst Supreme Court decision ever), which essentially held that African American slaves were to be considered as "property" rather than people, and that any fugitive slave was to be returned to his/her rightful "owner" without question.
And today we have the honor (or better put, responsibility) to recognize another shameful decision from our nation's past. 116 years ago today, the Supreme Court rejected the petitions of one Homer Plessy, who years earlier had attempted to travel from New Orleans to Covington, La. on a "White Only" railroad car. Plessy, who was considered an "octoroon" (someone of seven-eighths Caucasian descent and one-eighth African descent) by his contemporaries, refused to be segregated based on his race and protested the railroad's policy of separating its passengers based on skin color. Eventually, Plessy was escorted from the train and booked into jail where he began a campaign to eradicate the budding but still infant practice of racial segregation in the South. Long story short, Plessy's case ended up making it all the way to the Supreme Court in 1896, where sadly his appeals fell on deaf ears.
In what has become one of the most important and atrocious legal cases in American history, Plessy v. Fergusonstated that there was nothing unlawful about a state, business or institution choosing to separate members of different races, so long as they provided the same goods/services to all. In what became known as the doctrine of Separate but Equal, the Supreme Court ruled that segregation was not in violation of the 14th Amendment (which prohibits local and state governments from depriving its citizens of life, liberty and property without due process) as Mr. Plessy had claimed, but that the railroad company (and anyone else who wanted to follow suit) was completely justified in choosing to keep the races apart from one another. Needless to say, Plessy v. Ferguson paved the way for extreme racial inequality to once again rear its ugly head in the South. And though the ruling stipulated that all separate goods/services needed to also be equal, reality is that Southern governments refused to provide anything resembling equality for Blacks. In short, racial segregation and inequality became standard operating procedure in the South.
For nearly 60 years, Plessy v. Ferguson and its gospel of "Separate but Equal" kept the South from seeing things in any other way but Black and White. It wasn't until 1954 and Brown v. Board of Education that the chains of segregation would finally start to come off. And as we are all aware, the struggle to eradicate segregation from America took more than a Supreme Court decision to accomplish. It was only after decades of petition, protest, blood, hate and pain that the scars of segregation began to fade away (some rightfully maintain that those scars are still visible today). This was the shameful legacy of Plessy v. Ferguson.
But thankfully we live in a more "civilized" world today...
...right?
After all, we would NEVER think of repeating those painful lessons of "Separate but Equal."
Or would we?
--When we suggest "separate but equal" health care for any patient in need, we are forgetting Plessy v. Ferguson.
--When we implement "separate but equal" laws for illegal immigrants, we are forgetting Plessy v. Ferguson.
--When we demand "separate but equal" schools and/or funding for affluent neighborhoods v. the inner city, we are forgetting Plessy v. Ferguson.
--When we recommend "separate but equal" tax rates for the rich and the poor, we are forgetting Plessy v. Ferguson.
--When we believe in "separate but equal" restrictions for those of a different religion than our own (i.e. the New York mosque), we are forgetting Plessy v. Ferguson.
--When we preach "separate but equal" laws for those in the LGBT community, we are forgetting Plessy v. Ferguson.
In short, whenever we seek to divide humanity because of our perceived differences, we will be sure to reap our own hell. Life is hard enough. Why would anyone want to endure it all alone? Sorry, but you cannot "divide" and "conquer" and the same time. We don't have the luxury of simply changing the rules for those we don't like and/or understand. Such an action is the epitome of bigotry.
Pseudo-historian and Christian Nation Advocate Extraordinaire, David Barton, has been caught in a lie. A bold faced lie to be exact. As a man who prides himself on knowing the "true" history of the American founding, Barton's latest historical faux pas is so blatantly false that it either reveals Barton's woeful ignorance of how to conduct basic historical research, or that he is a flat-out liar. The following is Barton's latest offense:
I know that many of us have seen the "Prayer at Valley Forge" painting and probably find it very inspiring. And to the citizen who may not be as familiar with American history, I don't blame them for accepting the painting at face value as historical fact. But for David Barton to do so is unacceptable, and even worse, to preach it as fact is downright shameful. I have actually blogged about the history of the "Prayer at Valley Forge" in the past, so I won't rehearse the history here. The bottom line is this: the story of the "Prayer at Valley Forge" is a myth that anyone with half a brain could recognize. For a "historian" like David Barton to not recognize this reality (or to simply not give a damn about the truth since he knows his audience won't investigate the matter) is reprehensible.
I have tried to be patient with David Barton. I have even given him the benefit of the doubt on many occasions. He has ZERO training as a historian and it shows. I have justified his ilk by pointing to his desire to link his Christian faith with American history. It's a flawed but honest endeavor. But this recent lie (and yes, I am accusing David Barton of lying) is so in-your-face that I think it has become obvious that Barton no longer cares about finding the truth. Barton is hell-bent on proving his agenda, and he won't allow TRUE history to get in his way. As a result, I believe it is now time to declare an intellectual jihad on David Barton. To borrow from the words of historian John Fea (one of my favorite bloggers), "Is it time to gather Christian historians together to sign some kind of formal
statement condemning Barton's brand of propaganda and hagiography?" Hell yes it is time, Dr. Fea. I hope the historical community will brand this man as the fraud he is...the sooner the better!!!
I've never been a huge fan of economics. In my opinion, the difference between most economic theories and practices is predominantly one of semantics. In the end, all systems of exchange can be reduced to their common denominator: the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. No one system is really all that preferable to another (in my opinion). With that said, studying the history and evolution of economics does help to shed light on the changes and advances that have been made in society, and the efforts to even the playing field for all of humanity.
And when it comes to the study of economics, no system is more important to the modern Western world than capitalism. For many Americans, capitalism is every bit as important of a component to the founding of their nation as is the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution (even though the Founding Fathers never really put capitalism on their radar). And though there is much to say for the more modern conceptualizations of capitalism (i.e. Adam Smith, Max Weber, etc.) the original origins of capitalism hail back to a time before the "New World" had even been discovered.
The world that was 14th century Europe was a world in constant flux. Severe political, religious, social, economic and health problems plagued (literally) the landscape. These mitigating factors brought with them sweeping tides of change that helped to redefine European society. For instance, the Black Death, along with the Great Famine of 1315-1317, had ravaged the countryside, claiming at least 1/3 of the populace in the process. The massive loss of laborers caused a dramatic change to the Manorial and Feudal systems in almost all of Europe. This lack of laborers created new opportunities for the peasantry to move about and benefit from additional markets. In addition, the development of newer agricultural technologies revitalized the markets of a suffering Europe. Eventually, the emergence of Calvinist doctrines, particularly regarding worldly success as a symbol of God's favor, encouraged further growth, all of which gave rise to the earliest embryonic form of capitalism known as Mercantilism. Needless to say, these advances fit nicely with the discovery of the "New World" in the following century, and eventually evolved to become a staple in the Western world.
Of course, I am not suggesting that our modern understanding of capitalism existed in the Middle Ages. Far from it. But it is fair to say that an infant form of the system was beginning to emerge during the middle part of the 14th century. Improvements in naval travel helped to augment the trade markets to and from Europe, and increased the demand for goods. As a result, an emerging class of specialized laborers found themselves having access to a measure of wealth that had never before existed under feudalism.
Skeptics will, of course, point out that improvements in trade and the emergence of new markets don't necessarily equate to capitalism and they are right. But there is a large body of evidence for commercial activity in the Middle Ages, and particularly in the Mediterranean, which deserves to be recognized for its enterprise and sophistication. Mediterranean, and particularly Italian, merchants traded in high-value luxury goods, like spices, gems, dyes, and exotic metalwork. And although goods like these had circulated the seas for centuries, the volume and value of this trade increased dramatically in the wake of the struggles of the 14th century. And it is very unlikely that such an expansion would have occurred under the old systems of manorialism and feudalism, which insisted on being self-reliant and relatively localized in scope. Therefore, the expansion that took place in the 14th century should be seen as the result of the many social and economic changes that had taken place.
As you can see in the map above, European and Middle Eastern traders were active across a wide swathe of the Mediterranean world. To this end, the major Italian cities established trading colonies, to protect their interests abroad and monopolize the sources of desirable goods. These cities included, Amalfi, Naples, Genoa, and of course, Venice. The merchant-imperialism of these cities went hand in hand with the complex ways of investing and launching trading missions organised by the merchants themselves. In addition, it was this expansive trade system that eventually allowed Arabian literature, architecture, mathematics, etc. to make their way into the European heartland, thus helping to ignite the Renaissance. It's not a stretch to suggest that without these advances, Europe may never have had its De Vinci.
In conclusion, what we can glean from the history and origins of capitalism (or any other economic system for that matter) is that it didn't come into existence overnight. It took a great deal of time to evolve into what we have today, and frankly, it's still evolving. Economic systems are static, unchangeable concepts, but rather are fluid and ever-changing. This is certainly the case with capitalism. From its birth in the Middle Ages to its existence today as the predominant means of exchange in the Western World today, capitalism has had a long and interesting history. Will it last? I have no idea. As I said at the beginning of this post, I don't believe there is all that much difference between rival economic systems to begin with, but then again, I never lived in Feudal Europe.
