Understanding Colonial New England via Sermons

I recently finished reading Harry Stout's book,  The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial New England.  Stout, who is a professor of American Religious History at Yale and the author of numerous books on early American religion, focuses on the unique character and evolution of the New England sermon, and how it served as the dominant means by which information was transmitted to the general populace.  Stout argues that no other medium was anywhere as effective in shaping New England thought: "The New England sermon, whose topical range and social influence were so powerful in shaping cultural values, meanings and sense of corporate purpose that even the television pales in comparison."

Stout presents the sermon experience from the perspective of five generations of Puritan believers, beginning with the "Church Fathers" (original settlers) and concluding with the generation of the American Revolution.  Stout argues that each generation maintained a consistent loyalty to the basic tenants of Puritan Christianity, but that subtle changes between generations allowed for a more democratic interpretation of the Congregationalist message.  He writes:

The founders invented a meaning for New England and the children maintained and built upon it.  Third-generation ministers, living in a tolerant "Anglicanized" age, promulgated the same doctrines as their predecessors but adorned them with a "polite" style that registered the influence of English manners and the "New Learning."  Forth-generation ministers, spanning the years of religious "awakening" and war with France, learned anew the importance of delivery both in theory and fact.  Finally, fifth-generation ministers, living through Independence, built their case for resistance and revolution on the memory of the founders and New England's inherited covenant mission.

In short, what Stout argues is that there was far more cohesiveness on the part of Puritan preachers of successive generations that there was division.  The natural evolution of Puritan theology was more a symptom of inevitable change and development than proof of spiritual decline.  Again from Stout:

If there was a "decline" and resultant "secularization" of Puritanism, it was not evident in the regular life of the churches.  The majority of inhabitants continued to go to church, and their ministers persisted in the same subject matter of their sermons.  No shift from piety to moralism was evident.  Indeed, it appears that models of secularization stem from historians' failure to appreciate the functional distinctions made by colonial ministers...The more one reads these sermons the more one finds unsatisfactory the suggestion that ideas of secular "republicanism," "civil millennialism, or class conscience "popular ideology" were the primary ideological triggers of radical resistance and violence in Revolution [my emphasis].

This is, in my opinion, the most compelling argument Stout makes. It is easy for even a successful historian to get lost in the fog of emerging Enlightenment doctrine that helps to make this era of history so appealing.  We naturally want to gravitate to the "new" ideas of Isaac Newton, Locke, etc.  Stout, however, would advise caution.  While Enlightenment ideas were no doubt prevalent and growing, the Puritan message was not going out of style.  As Stout himself aptly puts it, "Anglicanization, in short, gilded the face of New England society, but did not transform its soul."

None of this suggests that the Puritan message remained completely untarnished or free from change.  The rise of new scientific sensibilities, the debates over natural religion, and other emerging counterarguments left their mark on the New England countryside.  But these new ideas were not seen as fatal blows to the Puritan mindset.  Most Puritan ministers were effective in their ability to reconcile divine revelation (as any Congregationalist community saw it) with the "new science" of their day.  So long as this new thinking did not upset the world of Reformed Christianity or minimized the importance of Sola Scriptura, these challenges were not as scary as they may first appear. 

When dissent did arise over matters of theology in New England it was usually to do with issues that had little to do with new Enlightenment principles.  The "Great Awakening" is a perfect example.  With the rise of Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield came a new emphasis on the individual conviction of salvation by Christ as opposed to the traditional Congregationalist conversion experience that relied more on hierarchy and ceremony.  But this change (which would give birth to the Old Light v. New Light battle) had more to do with the FRUITS of conversion than it did with any actual challenge to church authority. 

And though I found Stout's book to be both informative and compelling, there are a few areas of concern.  First, it would be easy for the casual reader to assume that the Puritan message was the dominant message of Colonial America.  New England, rightfully so, received a tremendous amount of credit for being the soil in which revolution was allowed to germinate.  With that being said, it is important that we keep in mind the many other factors that led not only to revolution but allowed each colony to develop on its own.  Puritanism, though a powerful force, was not the only big kid on the school yard. 

In addition, I would have enjoyed hearing Stout's take on the emergence of preachers like Jonathan Mayhew and how his brand of preaching proved challenging to traditional Puritan Christianity.  With that being said, I was overall pleased with the book.  It's worth the time. 

Book Review: The God Who Weeps

The God Who Weeps: How Mormonism Makes Sense of Life. By Terryl and Fiona Givens (Salt Lake City: Ensign Peak, 2012. Pp. 160).

In recent years, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) has experienced a sudden exodus from the faith on the part of many of its rank-and-file members.  Thanks in large part to the Internet, many Mormons have discovered a number of historical and theological issues that has caused a great deal of doubt and concern for many Latter-day Saints, who originally believed that their faith was impenetrable to such things.  As former Church Historian Marlin K. Jensen recently stated:

Maybe since Kirtland, we've never had a period of -- I'll call it apostasy, like we're having now...It's a different generation.  There's no sense kidding ourselves, we just need to be very upfront with [members] and tell them what we know and give answers to what we have and call on their faith like we all do for things we don't understand.

This crisis of faith, that has already claimed a number of former members in its wake, has gone relatively unopposed.  Little has been said (other than the traditional "don't you dare doubt" or "just pray about it" responses) to help remedy the situation.

That is until now.

In their book, The God Who Weeps: How Mormonism Makes Sense of Life, the husband and wife team of Terryl and Fiona Givens offer us a concise but extraordinarily eloquent overview of the profoundly complex yet extremely basic theology that is found within Mormonism, and how said theology answers some of life's most difficult to answer questions. The Givens challenge many of the preconceived ideas held by both Christian and Mormon supporters and detractors by resting their thesis on the idea that God's strength and ultimate sovereignty rest in his infinite loving vulnerability rather than his divine dictatorial supremacy.  In consequence, The God Who Weeps reveals a god who mourns for his creations when they sin, as opposed to a god who arbitrarily consigns the sinner to an eternity in hell.

The book is essentially divided into five sections (chapters) that each emphasize a separate and unique concept that the Givens believe are both unique to the Mormon faith and worthy of our further inquiry.  In the first chapter (His Heart Is Set Upon Us), Terryl and Fiona Givens develop their concept of the "weeping God" and how such a deity is both worthy of our devotion and fully capable of coming to our aid:

There could be nothing in this universe, or in any possible universe, more perfectly good, absolutely beautiful, worthy of adoration, and deserving of emulation, than this God of love and kindness and vulnerability. That is why a gesture of belief in His direction, a decision to acknowledge His virtues as the paramount qualities of a divided universe, is a response to the best in us, the best and noblest of which the human soul is capable. But a God without passions would engender in our hearts neither love nor interest. In the vision of Enoch, we find ourselves drawn to a God who prevents all the pain He can, assumes all the suffering He can, and weeps over the misery He can neither prevent nor assume.

The Givens further develop the idea of the "suffering" or "weeping" god by pointing to the writings of early church patriarchs like St. Augustine and Origen, along with modern writers such as C.S. Lewis and Emily Dickinson, all of whom insinuated, in one way or another, that God's strength and ultimate sovereignty rested in his love and vulnerability for mankind as opposed to his supremacy as some sort of cold and distant dictator.

In the second chapter (Man Was in the Beginning With God), the Givens focus on a point of Mormon doctrine (pre-existence) that they believe is dramatically underplayed by both critics and supporters of Mormonism.  It is worth nothing that the majority of this chapter's material is drawn from Terryl Givens' other book, When Souls Had Wings, which is almost exclusively devoted to the concept of pre-mortal existence and it's development in Western thought.  In this chapter, the Givens turn to the writings of the ancient Greeks, Babylonians Jews, etc. who all maintained an interest in the idea of a pre-mortal world/existence.

In the third chapter (Men Are That They Might Have Joy), the books highlights the importance of human choice and how said choices can determine our happiness and illustrate what we as individuals value most in our mortal lives:

Whatever sense we make of this world, whatever value we place upon our lives and relationships, whatever meaning we ultimately give to our joys and agonies, must necessarily be a gesture of faith. Whether we consider the whole a product of impersonal cosmic forces, a malevolent deity, or a benevolent god, depends not on the evidence, but on what we choose, deliberately and consciously, to conclude from that evidence.  To our minds, this fork in our mental road is very much the point.  It is, in fact, inescapable. 

In other words, the Givens remind us that joy, faith and hope really are in the eye of the beholder. They do so by pointing to biblical figures like Adam and Eve, and the apparent quandary they experienced while in the Garden of Eden.  Partaking of the fruit meant introducing pain, hurt, grief and despair into the world, but it also brought about joy, happiness, love and charity.  In short, life becomes a quest to put off the "natural man" and experience for ourselves (and through our own choices) the joy that is available to all.

Chapter 4 (None of Them Is Lost) is, in my opinion, the most important chapter of this work.  In this chapter, the Givens challenge many of the erroneous cultural beliefs that Mormons have with regards to salvation. Too often members of the Mormon faith (and Christians in general) make the incorrect assumption that salvation will only be attained by a select few and that heaven will be a relatively underpopulated place while hell will be full to the brim.  This is nonsense.  As the Givens point out:

God is personally invested in shepherding His children through the process of mortality and beyond; His desires are set upon the whole human family, not upon a select few. He is not predisposed to just the fast learners, the naturally inclined, or the morally gifted. The project of human advancement that God designed offers a hope to the entire human race.  It is universal in its appeal and reach alike. This, however, has not been the traditional view.

And:

We are not in some contest to rack up points. We will not someday wait with bated breath to see what prize or pain is meted out by a great dispenser of trophies. We cannot so trivialize life that we make of it a coliseum where we wage moral combat like spiritual gladiators, for a presiding Authority on high to save or damn according to our performance. Where would be the purpose in all that? He might take the measure of our souls at any moment and deal with us accordingly, saving Himself, not to mention us, a great deal of trouble. How much more meaningful is a life designed for spiritual formation, rather than spiritual elevation.

In other words, heaven isn't a prize to be won but a state of being to be attained.  The value of this concept is infinitely important for Mormons and the world as a whole.  God wants to save everyone, not just a few.  As a result, Mormonism is NOT a small tent faith of exclusivity but is a big tent UNIVERSALIST religion.  As Joseph Smith himself stated, "God will fetter out every individual soul."

In their 5th and final section (Participants in the Divine Nature), the Givens essentially sum it all up and illustrate the Mormon belief that God wants the best for all of his children.  As a result, we can, through our own merits and God's grace, achieve a state of full happiness and joy, surrounded by those we love most.  In short, the Givens suggest that heaven will be, for those who choose it, a continuation of all the special relationships we experience here on Earth, except that the joy can be infinite.  Though our own vulnerability, we too can become "joint heirs" with Christ.

In summation, The God Who Weeps is a welcomed and invaluable response to those who believe that Mormonism has nothing to offer the modern world.  It presents a theology that is fully developed, complex and worthy of scholarly inquiry and soul-searching meditation.  The authors of this work demonstrate an exceptional ability to sift through centuries of material to find the perfectly pitched quotations and evidence needed to prove their argument.  The depth and breadth of their knowledge of world literature, theology, philosophy, art and history is astounding, and serves to support their thesis that Mormonism is a deeply rich and fulfilling religion with a great deal to offer the world.  All current and former Mormons would do well to realize that trivializing the faith, or reducing the argument to the smallest possible denominator, does little to help increase our understanding.  There is nothing to be gained from picking fun at the low-lying fruit of Mormonism As Terryl Givens states:

Mormons have largely left others to frame the theological discussion.  In opting to emphasize Mormon culture over Mormon theology, Mormons have too often left the media and ministers free to select most esoteric and idiosyncratic for ridicule.  So jibes about Kolob and magic underwear usurp serious engagement, much as public knowledge about the Amish is confined to a two-dimensional caricature involving a horse and buggy.  But members of a faith community should recognize themselves in any fair depiction.  And it is the fundamentals of Mormonism that should ground any debate worth having about Mormon beliefs or Mormon membership in the Christian community.

And for the Givens these fundamentals are:

1.) God's strength is found in his vulnerability.  His Heart is set upon us.
2.) We are eternal in nature and were in the beginning with God.
3.) We can, through our own choices and God's eternal grace, have eternal joy.
4.) Salvation is universal and open to all who want it.  Mormonism is Universalist in nature.
5.) We can be participants and joint heirs in the divine nature.

In a mere 160 pages, The God Who Weeps does what no other book has been able to: present to the world a concise yet complex narrative of why Mormonism matters.  My advise to all who read this is simple: if you love being a Mormon and have never questioned your faith, read this book.  It will give you a better understanding of those who do.  If you are a Mormon and have doubts or have already left the faith, read this book.  It may give you a better understanding/perspective of why Mormonism matters and the value that can be had by living the faith.  If you are not a Mormon and want to know what the faith is all about, read this book.  It will give you a better understanding of why Mormonism is a unique and valuable faith that is worthy of more than both its members and critics have given it.

Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an

A new book by historian Denise Spellberg explores the possible influence that the Qur'an had on shaping the mind of one of America's most important Founding Fathers.

Roughly eleven years before penning the words to the Declaration of Independence, the always curious Thomas Jefferson purchased a copy of the Holy Qur'an and began at least a casual study of the Muslim religion (Jefferson's Qur'an still survives in the Library of Congress).  Jefferson's curiosity about the Muslim religion was originally inspired by one of his heroes, John Locke, who also maintained an interest in studying what was a very mysterious and misunderstood faith for most Europeans of the 18th century.

Spellberg's book does not necessarily suggest that Islam's doctrine helped to establish the American republic, but it does suggest that Islam served as a litmus test of sorts in determining religious freedom in the infant nation.  Spellberg writes:

Amid the interdenominational Christian violence in Europe, some Christians, beginning in the sixteenth century, chose Muslims as the test case for the demarcation of the theoretical boundaries of their toleration for all believers. Because of these European precedents, Muslims also became a part of American debates about religion and the limits of citizenship. As they set about creating a new government in the United States, the American Founders, Protestants all, frequently referred to the adherents of Islam as they contemplated the proper scope of religious freedom and individual rights among the nation’s present and potential inhabitants. The founding generation debated whether the United States should be exclusively Protestant or a religiously plural polity. And if the latter, whether political equality—the full rights of citizenship, including access to the highest office—should extend to non-Protestants. The mention, then, of Muslims as potential citizens of the United States forced the Protestant majority to imagine the parameters of their new society beyond toleration. It obliged them to interrogate the nature of religious freedom: the issue of a “religious test” in the Constitution, like the ones that would exist at the state level into the nineteenth century; the question of “an establishment of religion,” potentially of Protestant Christianity; and the meaning and extent of a separation of religion from government.

In my opinion, this is an appropriate estimation of how Islam influenced the founding of America. Anything more than this would be a gross overestimation of Islam's nominal impact on a founding that was largely secular in nature.
 

This isn't to say that other historians haven't tried (and failed in my opinion) to connect America's founding doctrines with the Muslim faith.  I've written in the past about a few such attempts that fortunately have not gained any traction in the historical community.  All religions have, at one time or another, tried to connect their faith to the founding of the United States, and Islam is no exception.

As far as Jefferson was concerned, his study of the Qur'an and Islam was not an endeavor to glean pearls of wisdom to help establish a new nation, but rather was a quest to gain understanding. Jefferson never read the Qur'an in order to learn how to create a republic; he was reading it to learn how to defend a republic.  If Islam could become a tolerated and appreciated faith in America, then the religious test of the republic would be a resounding success.  Again from Spellberg:

What the supporters of Muslim rights were proposing was extraordinary even at a purely theoretical level in the eighteenth century. American citizenship—which had embraced only free, white, male Protestants—was in effect to be abstracted from religion. Race and gender would continue as barriers, but not so faith. Legislation in Virginia would be just the beginning, the First Amendment far from the end of the story; in fact, Jefferson, Washington, and James Madison would work toward this ideal of separation throughout their entire political lives, ultimately leaving it to others to carry on and finish the job.

Should be an interesting read.  Only $11 on Kindle!!!

Christopher Hitchens Strikes Out on Thomas Jefferson

One of my favorite things about early American religious history (one of my favorite topics to study) is the juxtaposition of actual history with the rhetoric of today's culture warriors who pose as historians. When pseudo-historians like David Barton or Howard Zinn present their cases to a historically illiterate public, they do so knowing that most of the resistance they will meet will come in the form of watered-down political/religious rhetoric that usually fizzles out somewhere on the never-ending highway of cable news and talk radio. And though most choose to accept the rhetoric of their chosen "team" in this never-ending culture war, I believe that it is still important to at least attempt to expose the historical faux pas wherever they may creep up. Whether it be a strange Glenn Beck rant or a Peter Lillback blunder, I believe that the "umpires" of history should call these impostors out whenever possible.

And today, I believe we have found another batter, who despite his massive swing and impressive batting average, has whiffed on a pitch that he promised to take yard. In one of his last works of mortality, Christopher Hitchens, the Late, great intellectual and atheist extraordinaire, elected to stand in the box and take a few swings at the religious legacy of one Thomas Jefferson. In his 2009 biography on Jefferson, Hitchens claimed that he wanted to present a more nuanced view of his subject than is usually found in the works of Jefferson critics and worshipers. Despite this claim, Hitchens' work quickly diverts from his supposed path of objectivity and travels head-on into an inevitable collision with modern pop-culture, thus rendering the work to be of little historical value. Aside from its strange conclusions on Jefferson's relationships with his mother and with Meriwhether Lewis, not to mention its lack of historical perspective on slavery, Indians, etc., Hitchens' book makes some astonishing claims in the very department that Hitchens loves/hates most: religion.

Right from the start, it becomes very obvious that Hitchens is attempting to "claim" Jefferson for the atheist camp more than he is trying to let Jefferson speak for himself. Hitchens somehow feels qualified to read between the lines of Jefferson's public and private declarations on religion, which affords him the ability to claim atheism where no atheism is to be had. For example, when discussing the final days of Jefferson's life, Hitchens writes:

(Pp. 182).

As his days began to wane, Jefferson more than once wrote to friends that he face the approaching end without either hope or fear. This was as much as to say, in the most unmistakable terms, that he was not a Christian. As to whether he was an atheist, we must reserve judgement if only because of the prudence he was compelled to reserve during his political life

In other words, Hitchens says, "Jefferson was probably an atheist but he couldn't admit it, due to his political duties."

And though it is true that Jefferson was far from being a Christian in any traditional way, to claim that Jefferson invoked religion purely for political reasons is reading between the lines. Virtually everything that Jefferson ever wrote on his personal religious beliefs reveal a private devotion to a providential god of nature, not a rejection of deity. So, while Hitchens was right to say that we must "reserve judgement" on Jefferson's religion, he could have done without the followup lines on political prudence being the exclusive reasons behind Jefferson's approval of religion.

***Strike 1***

Along with his weak attempt at portraying Thomas Jefferson as a closet atheist, Hitchens also fumbles the ball on his interpretation of deism. For Hitchens, deism of the 18th century was a strict belief in the absence of God from human affairs. No product of the Enlightenment could believe in any form of an intervening providential God and claim deism. This later proves problematic for Hitchens when he tries to classify Jefferson's public profession of faith (because he was privately an atheist) as deism, since Jefferson himself seemed to believe in a god who participated in human affairs:

(Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18).

God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever

***STRRRRRRIKE 2***

And finally, Hitchens takes his final hack of the bat when he incorrectly interprets Jefferson's motives for rewriting the Bible to his own liking. Hitchens claims that Jefferson's creation of The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth was meant to "[Throw] away all of the superfluous, ridiculous and devotional parts" of the Bible, and expunge "all mentions of angels, miracles and the resurrection" all in an effort to to separate "reason from faith." And though it is true that Jefferson removed many of the New Testament miracles, not all of the "ridiculous and devotional parts" were taken out. For example, Jefferson's "Bible" retains Jesus' emphasis on prayer, along with the blessings that come as a result. Jefferson's Bible also retains many of the teachings on the Father and the Holy Ghost, and their role(s) in assisting mankind. And perhaps most striking, Jefferson's Bible retains the belief that Jesus Christ himself will one day return to earth to judge mankind.

So much for the Jefferson Bible doing away with "all ridiculous and devotional parts." (Hat tip: M. DeForrest).

STRIKE 3. You're OUT!!!***

In summation, though Hitchens was a brilliant speaker, debater, writer and intellectual, he was not a historian. His biography (which really shouldn't even be considered a real biography but more of a "treatment") of Jefferson does not add much to the historiography of one of America's greatest statesmen. Regardless of this fact, Hitchens' book, like so many others from fellow culture warriors on both sides, is likely to influence many who regard history as the pursuit of "presentist" agendas mingled with the past. For me the book is pretty much on an equal footing with anything written by David Barton, Peter Lillback or Howard Zinn: on demand, fast food, quick fix, feel good, pill-that-numbs-the-pain, diluted commentary, camouflaged as history.

Book Review: Architects of Annihilation

Architects of Annihilation: Auschwitz and the Logic of Destruction. By Gotz Aly and Susanne Heim (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2002. Pp. 514).

The events that led up to the atrocities of the Holocaust have been a source of ardent debate for historians. Being able to add clarity to the fog of Holocaust historiography is no small task for any writer. In their work, Architects of Annihilation: Auschwitz and the Logic of Destruction, historians Gotz Aly and Susanne Heim have effectively provided simple but convincing evidence that adds a new perspective to this critical historical event. Instead of prescribing to the traditional view of Holocaust historiography, Aly and Heim have challenged the status quo interpretation of the causes of the Holocaust by rejecting the notion that Nazi atrocities are simply too evil to be understood from a scholarly perspective. Instead, Aly and Heim suggest that it is both logical and prudent to view the Holocaust as a well constructed and detailed plan of mass execution (Pp. 4-5).

The central component in the development of Aly and Heim’s thesis is their suggestion that the Nazi extermination of the Jewish population was not motivated purely by racial hatred, but by a desire to establish German economic hegemony over the whole of Europe. In an effort to secure their economic destiny, the Nazi regime embarked on a, “negative population policy,” which sought to achieve, “an optimum population size” (Pp. 4). In other words, the Nazi’s targeted undesirable groups of the population in an effort to purify the German economic machine. The Nazi justification for the elimination of specific groups of the population came from the belief that, ‘Europe was one vast wasteland crying out for ‘readjustment’ and ‘reconstruction,’” (Pp. 7). Aly and Heim suggest that the Jewish population made a perfect target for the Nazi’s “negative population policy,” because of their strong participation in the German and Austrian economies, which was quickly branded as a detriment to Germany’s quest for economic superiority. Instead of being branded and persecuted by racist xenophobes, Aly and Heim suggest that the Jewish population’s sufferings originate out of the Nazi doctrine of economic domination.

To help support their claims, Aly and Heim appeal to the role of Auschwitz as a micro history of sorts, which they believe is representative of the larger Nazi policy of “negative population.” Aly and Heim point out the fact that the construction of Auschwitz coincided with Germany’s plan to improve the economic situation in Poland. From the Nazi perspective, Poland was a virtual economic backwater in desperate need of modernization. According to Aly and Heim, the construction and implementation of Auschwitz as a means of population control became a medium through which Poland could be put on the path towards economic prosperity, In other words, the “undesirable” or “excess” segments of the population that were seen as a burden to the Polish economy could simply be collected and eventually eliminated in the most efficient way possible. This bold move towards “social modernization,” in which segments of the Polish population were forced into camps such as Auschwitz, gave the Nazi regime all the justification it needed to further its acts of brutality.

In addition to their analysis of Auschwitz and other parts of Eastern Europe, Aly and Heim devote a large amount of their book to the role of social and economic “technocrats,” who they believe were the principle developers of the Nazi policy of population control. In this regard, Aly and Heim are, yet again, directly challenging the traditional historiography of Holocaust research. Instead of placing the blame on the shoulders of Nazi elites, Aly and Heim suggest that it was the contributions of social scientists (sociologists, economists, demographers, etc.) that were instrumental in developing the Nazi doctrine of negative population. Aly and Heim clearly support the notion that the German policy of population control would not have come to fruition without the involvement of these social “technocrats,” who were given free rein to develop and present their Darwinian-influenced ideas of population control and economic growth to the Nazi hierarchy.

Though clearly a unique perspective into the development of German economics and population control, this book fails to address the role of racism anti-Semitism in the Nazi doctrine of “negative population.” Despite Aly and Heim’s sporadic mentioning of German racism, there is a noticeable omission of its possible influence in shaping Germany’s policy towards the “undesirable” segments of society. Instead, Aly and Heim suggest that German racism and anti-Semitism were used as a secondary influence, which helped to bring about the primary goal of German economic superiority.

Despite its controversial claims, Architects of Annihilation should be seen as an enlightening perspective into the possible motives behind the horrors of the Holocaust. Gots Aly and Susanne Heim’s interpretation of Nazi policy is likely to inspire a plethora of debate between critics and supporters on the issue. Regardless of what skeptics or believers may say, this work should remain as a unique contribution to the historiography of the Holocaust.

Book Review: Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men

Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War. By Eric Foner. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Pp. xxxix, 317).

The years leading up to the American Civil War have been a source of ardent debate for historians. Being able to add clarity to the convoluted labyrinth of Civil War historiography is no small task for any writer. Historian Eric Foner, however, is an exception to that rule. In his book, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men Foner effectively provides simple but convincing evidence that adds a new perspective to the critical formative years of the Republican Party, just prior to the commencement of the Civil War. Foner attempts to portray the division between North and South as more than a simple disagreement over political issues, but rather as a passionate and tangible battle between rival moral standards.

Foner’s prose successfully resurrects the underlying tensions that shaped Republican ideology. Foner suggests that the Republican Party eventually grew to see their world dividing into two distinct societies: one agrarian and oppressive, the other industrial and libertarian. As the idea of free labor gained notoriety in the North for being a noble endeavor, slavery was receiving greater condemnation for its barbarity. Foner alludes to this fact when he writes, “If the free labor outlook gave Republicans a model of the good society, it also provided them with a yardstick for judging other social systems, and by this standard, slave society was found woefully wanting” (Pp. 40).

The book’s main strength comes from the author’s analysis of the ideology of free labor. Foner’s opening chapters are almost exclusively dedicated to the Republican Party’s advancement and development of the free labor doctrine. As the economy of the North grew to embrace this new policy on labor, more and more people began to see its benefits. This ideology was then woven into the Republican agenda, which strove to convince the masses of the superiority of a free labor economy. “The economic superiority of free to slave labor became a major argument of the Republicans in their attempt to win northern votes” (Pp. 43). Foner adds further credence to his argument by mentioning the numerous reporters that traveled to the Deep South to bring to light the inferiority of the Southern slave economy (Pp. 46-49). By relating stories of slave oppression, the plight of the poor whites, and the dilapidated nature of Southern infrastructure, the press was able to convince its readers that the economy of the South was morally unacceptable. Northern obsession with free labor, combined with a strong abhorrence of the slave economy, gave Republican politics a strong advantage that propelled their agenda forward.

The development of free labor ideology is a reoccurring theme in this book. Foner uses it to demonstrate just how powerful of a dichotomy there was between the North and South in terms of economics. Foner points out that the Northern economic standard evolved into a moral one, which was in constant conflict with slavery. Foner makes mention that the apparent upward social mobility of the North was of paramount significance, and was one of the primary problems with Southern slavery. “The plight of the poor whites [in the South] was compounded, as Republicans saw it, by their lack of opportunity to rise in the social scale” (Pp. 47). Foner does not neglect the perspective of the South, however, which maintained that, “there must be a class to do the mean duties, to perform the drudgeries of life” (Pp. 66). Clearly the economic divisions depicted by Foner had evolved into much more than a simple dispute, and had in fact become a passionate moral conflict.

The ideology of free labor is not the only issue addressed in this book. Foner also gives a lot of attention to the historical development of the Republican Party. In the middle and end parts of his book, he stresses the fact that Republicans were forced to incorporate a large conglomeration of politically diverse groups into their fold. Foner makes it clear that the Republican integration of abolitionists, ex-Whigs, ex-Democrats, and others was a slow process that required adaptation and compromise. The radically charged viewpoints of many within the party (Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens to name only a couple) required time to adapt to the more conservative perspectives within the party. As Foner claims, there existed a large number of conservatives that were not as charged over the slavery issue as the radicals (Pp. 187).

One of the best aspects of Foner’s inquiry into the development of the Republican Party comes from his chapter on Salmon Chase. In it, Foner demonstrates how Chase was able to effectively weave slavery into a political issue. By doing so, abolitionists and other radicals rallied around the idea, creating an agenda of zero tolerance. As different factions came together under the banner of the Republican Party, slavery became its main political issue. Foner adds credibility to this argument by effectively demonstrating how the conservative elements within the party began to see slavery as an assault to their ideology of free labor. By doing so, Foner reveals how those less interested in the slavery issue were persuaded to believe that slavery presented a legitimate threat to their way of life.

The appeal of this work should thus be seen from the perspective of Civil War historiography. As a result of his research, Foner has provided us with an additional way of understanding the events that led to the Civil War. By effectively exposing the importance of free labor ideology in the North, and its introduction and evolution in the Republican Party, the reader is able to gain a sense of the moral dilemma that existed between North and South. Foner’s insight into the various political factions that made up the Republican Party provide a rich and sophisticated view of the events that drove the North to strongly oppose the South. Though written from a predominantly Northern perspective, this book gives brilliant insight into the origins of the Civil War.

Book Review: Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century

Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century. By Benjamin Valentino. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004. Pp. viii, 253).

The twentieth century was the bloodiest in all of human history. The consequences of two world wars left a haunting impression upon the millions of survivors, who became reluctant witnesses to the atrocities of modern warfare. Along with the millions of war victims is another body of mass casualties that is often forgotten in the muddle of twentieth century history. The approximately 60-150 million victims of genocide across the world stand as a monument to the carnage of numerous regimes that embraced mass killing as a necessity. In his book, Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century, author Benjamin Valentino attempts to address the causes and motivations that have inspired genocide in the twentieth century. By essentially addressing genocide as nothing more than a “powerful political and military tool,” Valentino provides the reader with a detailed perspective into the motives behind genocide.

First off, it is important to recognize the fact that Valentino’s work avoids a discussion of semantics when dealing with the definition of genocide. Instead, the author’s book centers on “mass killings” of more than fifty thousand in number (Pp. 3-4). In so doing, Valentino broadens the scope of his argument by including numerous mass killings that are often ignored in the traditional study of genocide. Valentino also argues that the traditional understanding of genocide as being motivated by “severe ethnic, racial, national, or religious divisions” does not hold up, since “some of the bloodiest mass killings in history have occurred in relatively homogeneous societies” (Pp. 2). Valentino continues his assault on the traditional historiography of genocide by also suggesting that the “traditional studies of genocide have tended to diminish the role of leadership on the grounds that the interests and ideas of a few elites cannot account for the participation of the rest of society in the violence” (Pp. 2). Instead, Valentino proposes in his research that mass killing “occurs when leaders believe that their victims pose a threat that can be countered only by removing them from society or by permanently destroying their ability to organize” (Pp. 5).

To defend his thesis that leaders are responsible for mass killing as opposed to the masses, Valentino provides a detailed comparison between several similar regimes. For example, Valentino makes special mention of the racial tensions that permeated both German and South African society, along with the various forms of intolerance that covered Asia After briefly discussing the backgrounds of these regimes, Valentino poses a question to his audience: Why does mass killing occur in only some of these regimes, which, on the surface, appear to be very similar? Valentino then answers his question by suggesting that a cohesive leadership of elites, with an objective to consolidate their power, is the catalyst for mass killing. By pointing out that perpetrators of mass killing see their actions as, “a rational way to counter threats or implement certain types of ideologies,” Valentino discards the assumption that these regimes kill simply for the sake of killing.

To support his claims, Valentino focuses on three distinct groups of mass killings: communist, ethnic and counterguerrilla mass killings. In the first of these three classifications (which Valentino claims is responsible for the largest number of mass killings), Valentino focuses on the communist regimes of China, the Soviet Union and Cambodia. Valentino then points out the fact that these regimes have resorted to mass killings in an effort to secure that their social changes are met. As Valentino points out, “the effort to engineer utopia has been the justification for some of the world’s most horrendous crimes” (Pp. 92). For communist regimes to secure this “utopia,” they are often required to redistribute land and wealth, which is understandably a difficult change for the masses to accept. For this reason, communist regimes have embarked on some of the worst mass killing policies in world history. As Valentino points out, “The history of communism in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia is a powerful demonstration of the degree to which historical accidents, serendipity, and the power of individual personalities can determine the rise of extremely radical and violent groups’ (Pp. 150).

In his second group, ethnic mass killings, Valentino pays special attention to the Nazi regime and its motivations for committing to a policy of ethnic mass killings. Valentino emphasizes the fact that the Nazi regime (along with other regimes that are guilty of mass killings) had a specific strategic goal in mind, as opposed to the traditional assumption that they were simply out for blood. As Valentino writes, “Ethnic mass killings, especially the Holocaust, have tended to be portrayed as little more than killing for killing’s sake…The strategic approach, however, suggests that ethnic mass killing occurs when leaders come to believe that large-scale violence is the most practical way to accomplish a policy of ethnic cleansing” (Pp. 155). By focusing on the ethnic cleansing of Turkish Armenia, Nazi Germany, and Rwanda, Valentino provides his audience with ample insight into the evolution of how these regimes came to embrace mass killings as the only plausible solution to their respective ethnic dilemmas.

In the third group of mass killings addressed in his work, counterguerilla mass killings, Valentino discusses how a number of guerilla insurgencies (particularly in Guatemala and Afghanistan) have compelled governments to adopt a policy of mass killing. Valentino points out the fact that these forms of mass killing often come about not because an army becomes undisciplined or fed-up with the guerilla opposition it faces. Instead, Valentino suggests that counterguerilla forces often see their efforts as being “positive policies designed to improve the lives of the civilian population and draw support away from guerillas” (Pp. 199). In essence, the justification for such actions embraces the notion that one must kill in order to save.

Though often contrary to the traditional understanding of genocide, Valentino’s work provides us with a unique perspective into the causes and motivations behind mass killings. By suggesting that mass killings are primarily the result of an elite leadership, Valentino also proposes that we can better prevent these atrocities from happening again, by being proactive against regimes that have committed to the rapid disposal of a specific group from their society. An objective insight into the causes of mass killing, which Valentino considers to be born out of a political motivation to eliminate a perceived threat as opposed to simple hatred, may serve to prevent future atrocities from ever happening again

The Black Death: A Rat Problem?

For decades, scholars have maintained that the Black Death, one of the most devastating pandemics in human history, was the result of fleas living on the hair of oriental rats. These rats then made their way via merchant ships to the shores of Europe, where poor sanitation in the highly populated (and filthy) towns proved to be a perfect breeding ground for the Bubonic Plague. Long story short, at least 1/3 (and possibly as much as 50%) of Europe's population was killed off by the plague between the years 1346-1353.

But one new scholar isn't buying the traditional explanation of how the Black Death came to Europe. Historian Barney Sloane, author of the book, The Black Death in London, claims that rats were not the carriers off Bubonic Plague. In an interview with The Guardian, Sloane reveals the reasons behind his unorthodox conclusions:

The evidence just isn't there to support it," said Barney Sloane, author of The Black Death in London. "We ought to be finding great heaps of dead rats in all the waterfront sites but they just aren't there. And all the evidence I've looked at suggests the plague spread too fast for the traditional explanation of transmission by rats and fleas. It has to be person to person – there just isn't time for the rats to be spreading it."

He added: "It was certainly the Black Death but it is by no means certain what that disease was, whether in fact it was bubonic plague."

[...]

Sloane believes there was little difference in mortality rates between rich and poor, because they lived so closely packed together. The plague, he is convinced, spread from person to person in the crowded city.

Mortality continued to rise throughout the bitterly cold winter, when fleas could not have survived, and there is no evidence of enough rats.

Black rat skeletons have been found at 14th-century sites, but not in high enough numbers to make them the plague carriers, he said.

In sites beside the Thames, where most of the city's rubbish was dumped and rats should have swarmed, and where the sodden ground preserves organic remains excellently, few black rats have been found.

It is sometimes hard for us in the modern era to understand just how horrific the Black Death really was for 14th century Europeans. There is no doubt that the Black Death effected every single citizen of the Western world. Even if they themselves survived the horrible infection of Bubonic Plague they would have certainly known several people who died from it. Sloane provides an excellent illustration of just how terrible the Black Death was for those who lived through it:

It appeared to the citizens that everyone in the world might die. Richard de Shordych left goods and money to his son Benedict when he died in early March: his son outlived him by a fortnight.

Money, youth, and formerly robust good health were no protection. Edward III's own daughter, Joan, sailed for Spain with her trousseau, her dowry and her bridesmaids, to marry Pedro, heir to the throne of Castile. She would never see her wedding day as she died of the plague within 10 days of landing.

John of Reading, a monk in Westminster, left one of the few witness accounts. He described deaths happening so fast there was "death without sorrow, marriage without affection, self-imposed penance, want without poverty, and flight without escape".

In Rochester, William of Dene wrote that nobody could be found to bury the dead, "but men and women carried the bodies of their own little ones to church on their shoulders and threw them into mass graves from which arose such a stink that it was barely possible for anyone to go past a churchyard".

Sloane estimates that people living near the cemetery at Aldersgate, which is now buried under Charterhouse Square, in Smithfield, would have seen a corpse carried past every five minutes at the height of the plague.

As for Sloane's conclusions that the Bubonic Plague wasn't carried by fleas on the backs of rats, I cannot say. I am not familiar enough with the different ways that the Bubonic Plague could have been transmitted. I am skeptical, however, of Sloane's conclusion that the Black Death may not have been Bubonic Plague at all but in fact some other type of infection. In his excellent book, In the Wake of the Plague historian Norman Cantor (who is one of the top Medieval historians today) provides a detailed look at how the Black Death infected the human body. Not surprisingly, it matches exactly with what the Bubonic Plague does.

Bubonic Plague (which is usually circulated via fleas on the backs of rodents...another massive hurdle for Sloane to jump) is a horrific infection of the lymph glands, which causes severe pain, inflamation of the glands usually under the armpit and groin area, fever, coughing, vomiting and eventuality death. The most obvious symptom is that of rotting flesh, which causes extreme pain to the victim, not to mention a horrible stench. In fact, the famous nursery rhyme "Ring Around the Rosie" is believed to have its origins in the Black Death:

1.) "Ring Around the Rosie": signifies a rosy rash that was often seen as a symptom of the early onset of Bubonic Plague.

2,) "Pocket Full of Posies": Some suggest that this line has reference to either flowers being held by the dead prior to burial or to the fact that many Europeans carried posies of herbs to hopefully ward off infection and to ward off the terrible smell of the disease.

3.) "Ashes, Ashes, We All Fall Down": Of course, reference to death itself and the possible cremation that came with dying from Bubonic Plague.

No matter how the Black Death was transmitted, there is no question that it completely changed Europe. Few historians will argue the fact that the Black Death changed Europe's economics, social construct and even religious perspective. Many have gone so far as to suggest that the Black Death helped to bring about the Protestant Reformation. After all, not even the priests of the church could stop the spread of the horrific plague.

Book Review: Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?

Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? A Historical Introduction. By John Fea. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011. Pp. 287).

Was America founded to be a "Christian Nation?" Did its founders endeavor to create a nation where Christ and Cross were joined hand-in-hand with the Constitution? And if so, how is America's current makeup in harmony/defiance with the "original intent" of our nation's Founding Fathers? These are just some of the questions addressed by John Fea, historian and author of the book, Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? A Historical Introduction. With the current climate of today's culture wars, which seem more interested in mud-slinging, name-calling and partisan hostility than honest scholarly inquiry, Dr. Fea's book is a breath of fresh air that cuts through the nonsense with its sharp historical foundation.

Fea's book jumps right out of the gate to address many of the problems facing the current culture wars v. the actual study of early American history. Appealing to the formula created by historians Thomas Andrews and Flannery Burke, Fea suggests that greater clarity on the issue of religion and America's founding can be achieved by adherence to the "Five C's": history CHANGES over time, must be put in proper CONTEXT, is interested in CAUSALITY, is CONTINGENT upon prior conditions and is often very COMPLEX. With this framework in mind, Fea effectively lays out the problems many of the culture warriors face when they simplify history to fit their respective agenda:

Such an approach to the past is more suitable for a lawyer than for a historian...The lawyer cares about the past only to the degree that he or she can use a legal decision in the past to win a case in the present...The historian, however, does not encounter the past in this way (xxvi).

In other words, the "tug-o-war" mentality of today's culture warriors means that they aren't concerned with what history has to say, but with what they can say about history, and in the process the truth has become lost (or less important).

To get the reader back on the Yellow Brick Road of historical accuracy and out of the "sound-bite culture that makes it difficult to have any sustained dialogue", Fea divides his book into three parts. In part I, Fea examines the evolution of the "Christian Nation" thesis by exploring how its conceptualization meant different things at different times to different groups of people. For example, Fea notes how southerners, during the Civil War, endeavored to portray the United States as a godless, sinful society while their new Confederacy embraced the Christian God with open arms:

Southerners looking for evidence that the Confederacy was a Christian nation needed to look no further than their Constitution. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, which does not mention God, the Preamble of the constitution of the Confederate States of America made a direct appeal to "Almighty God." (17).

In addition, Fea also mentions the ironic (but often ignored) fact that many liberals during the post-Civil War era supported the "Christian Nation" thesis while many conservatives rejected it. Liberal preachers like Henry Ward Beecher (who, like many preachers today, ended up in a messy sex scandal) campaigned vigorously in favor of America's Christian identity. They sought to ensure that America's destiny was in harmony with Christ's admonition to help the poor, sick, etc.:

These Protestants thought that the Christian identity of the United States should be defined by the way society and government behaved. The citizens of a Christian nation followed the social teachings of Jesus...Those who championed the social gospel sought to advance the cause of justice and love throughout the nation and the world. (37).

Liberal Evangelicals, advocating for the social changes needed in a "Christian Nation." Surely enough to make Glenn Beck's head explode in confusion and rage!

In Part II of his book, Fea addresses the question, "Was the American Revolution a Christian Event?" To address this question, Fea juxtaposes America's "planting" (i.e. the migration of the Puritans) to America's "founding" (the actual creation of the United States). Fea's analysis of America's planting reveals that although many of the first settlers to the "New World" came for religious reasons, their motives weren't always as "Christian" as we sometimes think. For example, the early Puritans, who crossed the Atlantic to ensure "religious freedom" made sure to establish the same rigid rules to protect their faith that had existed back home in England. In other words, America became a land of Christian liberty, so long as your Christianity fell in line with the accepted Christianity. In addition, Fea points out the fact that religion was far from the exclusive motivator for New World colonization. Economic factors (i.e. the "Get rich quick" mentality) became central to the motivations behind American colonization.

When speaking of America's founding Fea discusses the role that religion played in shaping the revolutionary rhetoric that led up to independence. In essence, Fea suggests that religion served as an effective rallying cry, as ministers wielded Christianity as a sword in favor of independence. And though this religious rhetoric proved extremely effective, the American Revolution was hardly a religious debate. Fea writes:

the most important documents connected to the coming of the American Revolution focused more on Enlightenment political theory about the constitutional and natural rights of British subjects than on any Christian or biblical reason why resistance to the Crown was necessary. (106).

Fea supports this assertion by pointing to founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the federal Constitution. He suggests that all three documents (especially the Constitution) remain intentionally neutral on the topic of religion. In consequence, the Founders essentially left the issue of religion up to the individual states. As a result, the founders were effectively able to endorse the United States as a religious nation without giving Christianity any preference points.

In part III Fea examines the individual religious views of many key founders. In so doing, Fea effectively illustrates the fact that America's founders included devout, orthodox Christians (John Witherspoon, John Jay and Samuel Adams), secular Deists who doubted the divinity of Jesus and Christianity (Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson), and unitarian-leaning devotees, who detested orthodoxy but valued public and private religious devotion (George Washington and John Adams). This part of Fea's book is perhaps the most valuable because it shows that America's founding was as diverse as its participants. There was room at the table for Christians of all flavors as well as for skeptics of all shapes and colors.

In summary, Was America Founded as a Christian Nation is a fantastic introduction into this complex but fascinating era of American history. John Fea effectively sweeps away most of the smoke and mirrors employed by various culture warriors on both sides, thus allowing the history to speak for itself. So was America founded as a Christian nation? It probably depends on how you define those terms. Much of this debate is simply an argument over semantics. The more important question is, "can we cut through the convoluted mess of the culture wars and get at an answer"?

John Fea's book is proof that we can.

Alexander Hamilton's Religion

In my studies of the Founding Fathers (particularly their religious beliefs) I have found Alexander Hamilton to be an interesting enigma of sorts. Here was a man, who by all standards, should have never made it into the history books. Having been born on an obscure island to a mother who was essentially a whore and having little education, one would never expect to see Hamilton rise to the heights he achieved. So how did Hamilton achieve such incredible heights? It's actually quite simple: he was a genius.

And when it comes to Hamilton's religious beliefs the story becomes even more intriguing. To be certain, Hamilton was a religious man during the early years of his life. However, it appears that Hamilton's devotion wavered during his middle years only to come alive again at the end.

So what do we make of Hamilton's devotion/lack of devotion to religion?

Ron Chernow, who has written one of the best biographies of Hamilton, states the following on the role that religion played in the life of America's first (and maybe greatest) Secretary of the Treasury:

It is striking how religion preoccupied Hamilton during his final years. When head of the new Army, he had asked Congress to hire a chaplain for each brigade so that his soldiers could worship. Although he had been devout as a young man, praying fiercely at King's College, his religious faith had ebbed during the Revolution. Like other founders and thinkers of the Enlightenment, he was disturbed by religious fanaticism and tended to associate organized religion with superstition. While a member of Washington's military family, he wrote that "there never was any mischief but had a priest or a woman at the bottom." As treasury secretary, he had said, "The world has been scourged with many fanatical sects in religion who, inflamed by a sincere but mistaken zeal, have perpetuated under the idea of serving God the most atrocious crimes."

The atheism of the French Revolution and Jefferson's ostensible embrace of it (Jefferson was a deist who doubted the divinity of Christ, but not an atheist) helped to restore Hamilton's interest in religion. He said indignantly in his 1796 "Phocion" essays, "Mr. Jefferson has been heard to say since his return from France that the men of letters and philosophers he had met with in the country were generally atheists." He thought James Monroe had also been infected by godless philosophers in Paris and pictured the two Virginians dining together to "fraternize and philosophize against the Christian religion and the absurdity of religious worship." For Hamilton, religion formed the basis of all law and morality, and he thought the world would be a hellish place without it.

But did Hamilton believe sincerely in religion, or was it just politically convenient? Like Washington, he never talked about Christ and took refuge in vague references to "providence" or "heaven." He did not seem to attend services with Eliza, who increasingly spoke the language of evangelical Christianity, and did not belong formally to a denomination, even though Eliza rented a pew at Trinity Church. He showed no interest in liturgy, sectarian doctrine, or public prayer. The old discomfort with organized religion had not entirely vanished. On the other hand, Eliza was a woman of such deep piety that she would never have married someone who did not share her faith to some degree. Hamilton believed in a happy afterlife for the virtuous that would offer "far more substantial bliss than can ever be found in this checkered, this ever varying, scene!" He once consoled a friend in terms that left no doubt of his overarching faith in a moral order: "Arraign not the dispensations of Providence. They must be founded in wisdom and goodness. And when they do not suit us, it must be because there is some fault in ourselves which deserves chastisement or because there is a kind intent to correct in us some vice or failing of which perhaps we may not be conscious." How did Hamilton interpret God's lessen after the death of Phillip?

The papers of John Church Hamilton provide fresh evidence of his father's genuine religiosity in later years. He said that Hamilton experienced a resurgence of his youthful fervor, prayed daily, and scribbled many notes in the margin of the family Bible. A lawyer in training, Hamilton wanted logical proofs of religion, not revelation, and amply annotated his copy of A View of the Evidences of Christianity, by William Paley. "I have examined carefully the evidence of the Christian religion," he told one friend, "and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity, I should rather abruptly give my verdict in its favor." To Eliza, he said of Christianity, "I have studied it and I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man." John Church Hamilton believed that the time his father spent at the Grange, strolling about the grounds, broadened his religious awareness. During his final months, he was walking with Eliza in the woods and speaking of children when he suddenly turned to her and said in an enraptured voice, "I may yet have twenty years, please God, and and I will one day build for them a chapel in this grove."(Alexander Hamilton, 659-660)

For the most part, Chernow seems to be in agreement with the general points of history regarding Hamilton's personal faith: he was religious as a youth, became less religious during his middle years -- though never anti-religious -- and renewed his commitment to God/religion at the end of his life. During his middle years, when religion seemed to be of less importance in his life, Chernow argues that Hamilton used religion more as a political tool than anything else. In this way, Hamilton can be likened to some politicians/pastors today, who use religion as a political tool of sorts.

Maybe things don't change as much as we think!

Christ's Poor

Historian Gary Nash on the
Religion of the Average "Joe Sixpack"

When studying any topic of history, one of the main "sins" that is regularly committed is to focus on the stories of the "great man" while ignoring the sometimes boring and mundane tales of the average Joe. After all, the lives and legacies of the select (and often elite) few tend to be more exciting for both the reader and the researcher. As a result, the story of the subaltern often goes lost in the shuffle.

Such is the case with early American religion. When we stop to think about what our nation's earliest citizens believed we tend to focus on the select few (usually the Founding Fathers), whose beliefs, though important, sometimes differed from those of the common man/woman. While belief systems like deism, theistic rationalism, theological unitarianism, Christian orthodoxy, etc. each played a role in shaping the religious constructs of those we affectionately call the founders, these same forces were at work, in a very different way, on America's colonial "Joe Sixpack."

One of the best works of history in recent years on the life and influence of the common American during the American Revolution is Gary Nash's The Unknown American Revolution. In this book, Nash dissects how average colonial Americans (most of whom would have thought of themselves as British) played some of the most fundamental roles during America's quest for independence. And, among a plethora of other factors, Gary Nash mentions just how important religion was for the common American.

According to Nash, "Christ's Poor" as he refers to them, were the heart and soul of America's firestorm of religious enthusiasm, which literally devised new religious concepts for how an individual could commune with the divine. This "Great Awakening" as historians call it today, began to rebuke the traditional religious institutions, which had maintained a spiritual monopoly on the souls of common American for over a century. As a result, the colonial "Joe Sixpack" began to see religion as a personal endeavor that did not require the traditional sacraments or assistance of the clergy. As Nash states:

God did not operate through the elite corps of the learned clergy and their aristocratic allies. Rather, god worked through the inner light given to every man and woman regardless of their station in life, with lack of education or even slave status posing no barrier to achieving grace through the conversion experience (8).

In addition to this newfound sense of personal ecclesiastic independence, Americans of the founding generation began to see church attendance not as a prerequisite for salvation but rather as an optional alternative. In 1776, only 17% of Americans were official members of an organized church, as opposed to the estimated 80-85% from a generation before. And while some of the low attendance figures can be attributed to the difficulties surrounding a commute to church (colonial roads were poorly maintained and churches often located far from family farms) the reality is that Americans of the founding generation put less emphasis on habitual church attendance as a necessary component for salvation.

Not only were the traditional concepts of religious authority and Sunday worship questioned, but the very doctrine of Christianity had begun an evolutionary process, which developed independently from the traditional clergy of the 18th century. This evolution toppled the pulpit as a source of ecclesiastical domination, which had sought to subjugate the citizenry under its religious umbrella. By toppling the status quo, Americans were, for the first time, put on equal footing with their former clergymen. As Nash points out:

The message was one of social leveling, for it put all people on one footing insofar as the conversion experience was concerned. Moreover, the message was one that condemned the clergy as unconverted and deplored their love of velvet garments and other luxurious trappings (9).

With the emergence of enthusiastic preachers like George Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards, etc., "Joe Sixpack" religion became the religion of the "uneducated masses that had no minds of their own." At least this was the fear of the ecclesiastic and gentry class.

Even slaves, who, for the first time, were taught the principles of emerging evangelical Christianity, grabbed hold of the "good news" and found a refuge from the tyranny of servitude. As Nash points out, it was the gospel of early evangelical Christianity that gave Blacks the hope for freedom, even if it was only to be obtained in the world to come.

And while Nash devotes only a few pages to the impact of "Christ's Poor," the importance of the religion of the masses is not lost. For Nash, it was in this "Great Awakening" that Americans, as a mass movement, first challenged the authority of their day. It was under the fires of religious revolution that Americans learned to throw their first punches, all of which was to hone their skills in their eventual bout with the "Motherland" itself.

Slave Petitions for Freedom

This morning, just before going to bed (I work the graveyard shift), I was watching a short discussion on one of the many ridiculous political cable channels on the issue of slavery and the Founding Fathers. During the back-and-forth debate, I was stunned to hear one pundit make the comment that, "the Founding Fathers protected slavery because they knew no better." To be honest, I was not really all that surprised by this comment. It seems that many Americans have embraced this delusional interpretation of our founding history as a convenient way to justify the founders' choice to keep an entire race in chains. After all, nobody wants to admit that their respective country has skeletons in the closet.

Anyway, after sleeping on it I decided to dust off my old copy of historian Gary Nash's book, Race and Revolution. I haven't bothered to look over this fantastic work since my undergrad days, so this seemed like the perfect excuse. Besides, Colorado Springs is dark and cold today, which makes for perfect reading conditions. What I love about Nash's book is that it provides several wonderful primary source examples of African American slaves who adopted the ideology of the American Revolution for themselves. They too caught hold of the idea that "all men are created equal" and that they could stake claim to certain "natural rights" guaranteed to them by "Providence." As a result, literally hundreds of slave petitions demanding freedom (sort of small declarations of independence themselves) were sent to the various colonial officials, all demanding immediate emancipation.

And there are literally hundreds of documents from slaveholders, which prove the fact that these colonials had a perfect understanding of the evils of slavery. Thomas Jefferson even stated that, "If there is a just god in heaven we will pay dearly for what has been done to the Negroes."

So, to make the idiotic claim that the colonial generation was somehow ignorant on the issue of slavery and knew no better is both foolish and irresponsible. I understand the need for Americans to cherish their history. I am in total agreement with that, and in no way am I a "founding father-hater." But there is no excuse for those who attempt to obscure the unsavory parts of our history. When we learn the TRUE nature of our history, the more noble it becomes. Our founders were human, not demigods.

I have attached one of the several slave petitions for you all to read (which can be found in Gary Nash's book). It is one of my favorites, because it proves that the slaves were anything but ignorant of the sweeping winds of revolution:

Boston, April 20th, 1773.

Sir, The efforts made by the legislative of this province in their last sessions to free themselves from slavery, gave us, who are in that deplorable state, a high degree of satisfaction. We expect great things from men who have made such a noble stand against the designs of their fellow-men to enslave them. We cannot but wish and hope Sir, that you will have the same grand object, we mean civil and religious liberty, in view in your next session. The divine spirit of freedom, seems to fire every humane breast on this continent, except such as are bribed to assist in executing the execrable plan.

We are very sensible that it would be highly detrimental to our present masters, if we were allowed to demand all that of right belongs to us for past services; this we disclaim. Even the Spaniards, who have not those sublime ideas of freedom that English men have, are conscious that they have no right to all the services of their fellow-men, we mean the Africans, whom they have purchased with their money; therefore they allow them one day in a week to work for themselves, to enable them to earn money to purchase the residue of their time, which they have a right to demand in such portions as they are able to pay for (a due appraizement of their services being first made, which always stands at the purchase money.) We do not pretend to dictate to you Sir, or to the Honorable Assembly, of which you are a member. We acknowledge our obligations to you for what you have already done, but as the people of this province seem to be actuated by the principles of equity and justice, we cannot but expect your house will again take our deplorable case into serious consideration, and give us that ample relief which, as men, we have a natural right to.

But since the wise and righteous governor of the universe, has permitted our fellow men to make us slaves, we bow in submission to him, and determine to behave in such a manner as that we may have reason to expect the divine approbation of, and assistance in, our peaceable and lawful attempts to gain our freedom.

We are willing to submit to such regulations and laws, as may be made relative to us, until we leave the province, which we determine to do as soon as we can, from our joynt labours, procure money to transport ourselves to some part of the Coast of Africa, where we propose a settlement. We are very desirous that you should have instructions relative to us, from your town, therefore we pray you to communicate this letter to them, and ask this favor for us.

In behalf of our fellow slaves in this province, and by order of their Committee.

Peter Bestes,
Sambo Freeman,
Felix Holbrook,
Chester Joie.

In Depth with Gordon Wood

This past weekend, renowned historian Gordon Wood (in my opinion the best historian of early America) was on In Depth, a program where he talked about his career, research, books and even answered several questions from viewers. For those who don't know Wood, he is the author of several books including the highly successful The Radicalism of the American Revolution for which he won the Pulitzer Prize. His most recent book, Empire of Liberty is perhaps his most thorough and best of all.

The reason I post this video here is because I know that the history of early America can sometimes be tough to understand, especially when you have voices on both the left and the right hijacking the legacy of the founders to support their respective agendas. For this reason I HIGHLY RECOMMEND listening to or reading Gordon Wood instead of the nonsense you hear out there from the Glenn Beck's of the world.

You can watch the broadcast by clicking here. Enjoy!

The "Sexual" American Revolution

The American Revolution can, at times, be characterized as a collection of smaller revolutions, all of which contributed and eventually led to the larger revolution -- i.e. the literal split from Great Britain. For example, the Great Awakening is often considered a revolution in and of itself, since it completely changed the way American colonists understood religion. The Market Revolution, which followed the actual American Revolution, can also be seen as another "mini-revolution," in which capitalism made its debut on the American stage.

In addition to these and numerous other "mini-revolutions" a sexual revolution of sorts also took place in early America. Richard Godbeer, a historian with the University of Miami and author of the book, Sexual Revolution in Early America has put together an excellent piece of work on how sex and gender relations underwent a tremendous transition in colonial America.

Here is a brief introduction and review of the book by John Hopkins University Press:

In 1695, John Miller, a clergyman traveling through New York, found it appalling that so many couples lived together without ever being married and that no one viewed "ante-nuptial fornication" as anything scandalous or sinful. Charles Woodmason, an Anglican minister in South Carolina in 1766, described the region as a "stage of debauchery" in which polygamy was "very common," "concubinage general," and "bastardy no disrepute." These depictions of colonial North America's sexual culture sharply contradict the stereotype of Puritanical abstinence that persists in the popular imagination. In Sexual Revolution in Early America, Richard Godbeer boldly overturns conventional wisdom about the sexual values and customs of colonial Americans. His eye-opening historical account spans two centuries and most of British North America, from New England to the Caribbean, exploring the social, political, and legal dynamics that shaped a diverse sexual culture. Drawing on exhaustive research into diaries, letters, and other private papers, as well as legal records and official documents, Godbeer's absorbing narrative uncovers a persistent struggle between the moral authorities and the widespread expression of popular customs and individual urges. Godbeer begins with a discussion of the complex attitude that the Puritans had toward sexuality. For example, although believing that sex could be morally corrupting, they also considered it to be such an essential element of a healthy marriage that they excommunicated those who denied "conjugal fellowship" to their spouses. He next examines the ways in which race and class affected the debate about sexual mores, from anxieties about Anglo-Indian sexual relations to the sense of sexual entitlement that planters held over their African slaves. He concludes by detailing the fundamental shift in sexual culture during the eighteenth century towards the acceptance of a more individualistic concept of sexual desire and fulfillment. Today's moral critics, in their attempts to convince Americans of the social and spiritual consequences of unregulated sexual behavior, often hearken back to a more innocent age; as this groundbreaking work makes clear, America's sexual culture has always been rich, vibrant, and contentious.

In addition, colonial historian Alan Taylor gives the following critique of Godbeer's book:

Previous scholars also balked at examining colonial sex as its own subject, largely from a fear that the historical sources were insufficient. Godbeer forged ahead, "astonished by the richness of the material that survives on the subject." The problem is not that Godbeer lacks sources, but that they are trickier than he recognizes. Few diaries and letters survive from the colonial era, and fewer still offer frank admission to sexual thoughts and acts. Generalizing from those scatological few to the larger colonial population is problematic, to say the least. More often Godbeer must rely on hearsay accounts recorded by travelers who were keen to gather scandal at the expense of locales they disliked; and most often he depends on the recorded testimony in court cases brought by authorities or by aggrieved spouses seeking divorces. The travelers' accounts and court cases provide plenty of seamy and steamy quotations, but taking them at face value skews our picture of colonial sexuality toward the sensational. Finding what he seeks, Godbeer proves reluctant to doubt any of his sources. That he discovers more conflict than consensus, more deviance than conformity, seems inevitable given the nature of his sources -- and his disinterest in challenging them. Reading today's police log or tabloid newspaper certainly conveys a gritty reality denied in other genres, but it is a reality that needs to be kept in proportion when characterizing an entire society....

...A specialist in the cultural history of seventeenth-century New England, Godbeer appears most comfortable and persuasive when analyzing particular episodes and texts drawn from that region and that century. In an especially impressive passage, Godbeer examines the case of Nicholas Sension of Windsor, Connecticut in 1677. Sension's prosecution for sodomy seems to confirm Puritan rigidity and intolerance, but Godbeer shows that for more than twenty preceding years Sension's neighbors had recognized and reproved his behavior without involving the court. Since Sension was otherwise a good neighbor and a prosperous farmer who acted only upon young men of lower status, his townsmen balked at prosecuting him for a crime that carried the death penalty. Despite abundant evidence for multiple acts, the jury convicted Sension only of the lesser charge of attempted sodomy, which brought a public whipping and shaming instead of hanging. His Puritan neighbors persistently saw Sension as a wayward but redeemable sinner no different from any other soul, rather than as a distinctive sodomite. Throughout the century, only two men suffered execution for sodomy in New England.

In addition to softening our image of Puritan moral enforcement, Godbeer ameliorates the Puritans' cold image by recovering their sexual passion within both marriage and spirituality. In this emphasis, he follows the lead of Edmund S. Morgan, who made a similar case in 1942. Puritan sermons, poetry, and love letters celebrated marital and procreative sex in part to discourage all sexuality before or outside marriage. Never people to do things by halves, the Puritans extolled foreplay and orgasm by husband and wife. In a guide to marriage, Reverend William Gouge preached that sex "must be performed with good will and delight, willingly, readily, and cheerfully." Believing that conception depended upon a female orgasm, ministers urged every husband to attend to his wife's needs. Another marital guide instructed that "when the husband cometh into the wife's chamber, he must entertain her with all kind of dalliance, wanton behavior, and allurements to venery."

More striking still, the Puritans expressed their spirituality in erotic terms that transcended gender. Ministers exhorted Puritans, male and female, to submit to "an eternal love affair with Jesus Christ." One young man asked in his diary, "Will the Lord now again return and embrace me in the arms of his dearest love? Will he fall upon my neck and kiss me?" Since souls were equal and either without gender or vaguely female, Puritan men comfortably spoke of submitting as brides to ravishment by Christ as their spiritual bridegroom. Godbeer concludes that "Puritan sensibility offered a way to spiritualize sex and sexualize the spirit in a glorious and torrid symbiosis."