Early Mormon Leaders on the "Evils" of Wealth (Warning: Glenn Beck's Head is About to Explode)

The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (1875) 

THE EXPERIENCE OF MANKIND has shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the least from luxurious habits which beget vice. Under such a system, carefully maintained there could be no great aggregations of either real or personal property in the hands of a few; especially so while the laws, forbidding the taking of usury or interest for money or property loaned, continued in force. 

ONE OF THE GREAT EVILS with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers contended so steadfastly and courageously, and which they bequeathed to us as a priceless legacy, are endangered by the monstrous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful corporations. By its seductive influence results are accomplished which, were it more equally distributed, would be impossible under our form of government. It threatens to give shape to the legislation, both State, and National, of the entire country. If this evil should not be checked, and measures not taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches among the class already rich, and the painful increase of destitution and want among the poor, the nation is likely to be overtaken by disaster; for, according to history, such a tendency among nations once powerful was the sure precursor of ruin. 

YEARS AGO IT WAS PERCEIVED that we Latter-day Saints were open to the same dangers as those which beset the rest of the world. A condition of affairs existed among us which was favorable to the growth of riches in the hands of a few at the expense of many. A wealthy class was being rapidly formed in our midst whose interests in the course of time, were likely to be diverse from those of the rest of the community. The growth of such a class was dangerous to our union; and, of all people, we stand most in need of union and to have our interests identical. Then it was that the Saints were counseled to enter into co-operation. In the absence of the necessary faith to enter upon a more perfect order revealed by the Lord unto the Church, this was felt to be the best means of drawing us together and making us one. 

A UNION OF INTERESTS was sought to be attained. At the time co-operation was entered upon the Latter-day Saints were acting in utter disregard of the principles of self-preservation. They were encouraging the growth of evils in their own midst which they condemned as the worst features of the systems from which they had been gathered. Large profits were being consecrated in comparatively few hands, instead of being generally distributed among the people. As a consequence, the community was being rapidly divided into classes, and the hateful and unhappy distinctions which the possession and lack of wealth give rise to, were becoming painfully apparent. When the proposition to organize Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution was broached, it was hoped that the community at large would become stockholders; for if a few individuals only were to own its stock, the advantages to the community would be limited. The people, therefore, were urged to take shares, and large numbers responded to the appeal. As we have shown, the business proved to be as successful as its most sanguine friends anticipated. But the distribution of profits among the community was not the only benefit conferred by the organization of co-operation among us. 

CO-OPERATION has submitted in silence to a great many attacks. Its friends have been content to let it endure the ordeal. But it is now time to speak. The Latter-day Saints should understand that it is our duty to sustain co-operation and to do all in our power to make it a success. The local co-operative stores should have the cordial support of the Latter-day Saints. Does not all our history impress upon us the great truth that in union is strength? Without it, what power would the Latter-day Saints have? But it is not our doctrines alone that we should be united, but in practice and especially in our business affairs. 

Your Brethren: 

Brigham Young, Daniel H. Wells, Wilford Woodruff, Orson Pratt, Lorenzo Snow, Franklin D. Richards, Brigham Young Jr., George A. Smith, John taylor, Orson Hyde, Charles C,. Rich, Erastus Snow, George Q. Cannon, Albert Carrington 1875

Source: Edward W. Tullidge, History of Salt Lake City [1886], pp. 728-732.

My Predictions for the 2012-13 NBA Season

The 2012-13 NBA season opens up this Tuesday, and I for one couldn't be more excited, even if my team (The Bulls) will likely struggle until D-Rose returns to save the day.  There have been a number of changes to "The Association" in the off season, making for a dramatic and exciting shakeup in the league's balance of power  Here are my predictions for how the season is going to play out.

 

 

THE EASTERN CONFERENCE:

 

1.) Miami Heat

The Heat are EASILY the best team in the East (probably the league), and are likely even better than last year.  With the additions of Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis, this team is deeper than it has ever been.  And LeBron has awakened to his true potential.  Miami sails to the top seed in the conference.

 

2.) Philadelphia 76ers

The 76ers are my surprise team in the East.  Andrew Bynum is the second best offensive big man in the league (next to Blake Griffin) and Evan Turner is an emerging stud.  Mark my words, this guy is gonna be special.  That's why they were more than willing to part with Iguodala (a great player in his own right).  The 76ers have depth, size and speed.

 

3.) Indiana Pacers

I love the Pacers.  This team has the complete package.  Add a star scorer to the mix (maybe Rudy Gay?) and they could go all the way at some point.

 

4.) Boston Celtics

Everyone knows that the Celtics are old as dirt, but they still have a good roster.  Moving Garnett to center doesn't make a lot of sense by I can see why they did it.  The Celtics do have some young talent on their bench and eventually I see Fab Melo working his way into the starting rotation.  They're still good enough to make some noise in the East.

 

5.) Chicago Bulls

There is no team in the NBA that depends more on one guy than the Chicago Bulls depend on Derrick Rose.  Without him the Bulls are barely a playoff team.  Rose has it all: he can score, pass, defend, has speed, leadership, and all the intangibles you want in a team leader.  But since he's still out for at least a while, the Bulls will fall to #5 in the conference (and it PAINS me to say that, since they are my team).

 

6.) Brooklyn Nets

Everyone is talking about how great the Nets will be, and I am sure they will be better.  I, however, am not sold all the way.  This was a pathetic team who couldn't even get out of the cellar last year.  Yes, Brook Lopez is back, and Joe Johnson is a stud, but I don't see that being enough to launch this team into the top eschelon in the East.  But they do have a KILLER new stadium.

 

7.) New York Knicks

The Knicks are in trouble and they know it.  Amare may not be what he was ever again, and Carmello isn't going to fill the gap.  Felton will be solid (for a fat PG), starting in front of old fart Jason Kidd, but this team doesn't have much bite behind their bark.  A lot of names but no real game.

 

8.) Washington Wizards
This is the year that the Washington Wizards emerge.  John Wall is for real and I expect big things from him this year.  They are also a big team with Okafur and Nene starting in the post.  The Wizards should be exciting to watch this year.

 

 

THE WESTERN CONFERENCE: 

 

1.) Los Angeles Lakers

"Showtime" is always a media favorite, and this year the Lakers look to have (at least on paper) what it takes to get back to the big dance.  The ageless Steve Nash, along with Dwight Howard will greatly improve this team.  I think that the Lakers are good enough to go all the way, and certainly good enough to win the West.

 

2.) OKC Thunder

The Thunder may have done the DUMBEST thing they could do in trading away James Harden.  I know he sucked in the Finals but this guy was a critical component to what OKC had going.  In basketball, chemistry is so very important, and Harden was a key ingredient.  Still, OKC isn't going to suck.  Durant is easily one of the top 5 players in the world, and Westbrook keeps getting better.  They are still very much contenders. 

 

3.) Los Angeles Clippers

Is there a deeper or more physical team than the Clippers?!?  These guys quietly had a FANTASTIC off season, adding Lamar Odom (who will be his old self now that he's back in L.A.), Grant Hill and Jamal Crawford.  And once Billups is fully healed, this team has not one but two stud field generals (Chris Paul).  Add in the best offensive big man in Griffin and one of the biggest up and coming centers in the league (DeAndre Jordan) and you have a mean roster.  Oh, and don't forget Turiaf and Bledsoe who will be awesome off the bench.  Folks, the Clippers are deep, tough, fast and exciting.  When was the last time somebody ever said that?!?

 

4.) San Antonio Spurs

They're old but they're always consistent...at least in the regular season.  The Spurs still have the depth, speed and experience to make at least their typical impact.  But this team isn't doing squat in the playoffs.  I think this is the final curtain call for the Spurs.

 

5.) Denver Nuggets

Adding Andre Igoudala was a brilliant move!  This guy is the second coming of Scottie Pippen. The Nuggets will be much better this year, even if they don't have a lot of size.  They should also be better defensively this year (which they deseperately needed).  I see them advancing at least one round in the playoffs.

 

6.) Memphis Grizzlies

Ok, so this is a team in turmoil, and I predict that Rudy Gay could be gone by mid-season.  But still, The Grizzlies are solid enough to make the playoffs in the west.

 

7.) Houston Rockets

Jeremy Lin isn't their biggest addition now; that label goes to James Harden.  The Rockets just got a lot better.  Still not good enough to really do anything, but they are a playoff team now.

 

8.) Minnesota Timberwolves

So normally I think the Timberwolves could go as high as #4, but with injuries to Rubio and Love, this team is only barely going to make the playoffs.  But mark my words; the Timberwolves are for real.  Once healthy, and with one more year under their belts, this team could be a contender.  Adding Brandon Roy (who was amazing in Portland before early retirement) was a stroke of genius.  The T-Wolves are going to be a force to reckon with for years to come in the West.  But this year they only barely make it due to injuries.

 

THE HARDWARE:

 

MVP: Kevin Durant

This is the year that Durant finally gets some hardware.  Everyone knows what a scoring machine he is.  Now with Harden gone, he's gonna have to do even more, and he will deliver.  Plus, he is due to win.

 

Defensive Player of the Year: LeBron James

Most people probably don't realize this, but LeBron has finished in second place for two years for Defensive POY.  We all know how good he is with the ball, but LeBron is just as good on defense.  I think he gets the deserved recognition this year.

 

Rookie of the Year: Anthony Davis

He's already looking tough in the pre-season, and he held his own during the Olympics.  Davis is going to be a solid pro.  He's a future 20 and 10 guy. 

 

6th Man: Grant Hill

Now that he's coming off the bench for the first time ever, I think Hill will have more spring in his step and will likely contribute more than ever.  Hill can play a number of positions and has the experience and (still) the athleticism to be a big contributor in L.A.

 

Most Improved: Evan Turner

I said it earlier, Evan Turner is an emerging stud in Philly.  He may even be a future all star.  Watch this kid. He's for real.

 

Coach of the Year: Doug Collins

The 76ers are going to contend (as much as anyone can against the Heat) in the East.  They are much improved and Collins is a big reason why.  He got a lot out of this team last year and I expect the same this year.

 

Comeback player: Derrick Rose

He's got it all, and once he comes back, everyone will see just how important D-Rose is to the Bulls.  The best PG in the game today.

 

 

THE PLAYOFFS:

 

Eastern Conference Playoffs, Round 1:

Miami sweeps Washington 4-0

Philadelphia over the Knicks 4-1

Indiana downs Brooklyn 4-2

DA BULLS upset the Celtics 4-2

 

Second Round:

Miami over Chicago 4-2

Philadelphia defeats Indiana 4-3

 

Eastern Conference Finals:

Miami over Philly 4-1

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

 

Western Conference Playoffs, Round 1:

Lakers over Timberwolves 4-1

OKC sweeps the Rockets 4-0

Clippers over the Grizzlies 4-1

Denver upsets the geriatric Spurs 4-2

 

Second Round:

Lakers down the Nuggets 4-2

Clippers upset the Thunder 4-3

 

Western Conference Finals:

Clippers stun the Lakers and win the series 4-2...all games taking place at the Staples Center.  This marks the turning of the guard as the Clippers officially become the best team in L.A.

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

 

NBA Finals:

Miami repeats by downing the up and coming Clippers 4-1

There you have it!  Let the games begin.

 

Wisdom and the "Heavenly Goddess/Mother" Legends

As anyone who is bilingual/multilingual will tell you, the work of translating from one language to another can, at times, be a bit of a mess.  For example:

 

Fortunately for America, this simple and innocent faux pas on the part of Secretary Clinton ended with little more than a chuckle for both parties.  Other translation errors, however, have had much more serious repercussions. 

When translating the Bible into English, for example, a number of mistakes were made in the process.  Whether confusing the words "camel" with "rope" or "eunuch" with "believer," it is clear that at least some honest mistakes could not be entirely avoided.  And while some translation errors resulted in incorrect words or phrases being published to the world, there were other errors which proved to be more subtle but every bit as critical to capturing the original meanings behind these ancient texts. 

One possible example of this fact rests with the word "wisdom," or in Hebrew, חוכמה (not that I have any clue what that means but it looks cool). According to Webster's Dictionary, wisdom is: "the quality of being wise; knowledgeable, and the capacity to make due use of it; knowledge of the best ends and the best means."  This seems to be as solid a definition as any for the word, "wisdom."

The Bible is literally saturated with beautiful references to wisdom and the importance that God places on our obtaining and cultivating this all-important attribute.  For it was by wisdom that God created the earth and established the heavens (Prov. 3: 19).  Wisdom was the gift that Solomon wanted more than any other (1 Kings 4: 29).  It was with the temptation of greater wisdom that the serpent was able to get Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit (Gen. 3: 5).  And as every good Mormon knows, it was the quest for greater wisdom that compelled a young Joseph Smith to seek God in prayer (James 1: 5).  And it was an appeal to God's natural wisdom that inspired Poet William Wordsworth to write:

Books! ’tis a dull and endless strife:
Come, hear the woodland linnet,
How sweet his music! on my life,
There’s more of wisdom in it

Enough of Science and of Art;
Close up those barren leaves;
Come forth, and bring with you a heart
That watches and receives.

Yes, it is safe to say that wisdom is one of humanity's basic instinctual cravings. 

But is there more to the word "wisdom" than meets the eye?  As mentioned above, translation errors can, at times, distort the original meanings to certain words, or even negate what was originally an important concept that ancient writers wanted to convey. How does this all apply to the word "wisdom?"

In the Hebrew language, the word "wisdom" is feminine, as is the case in many other languages.  Of course, this isn't particularly noteworthy for us today, since most nouns are, at least in most languages, assigned masculine or feminine pronouns.  But wisdom was unique to the ancients because it not only served as an embodiment of special knowledge but also because it embodied deity itself.

Throughout the ancient tradition, wisdom was regularly personified as an exalted female figure, crying out to her lost children with loving petitions to correct their wayward behavior:

Wisdom crieth without; SHE uttereth HER voice in the streets: SHE crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city SHE uttereth HER words, saying: how long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? (Proverbs 1: 20-22).

Whether in Hebrew, Aramaic or other ancient languages, the personification of wisdom with feminine deity was an important and common practice.  Many of the earliest Goddesses of the ancient world were exalted primarily for their wisdom and loving kindness towards mankind.  In the Celtic world, the Goddess Danu was known as the "Beloved wise one" and "Mother of heroes."  For earlier Egyptians, the Goddess Hathor was one of the most important and popular deities throughout the history of Ancient Egypt.  It was her "wise guidance and counsel" to other gods within the Egyptian pantheon that earned her the title "Mother Goddess."  And then there's the case of the other "Mother Goddess" of the Semitic world, Asherah, whose wisdom and kindness to mankind earned her the title of "Queen of Heaven" and "Goddess and consort of Yahweh who is worshipped in Heaven." 

This union between wisdom and female deity may seem like little more than simple polytheism to most, but such a label oversimplifies and downplays the importance that the ancients placed on this wisdom/Mother Goddess dichotomy.  For most ancients, wisdom WAS the Mother Goddess. As historian William Denver makes clear in his work, Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel:

The rediscovery of the Goddess and of women's popular cults in ancient Israel redresses the balance. It helps to correct the andocentric bias of the biblical writers. It "fleshes out" the concept of God, brings the divine mystery closer to the heart of human experience, and yes, to the mystery of human sexual love. We humans are engendered; if we are to think and speak about God at all, it must be in a way that combines all that is best in males and all that is best in females. Even the androcentric biblical writers sometimes employed female imagery. Yahweh "gave birth" to Israel (Deut. 32:18); he has a "womb" (Job 32:29).

Whether or not we of the modern world esteem this ancient folk tradition of wisdom and the Mother Goddess as nonsense is irrelevant, for its presence can be found throughout ancient scripture.  For example:

Happy is the man that findeth WISDOM, and the man that getteth understanding.  SHE is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto HER. Length of days is in HER right hand; and in HER left hand ariches and honour. HER ways are ways of pleasantness, and all HER paths are peace. SHE is a tree of alife to them that lay hold upon HER: and happy is every one that retaineth HER.

And here's the really cool final verse:

The Lord BY WISDOM HATH FOUNDED THE EARTH; by understanding hath he established the heavens (Proverbs 3: 13, 15-19).

Was a "Mother Goddess" (a.k.a. "Wisdom") involved with the creation? 

But that's not all:

The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But WISDOM is justified of HER children (Matthew 11: 19).

For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it. I WISDOM dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions (Proverbs 8: 11-12).  [Interesting to note the first person reference here!]

From the Book of Wisdom:

Now with you is WISDOM, who knows your works and was present when you made the world; Who understands what is pleasing in your eyes and what is conformable with your commands. Send HER forth from your holy heavens and from your glorious throne dispatch HER that she may be with me and work with me, that I may know what is your pleasure (NAB Wis 9: 1,6,9-10 ). [Note that Wisdom is female, and with God at creation. She is coeternal with the Father.]

And from, of all places, The Book of Mormon:

O how marvelous are the works of the Lord, and how long doth he suffer with his people; yea, and how blind and impenetrable are the understandings of the children of men; for they will not seek WISDOM, neither do they desire that SHE should rule over them! (Mosiah 8: 20).

Now, by no means am I suggesting that every single reference to wisdom in scripture is somehow referring to a female goddess.  I wouldn't feel comfortable making the claim that any of the aforementioned verses prove such an assertion.  However, I do think it is abundantly clear that the ancients esteemed wisdom and the "Mother Goddess" tradition as being one in the same.  As the great Hebrew scholar Raphael Patai points out in his excellent book, The Hebrew Goddess:

In the Book of Job, Wisdom is described as a personage whose way is understood and place is known only by God himself, while the Book of Proverbs asserts that Wisdom was the earliest of God's creations and that ever since the primeval days she (Wisdom) has been God's playmate.

In the Apocrypha, this role of Wisdom is even more emphasized. A passage in the Wisdom of Solomon states that "She [Wisdom] proclaims her noble birth in that it is given to her to live with God and the Sovereign Lord of all loved her."  It was observed by Gershom Scholem that the term appears again in the same chapter in the sense of marital connubium, and that it is therefore clear that Wisdom here is regarded as God's wife. Philo states quite unequivically that God is the husband of Wisdom.

Wisdom played a particularly important role among the Jewish Gnostics. References to the role of Wisdom in the primodial days of the world seem to indicate the existance of a Gnostic Hokhma-myth which originated in Jewish circles and was hypothetically reconstructed as follows:

Out of the primeval chaos, God created the seven archons through the intermediacy of his Wisdom, which was identical with the "dew of light."  Wisdom now cast her eidolon, or shadow-image upon the primeval waters of the Tohu wa-Bohu, whereupon the archons formed the world and the body of man.  Man crawled about upon the earth like a worm, until Wisdom endowed him with spirit. Satan, in the shape of a serpant, had intercourse with Eve who thereupon bore Cain and Abel.  Thus sexuality became the original sin. After the fall, the sons of Seth fought the sons of Cain.  When the daughters of Cain seduced the sons of Seth, Wisdom brought the flood upon the earth (Pp. 97-98).

There is perhaps no better example of this wisdom/Mother Goddess relationship than that of Sophia.  For the Hellenized Greek world, Sophia (which in Greek actually means "wisdom") was the literal philosophical personification of wisdom.  In later Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christianity, Sophia was an expression of understanding of the Holy Spirit. It was (for many of these early Greek Christians) Sophia who caused Mary to become pregnant with Jesus.  In addition, it was Sophia who descended upon Jesus as a dove at his baptism. 

One important thing to remember here is that Sophia was never a member of the traditional gods of Greek mythology.  She was a later and separate goddess who came to embody wisdom itself.  For Plato, Sophia was best understood as philo-Sophia, literally meaning the love of wisdom (or what we call philosophy today).  In fact, it was Socrates, who, when standing before the Oracle of Delphi and questioned, "Of all the Greeks who is the wisest?" responded, "Why none more so than the Mother Sophia."  Socrates then went on to make his famous declaration, "I know one thing: that I know nothing," but then went on to explain that true wisdom came from accepting this all-important fact of life.   Is it any wonder why the earliest Christians chose to name the most magnificent architectural achievement of the Medieval era the "Hagia Sophia?" (which means "Holy Wisdom").

With this concept of wisdom/Mother Goddess fully infused into much of the ancient world, we of the modern day can gain a different and newer perspective on what these ancient writers were trying to say.  There can be little doubt that the wisdom/Mother Goddess dichotomy was, for many ancients, as real as the Trinity is for many orthodox Christians.  To separate the two words from what appears to be, at least in some cases, a duel meaning would be like separating peanut butter from jelly.  Why on earth would anyone want to separate that which seems meant for the other?  And if there is to be a "Mother Goddess" theology, I can think of no better attribute for her to possess than that of wisdom.  Wisdom rules heaven together with God, and the two are peanut butter and jelly!  Or as the Muslim proverb put it, "Heaven rests at the feet of wisdom."

A New Burial (and Birth) for Richard III

To even the causal fan of Shakespeare, tales of the pale, abusive and foolish English King Richard III ring quite familiar.   As the final king of the Plantagenet line, Richard's legacy has become synonymous with the epitome of Machiavellian deceit and malevolent cunning.  British historians have, for centuries, marked the end of the Middle Ages with his death, while men like Shakespeare have esteemed Richard as little more than a petty, cruel and repulsive hooligan:

"And thus I clothe my naked villainy With old odd ends stolen out of holy writ,And seem a saint when most I play the devil.

[...]

I shall despair.  There is no creature loves me; And if I die, no soul will pity me:Nay, wherefore should they, since that I myselfFind in myself no pity to myself?"

And though it is true that Richard III was a relatively ineffective and perverse figure (Richard suffered from scoliosis and other physical deformities that seemed to add further credence to his abhorrent reputation), Shakespeare (and others) was wrong to label him as arguably the most vile figure to ever sit upon the English throne.  Surely much of the negativity surrounding Richard's legacy can be attributed to the propagandist efforts of the Tudor dynasty, which supplanted Richard in 1485.  True, Richard was an inept, oblivious and cocky leader but he was far from being the devil incarnate.  In many ways, Richard simply died in the wrong place and at the wrong time; an unfortunate casualty of history.  No wonder why Shakespeare chose to portray Richard as one of his most vile of anti-heroes.

With that being said, it looks like Richard may catch a bit of a break.  Over the past month, archaeologists with the University of Leicester have been excavating lands in and around Bosworth Field, the location where Richard was killed in battle.  Shortly into their excavations, archaeologists were astonished when they discovered human remains that appear to be those of Richard himself.  DNA and other scientific tests are still needed to confirm the findings but all early accounts seem to suggest that Richard III's final resting place has been unearthed.

Needless to say, this discovery has set off a firestorm of excitement within the historical and archaeological community.  Many have seen this moment as an opportunity to reevaluate the legacy of Richard by rescuing him from the rhetoric of generations past.  As Robert McCrum aptly states:

Richard was the last English king to fight and die on the battlefield. The end of both the Wars of the Roses and the Plantagenet dynasty was a turning point in English history. For these reasons alone, Richard III has a special place in the national myth. What follows, however, was sheer propaganda. Contrary to popular opinion, this came not from Shakespeare but from the pen of the saintly Thomas More.

The History of King Richard III was a hatchet job designed to explore the nature of power, leading to tyranny, and the sin that made such despotism possible. In More's account, Richard is accursed and unnatural, a parricide who broke all ties of kinship, like the figure of Vice in a morality play. An avuncular protector who was not a protector, a plotter and a killer, More's Richard contrives the murder of his nephews (Edward V and Richard of York), the princes in the tower. More, a loyal Tudor servant, had no interest in an impartial history. He wanted to present a narrative of evil with the hunchback king as a secular Satan.

I couldn't agree more.  It is rare when a historical figure is granted a "rebirth" 527 years after their final act.  This is a wonderful opportunity for not only the British people but the world to recognize the profundity of this discovery.  Already different organizations in Britain have been arguing over where Richard III's remains should ultimately rest.  Most historians agree that Richard intended to be buried in York, but others insist on giving Richard a full royal and state-sponsored funeral, with internment at Westminster Abby.

No matter how this story plays out, there is little doubt that Richard III is about to become a whole lot more popular now than ever before.  And even though all the DNA tests and royal processions will ultimately end with Richard's bones still ending up in a crypt, a new legacy is likely to be born.  Again, from Robert McCrum:

So this, perhaps, is the redemptive archetypal version that might be available to the British people soon: "The Return of the King" - his bones triumphantly verified and acknowledged, a new tomb...and another royal shrine for the British tourist trade.  As in the best dramas, we're now held in suspense, awaiting the closing act...The king's bones may yet become a secular relic, an object of national veneration.  Shakespeare, for one, would relish the irony.

A 269-269 Electoral Tie?!?

So ONCE AGAIN I have fallen off the blogging wagon and allowed yet another month to pass without posting any material.  To my millions (or perhaps 3-4) of readers I apologize.  Sometimes life gets a little busy.

With September's twilight and the dawn of Fall upon us, Americans all across this nation prepare for yet another election season that is sure to bring all of the drama, suspense and intrigue of elections past.  As predicted, we are beginning to see the polls tighten up in the various battleground states that are still in play. Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin and even my beloved homes state of Colorado are all still very much in the cross hairs of both President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney, who are making their final pleas to those few remaining undecided voters.  And since each of these states carry with them the few remaining and very precious Electoral College votes that may send their respective campaigns over the top, it is no wonder why both candidates are spending so much time and resources to win those votes.  Both parties know that each and every electoral vote counts, hence the haste in trying to acquire as many as possible in order to attain the magic number of 270.  The first one to the top of that mountain gets the White House!

But what happens if the election ends in an Electoral College tie? What happens if neither candidate reaches 270 but instead we have a 269-269 Electoral College tie?

Most Americans incorrectly assume that the popular vote would somehow determine the outcome, or that a second election would be held.  Makes sense, right?

WRONG!

The reality is that a 269-269 Electoral College tie could end up causing one helluva mess. 

It is the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that provides us with much of the script to this drama.  But instead of regurgitating the words of this amendment (which are somewhat confusing), let us instead take a look at the 2012 election and how a 269-269 tie might play out.

If on November 6th, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney end in an Electoral College stalemate, the first course of action will be to ensure the votes of the various state electorates.  This is a bit confusing so let me explain.  In the Electoral College system, each state is assigned a certain number of "electors" based on the state's population (Colorado, for example, has 9).  Each elector is essentially one vote out of a total possible 538.  In order to become president, a candidate must secure 270 electoral votes (the majority).  In most states, the winner of the popular vote wins the state's assigned electors.  So, if on November 6th Mitt Romney were to win Colorado's popular vote, he would be assigned all of Colorado's 9 Electoral College votes.  Seems simple enough, right?

Not quite.  The problem is that some states have laws that allow their electors to vote for whomever they choose, regardless of the popular vote.  Most states have created laws that prohibit an elector from changing his//her vote from the will of the people, but not all states.  In 1968, for example, one North Carolinian elector changed his vote from Richard Nixon to George Wallace, though the change had zero outcome on that election.  But if an election were to end in a tie (like we are assuming here with Obama and Romney) it is at least possible that one single electorate (one person) from a state without these laws could determine the presidency.  Crazy: yes.  Unlikely: yes.  Impossible: Nope.

With that said, it is highly doubtful that one elector would determine the outcome of the entire election.  What is more likely is that the 12th Amendment would come into play.  What the 12th Amendment states, in the event of an Electoral College tie, is that the new House of Representatives would convene on January 6th to cast their votes for the next President, while the Senate would determine the next vice President.  Now, most political analysts believe that the Republicans will maintain control of the House in 2012, while the Democrats will maintain the Senate.  For the sake of argument I am going to assume that both of these outcomes will take place on election day.  In consequence, it is therefore likely for us to assume that the House of Representatives would elect Mitt Romney as the next President, while the Senate would elect Joe Biden as vice President.  Simple partisan politics would determine the election, and we would be left with a Romney/Biden White House.

Except there is one small wrench in this whole equation.  In a normal situation, voting in the House of Representatives is done by giving each state representative one vote.  In the event of a 269-269 Electoral College tie, however, the voting is not representative-based but state-based.  In other words, California (which has 55 electoral votes, meaning 53 seats in the House) would not have 53 votes for the next president but rather 1 vote.  Let's put this into a practical example so it makes more sense:

If Obama and Romney end in a tie and the House ends up voting for the new president, all of California's 53 representatives would vote on who the state of California would support for President.  And since most of California's representatives are Democrats, it is logical to conclude that California would go for Obama.  With that said, Wyoming, which only has 1 representative in the House (a Republican), would also vote (likely Republican) and would have just as much say as California.  The size and representation of a state means nothing in this process.  One state: one vote. 

But here's the REALLY messy part:

Let us assume that Iowa goes for Mitt Romney in the General Election.  Iowa's representation in the House consists of 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans.  If Iowa's representatives had to vote in this scenario, would they go with the will of their people who had elected Romney?  Or would they stay loyal to their party and elect Obama, since they have the majority (3 Democrats)?  This type of scenario is present in at least 6 other states.

In addition, it is important to note here that if a state has an equal number of representatives, and their voting results in a tie, that state forfeits its vote on the next president.   

One more tidbit: if the vote in the House of Representatives ends in a tie (or gridlock), the 12th Amendment stipulates that the Senate would then elect an interim, two-year president from their V.P. selection.  And since it is likely that the Democrats will maintain control of the Senate, we can logically say that in this scenario, Joe Biden would become the two-year interim President. 

But what if the Senate vote ended in a tie?  Well, as we all remember from Civics, 101, there is only one person who can cast the deciding vote in the event of a Senatorial tie: the vice President.  In other words, Joe Biden himself (the current V.P.) could, theoretically, vote for himself to become the next V.P. or (if it came to that) the next (and first) interim President of the United States.  That's right; Joe Biden (and an outside possibility of Paul Ryan) could, theoretically, become President of the United States if we have an Electoral College tie.  Think this is all a bit crazy or that maybe I am making it up? It is ALL in the 12th Amendment, people.  Read it and weep. 

So how did we end up with a ridiculous system like this in the first place? We have our beloved Founding Fathers to thank for this nightmare. 

In the Presidential Election of 1800, incumbent John Adams squared off against his one-time friend turned foe, Thomas Jefferson. Back then there was no such thing as a presidential "ticket," which meant that the candidate receiving the second most electoral votes became the V.P. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson was able to barely edge out John Adams by winning 73 electoral votes to Adams' 65.  The problem, however, was that electors in those days had 2 votes instead of one.  As a result, the 73 electors for Jefferson also casted a second vote for party ally Aaron Burr, who also received 73 votes.  Originally Burr was propped up to become Jefferson's V.P. selection, and one of the electors was to withhold his vote from Burr, thereby giving Jefferson the win.  This did not happen, and Jefferson was forced into an unforeseen and uncomfortable standoff with his would-be vice President, Aaron Burr. 

Long story short, Jefferson's election to the presidency was eventually determined in the House but not without a long fight from Burr, who tried to take advantage of his accidental nomination.  It was only after months of  political negotiation that Jefferson supporters, championed by one Alexander Hamilton (who, strangely enough, disliked Jefferson but detested Burr even more), were able to garner enough votes to secure the nomination for Jefferson.  And to prevent such catastrophes from happening again, our wise Founding Fathers gave is the very messed up smorgasbord that is the 12th Amendment.  Hamilton and Burr went on to add further fuel to their already hot feud, which eventually culminated in their now infamous and, for Hamilton, deadly duel.  Jefferson went on to comple two terms and became immortalized as one of this nation's greatest presidents and statesmen. 

But none of that solves the current potential predicament that we face with each future presidential election.  The looming possibility of a 269-269 Electoral College tie brings with it the horrors of what would undoubtedly be the most bitter, divisive and ugly political dialogue since the Civil War.  Why we aren't proactive and choose to find a better solution is beyond me.  But, as a fan of uber-ridiculous political drama, I also must concede that a 269-269 tie would make for some great must see T.V.  The 12th Amendment helped to calm the political tensions of the late 18th/early 19th century.  Only time will tell if it ends up creating a new mess for us in the 21st century. 

My Take on Mitt Romney Choosing Paul Ryan for V.P.

This seemed like as good a time as any to get back into the blogging swing of things...

Today it appears that Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney will proclaim to the world that Paul Ryan is his choice for vice President. Let me first say that I'm not the political junkie I once was. For me, American politics has lost a lot of its former luster and interest. I've simply grown tired of the predictable script that both Democrats and Republicans (and even Independents) act out, and the unavoidable doomsday rhetoric that both pundits and the populace seem to embrace without even attempting to engage in the smallest measure of communal discourse. This now boring apocalyptic tug-o-war has worn me out to the point that I am forced to agree with the words of Winston Churchill, who aptly stated:

The best argument against a democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

Amen. To be honest, I don't care who wins the 2012 election. Honestly. It means very little to me. Of course, you may think to yourself that my view is jaded or downright cynical and that's fine. I have no need to explain myself. I feel the way I feel and I am comfortable with it. With that said, I do offer up the following critique of Mr. Romney's selection, if for nothing more than to get back into the blogging flow, spark a meaningful discussion and illustrate that my disgust with American politics isn't based in ignorance, but rather on a healthy aversion to the lazy, boring and oftentimes stupid manner in which Americans (both on the left and the right) conduct their political affairs.

So, without further delay, here are my Paul Ryan pro’s and con’s:

Pros:

1.) “It’s the economy, stupid.” Romney’s decision to pick Paul Ryan reveals the fact that he has chosen to go all in with the message of austerity and deficit reduction. This is a strong message that does have large appeal with many voters, especially in the wake of America’s financial struggles. Ryan has been a passionate advocate for a dramatic reduction in spending, and his nomination to the V.P. signals that the Romney campaign intends to go full speed ahead with its message that President Obama’s economic policies have failed. This will be their singular message, and I believe they intend to ride this horse all the way to November.  All the eggs are officially in one basket.

2.) Paul Ryan will energize the conservative base. There is no doubt that the Tea Party crowd loves this guy. He’s a skilled hunter, a conservative “number cruncher,” a vocal opponent to all things Obama, a fitness buff and a die-hard Green Bay Paker’s fan. =)

3.) Paul Ryan could deliver some battleground states in the Great Lakes region. Aside from possibly swinging Wisconsin to the red, Romney’s decision to pick Paul Ryan reveals that he has decided bank on the Great Lakes region as a plausible road to the White House.  Can Ryan help to deliver Michigan? How might this pick help to influence neighboring battleground states like Iowa and Ohio? Hard to say, but it is clear that this is the region of the country that will become most important to the Romney/Ryan ticket.

4.) Youth and Energy.  Paul Ryan’s youth and energy will reinvigorate a race that has been sinking. Let’s face it; the Romney campaign has been losing steam and taking on water all summer. Romney simply isn’t the most appealing guy to average American voters. The same cannot be said for his younger and more energetic running mate...at least not yet. Paul Ryan has been known for his competitive streak, his high level of energy and his lack of fear when squaring off with more seasoned political opponents. Ryan is a fitness buff.  He's a P90X, Crossfit junkie. His energy level alone will invigorate this campaign.  Might this be the shot in the arm that the Romney camp needs?

Cons:

1.) Goodbye Florida. Choosing Paul Ryan has made it increasingly unlikely that Mitt Romney will carry arguably the most important swing state of the past 40 years. Though Ryan’s message of deficit reduction is quite popular with conservative voters, his quest to transform and cut Medicare is going to anger older voters. This may very well be the single biggest negative that Paul Ryan will bring to the Romney ticket. How they will convince a large and very important voting block (especially in Florida) is going to be one hell of a challenge.

2.) Women Voters. One of Romney’s biggest hurdles has been the gender gap. Simply put, Obama is destroying him when it comes to the ladies. And though picking Paul Ryan is going to please most conservative men, this doesn’t help him in any way with the growing divide he has with women.  Most "experts" were expecting Romney to pick somebody that would help in this area.  Paul Ryan doesn't seem to fit that bill.

3.) Lack of Experience. This almost always seems to be an issue with at least one of the vice Presidential candidates.  It is certainly true that Paul Ryan has emerged as a shining star for fiscal conservatives, but this is pretty much all Ryan can list on his resume. Paul Ryan has no experience outside of representing his district and has received few accolades for anything outside of the financial arena (and on this he is not popular with moderates and liberals). While Romney and Ryan will likely be very strong on issues relating to the economy, it is also just as likely that Obama and Biden will be dominant on any issues relating to foreign policy, defense, social issues, etc.

4.) A Mormon, a Catholic and Image Issues. Maybe I am making more of this than I should, but are Evangelical voters really going to get excited about a Mormon/Catholic ticket? I realize that Evangelical voters loved Rick Santorum (a Catholic as well) but there is a different feel when it comes to Ryan. Of course, Ryan isn't the religious zealot that Santorum is, and maybe this is a positive for Romney.  But are people going to worry about Roman popes and Utah prophets secretly getting involved with Washington politics? It’s not that crazy of a suggestion, as many voters have posed these concerns in the past. I’m not saying I share them, only that some voters do. In addition, I think that the Romney/Ryan ticket may have some image problems. Are voters really going to respond to a couple of private sector, business-loving White guys in expensive suits talking about money all day? Only time will tell.

Either way this plays out, I am intrigued by Romney’s choice. Paul Ryan is a bold selection, and for a man who has been anything but bold throughout his campaign, maybe the change will be good medicine for the Romney ticket. Most were expecting Romney to pick an “established” candidate; somebody who could possibly deliver Ohio (Rob Portman) or Florida (Marco Rubio), or even help bridge the gender gap (Condoleezza Rice), but Romney went another direction. As a result, this election is going to be about one big thing: THE ECONOMY!  The political battle lines have been very clearly drawn.  Romney/Ryan will be a ticket that presents itself as the embodiment of fiscal conservatism and smaller deficit spending that opposes all things Obama. Will the message resonate? Can Romney win without Florida? Can he overcome the gender gap?  I don’t know but I do think that 2012 will be closer than 2008.

As far as a V.P. pick goes, I have to tip my hat to Mitt Romney.  I think this was a smart political move. Sure, he could have picked a woman or somebody who could help with an important battleground state, but when you think of what you want from a vice Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan delivers.  Energize the base: check.  Capacity to deliver strong speeches on key divisive issues: check.  Ability to stand up against political opponents: check.  Help to make clear distinctions and alternatives to those of your opponent: check.  This was a smart move politically for Mitt Romney.  Paul Ryan is not the high risk, high reward pick...er...DEBACLE that Sarah Palin was for John McCain.  Does he have what it takes to step into the big, national arena? We're all about to find out.  Ryan is a smart and very politically savvy individual who has shown in the past that he has no fear of going toe-to-toe with Obama.  Paul Ryan is also a self-made, hard working figure with blue collar roots, who will help to alleviate at least some of the attention directed at Mitt Romney for being just another out of touch rich guy.   

But in the end, I still have to give the edge to President Barack Obama. Mitt Romney's general lack of appeal, coupled with his reputation as a flip-flopper, are major hurdles facing his campaign.  And a V.P. candidate, no matter how solid, can only do so much.  Romney still faces an uphill road.  Incumbents are, historically, hard to beat.  My prediction: Obama wins reelection by an Electoral College score of 298-240.

But hey, I’m still holding out hope for that elusive 269-269 tie, which would be an AWESOME mess! Oh, and it’s a future blog post that is coming up in a few weeks. What would happen in the event of a 269-269 tie?

Stay tuned.

Decades, Diamonds and Dollars

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:

"God Save the Queen!"

 

Venus and the Birth of America

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:

 

"Old School" Scholarship on Washington's Religious Beliefs

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).

Origen Bacherer, 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."