The Black Robe Regiment
Peter Oliver was a lawyer and by the time of the Revolution had risen to the position of chief justice of the Superior Court in Massachusetts. He was incredibly wealthy and served in a variety of community and church positions and was fiercely loyal to the crown.
His perspective on the Revolutionary War was that of a Tory. Unlike the way in which most historians present John Adams and other such Patriots as noble statesmen, Oliver saw them as deluded troublemakers.
Not long after Cornwallis’ surrender, Oliver published a book entitled, “Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion: A Tory View.” What makes his perspective valuable is that he has nothing to gain by glamorizing or exaggerating any one aspect of the American effort to win their independence, in that he views all of it as a form of sedition.
At one point, he sets aside an entire section of his text to describe the “Black Regiment.”
He begins by saying…
It may not be amiss, now, to reconnoitre Mr. Qtis’s black Regiment, the dissenting Clergy, who took so active a Part in the Rebellion.1
He elaborates on the “dissenting clergy” as flawed ministers, who according to Oliver, were ordained only because of a grave mistake having been made by the Governors of the Church of England. He identifies several men of the cloth including Jonas Clark, Dr. Charles Chaucy and others as being, not only members of the Regiment, but also extremely influential. He references two annual conferences that hosted pastors from all of the state and it was there that the “Black Regiment” was able to exert a substantial amount of influence in the name of rebellion and evil.
In this Town was an annual Convention of the Clergy of the Province, the Day after the Election of his Majestys Charter Council; and at those Meetings were settled the religious Affairs of the Province; & as the Boston Clergy were esteemed by the others as an Order of Deities, so they were greatly influenced by them. There was also another annual Meeting of the Clergy at Cambridge, on the Commencement for graduating the Scholars of Harvard College*, at these two Conventions, if much Good was effectuated, so there was much Evil. And some of the Boston Clergy, as they were capable of the Latter, so they missed no Opportunities of accomplishing their Purposes. Among those who were most distinguished of the Boston Clergy were Dr. Charles Chauncy, Dr. Jonathan Mayhew & Dr. Samuel Cooper?* & they distinguished theirselves in encouraging Seditions & Riots, until those lesser Offences were absorbed in Rebellion.2
You see Oliver’s “concern” reiterated on multiple occasions and in different ways.
For example, John Leach was imprisoned for sending to Patriot forces information pertaining to the disposition of British troops. He recorded some of his experiences while in prison in a Journal that’s preserved in the “New England Historical and Genealogical Register for the Year 1865.”On June 30, he talks about a comment made by one of his British jailers…
June 30, 1775. Friday, Continued in the same confinement; and Saturday, Major harry Rooke took a Book of Religion from Mr Joseph Otis, the Gaol keeper, who told him the Book belonged to some of the Charlestown prisoners, taken at Bunker\’s Hill fight, and was given them by a Clergyman of the Town. He carried it to show General Gage, and then brought back, and said, “It is your G–d Damned Religion of this Country that ruins this Country; Damn your Religion.” I would only add this remark, that this Pious officer holds his commission by a Sacramental Injuection, from his most Sacred Majesty King George the 3d.3
You can also see the prominence of Christianity and even how certain denominations were regarded with a special sense of disdain by the British when you consider the diary of Thomas Hutchinson.
Thomas Hutchinson was the Governor over Massachusetts appointed by King George. He recorded a conversation he had with the monarch in July of 1774.
This would’ve been in the aftermath of “The Coercive (Intolerable) Acts of 1774” that were enacted as punishment for the Boston Tea Party. These were incendiary moves on the part on the part of King George that would result in galvanizing the colonies even further in their resolve to separate from England.
Among the things represented in the new legislation was the replacement of the Massachusetts Council with officials appointed by the crown rather than it being an elected body. You can hear King George questioning the way in which this new group of leaders was being received in the conversation he was having with his Governor.
He begins by asking what sort of doctrine is being preached in the colonies…
❶ Here is where King George is inquiring about the Massachusetts Council that used to be an elected body that has now been replaced with people who’ve been appointed by the crown.
❷ The “Dissenters from the Church of England,” in this context, refers to the Congregationalists who were loyal to the crown and had not repudiated the Church of England. These were the posterity of the early Pilgrims who had settled in the New World in the early seventeenth century.Lead by William Bradford in 1620, the Pilgrims, also called “Separatists,” were resolved to worship in a manner consistent with the Scriptures as opposed to the institutionalized church created by Henry VIII in order to secure a divorce the Pope was unwilling to grant him.
The Puritans were similar to the Separatists, but instead of wanting to break completely from the Church of England, they wanted to merely purify it. They arrived in the New World in 1630 and established the Massachusetts Bay Colony just south of Plymouth Rock.By the 18th century, the Puritans and the Pilgrims had combined to form the Congregationalists. But while they were now functioning under one denominational heading, you still had two distinct groups that were defined by their allegiance to the king.Published in 1907, “The Loyalists of Massachusetts and the Other Side of the Revolution,” written by James H. Stark, references this dynamic.
The characteristics of the separate and independent governments of these two classes of Puritans were widely different. The one was tolerant, non-persecuting, and loyal to the King, during the whole period of its seventy years\’ existence; the other was an intolerant persecutor of all religionists who did not adopt its worship, and disloyal, from the beginning, to the government from which it held its Charter, and sedulously sowed and cultivated the seeds of disaffection and hostility to the Royal government until they grew and ripened into the harvest of the American Revolution.5
This is, perhaps, one of the reasons why King George and his Governor could feel somewhat confident that they were drawing from an amicable group of people by defaulting to a specific “type” of Congregationalist. Doctrinally, they were not altogether consistent with the Anglican church, but they were at least somewhat sympathetic to their English Sovereign.
As far as Hutchinson’s reference to the Episcopalians, while they did not formally organize until 1780, during the period leading up to the Revolutionary War, they were considered the American version of the Church of England. While there were exceptions, an Episcopalian’s loyalty to the crown was more pronounced then their Congregationalist counterpart and certainly more intense than what you saw in the various sects that sprung up in the aftermath of the Great Awakening. You see this in the way many Episcopalians felt obliged to flee America after the Revolutionary War, including the Episcopalian minister referenced by Hutchinson in his conversation with King George.
In 1662, the Common Book of Prayer was revised to include a mandate for all ministers to be ordained according to an Episcopal format and to “declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the text.”
The fact that Hutchinson states that staffing the new Massachusetts Council with Episcopalians would’ve been “more disagreeable,” is indicative of the way ardent Patriots viewed Episcopalians with suspicion. Hence the choice of those coming from the Congregationalist group would be a more strategic option.
❸ To understand King George’s comment, you have to go back to the sixteenth century and look at the way in which the crown had exacted legislation that compelled a uniform approach to Christ that ultimately violated the Word of God.
Act of Uniformity
In 1558, Queen Elizabeth, as part of trying to eliminate the tensions between Catholicism and the Protestant mindset, she introduced legislation that dictated the way in which people were to pray and worship. It was called, “The Act of Uniformity” and it included a revised “Book of Common Prayer” which outlined how services were to be conducted as well as the verbiage of the prayers that were to be said everyday (click here to see the prayer that was to be repeated every morning). In addition, it made it a punishable offense to not attend Anglican services once a week.
In 1662, it was revised to include a mandate for all ministers to be ordained according to an Episcopal format and to “declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the text” (see sidebar). This resulted in over 2,000 ministers being ejected from their pastorate in what was called, “The Great Ejection. Many of those that were forcibly displaced were Presbyterians who made their way to the New World.
Thoroughly Protestant
While the Church of England represents a hybrid combination of both Protestant and Catholic doctrines, Presbyterians, on the hand, are thoroughly Protestant. From the perspective of the monarchy, they were positively toxic in part because of the way in which they recognized how the church was being manipulated by various sovereigns to perpetuate their power.
Elizabeth not unreasonably believed that the maintenance of the Episcopacy was necessary to the continuance of Royalty. She knew that the church of Geneva, which the Puritans declared to be their model, was not only essentially republican, but could not be perfectly established except in a republic...6
The Church of Geneva was founded in 1536 during the Protestant Reformation. It represented the central location of Protestant thought. As a Presbyterian, while you were not Puritanical in your doctrine, you nevertheless shared with some of your Puritan counterparts an unwillingness to allow a monarch to dictate your conscience in the way you worshipped, how you were to set up your church leadership or the way you ministered to others.
And while the Presbyterian denomination is a separate group of believers who subscribe to a particular set of doctrines, including, in some circles, a Calvinistic approach to predestination, in many instances when you hear an 18th century Englishman refer to a “Presbyterian,” it was a reference to anyone who recognized the discrepancy between engaging your faith according to a biblically based paradigm as opposed to a government imposed infrastructure.
This is where much of the real tension surfaced.
Church Government
In addition to the fact that all men are created equal (Gen1:26; Prov 2:22; Gal 3:28) thus invalidating the Divine Right of Kings, a large part of the Presbyterian doctrine pertained to church government. Churches were to be governed by elected elders not Anglican Bishops. By attempting to impose a crown appointed hierarchy to rule over the spiritual affairs of a Presbyterian who believed that leadership should be based on a biblically founded approach, England violated an Absolute documented in Scripture. As a result, Presbyterians were only too willing to oppose the established order and because of the presence they commanded in New England, the Revolution was often referred to as something inspired by a Presbyterian perspective.
Chief Instigators
You see this dynamic reflected in a pamphlet written by Joseph Galloway, who was a former speaker of the Pennsylvania Assembly. He opposed the Revolution and fled to England. He believed that the Revolution was a religious quarrel instigated by Congregationalists and Presbyterians…
But they did not stop there: The principal matter recommended by the faction in New England, was a union of the congregational and presbyterian interests throughout the Colonies…Thus the Presbyterians in the southern colonies, who, while unconnected in their several congregations, were of little significance, were raised into weight and consequence; and a dangerous combination of men, whose principles of religion and polity were equally averse to those of the established Church and Government, was formed.7
Dr. Albert S. Bolles in his history of the Province and State of Pennsylvania from 1609 to 1790 reinforces that by elaborating on the enemy’s regard for Presbyterian clergy…
English Translation: “In this building formerly York Hotel on September 3, 1783 David Hartley, on behalf of the King of England, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, John Adams, on behalf of the United States of America, signed the Final Treaty of Peace recognizing the independence of the United States.”
To the Presbyterian clergy the enemy felt an especial anitpathy. There were accounted the ringleaders of the rebellion. For them there was often not so much safety in their own dwellings as in the camp. When their people were scattered, or if it was no longer safe to reside among them, the only atlernative was to flee or join the army, and this alternative was often presented. Not unfrequently the duty of the chaplain or the pastor exposed him to dangers as great as those which the common soldier was called to meet. There was risk of person, sometimes capture, and sometimes loss of life.8
David Hartley was Britain\’s Minister Plenipotentiary. He had full diplomatic powers and represented the crown when he signed the Treaty of Paris with John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and several others in 1783. Hartley and Franklin were good friends and Hartley frequently spoke against the Revolution in Parliment. After Cornwallis\’ surrender at Yorktown, it was Hartley and Franklin that composed the Treaty of Paris.On February 3rd, 1779, Franklin responded to Hartley who had written a letter proposing that the United States end their alliance with France. At one point, he says:
The long, Steady, & kind regard you have shown for the Welfare of America, by the whole Tenour of your Conduct in Parliament, satisfies me, that this Proposition never took its Rise with you, but has been suggested from some other Quarter; and that your Excess of humanity, your Love of Peace, & your fears for us that the Destruction we are threatened with, will certainly be effected, have thrown a Mist before your Eyes, which hindred you from seeing the Malignity, and Mischief of it.— We know that your King hates whigs and Presbyterians; that he thirsts for our Blood; of which he has already drank large Draughts; that his servile imprincipled Ministers are ready to execute the wickedest of his Orders, and his venal Parliament equally ready to vote them just.9
Franklin doesn’t attempt any restraint or indulgence in describing King George or those members of Parliament who viewed America with disdain. The fact that he begins his description with the way in which King George hated Presbyterians demonstrates the way in which the monarchy associated the Revolution with a Christian perspective.
At the Highest Levels of Government
Members of Parliament were being informed from a variety of sources as to the nature of the American rebellion being founded on a religious premise.
Andrew Hamond was a captain in the British Navy. In a letter dated August 5, 1776, to Hans Stanley, a British Diplomat who sat in the House of Commons, he mentions that while there are some within the colonies who are loyal to the crown, there are nevertheless deep religious convictions running thoughout that, in some cases, are thoroughly determined to gain their independence:
It seems that they have long had divisions among them on religious accounts, and the Churchmen are clearly of opinion that it is the Presbyterians that have brought about this revolt, and aim at getting the government of America into their hands. 10
William Jones of Nayland was a distinguished theologian and a prolific writer. In 1776 he wrote an essay entitled, “An Address to the British Government on a Subject of Present Concern, 1776” in which he addresses what he believes to be the principle driving force of the American Revolution:
And having nothing now to oppose but the Hanover family on the throne, they have at last taken up arms against that, and will carry on a war against the authority, the commerce, and the honour of this country, as long as they have the means of rebellion in their hands; for this has been a Presbyterian war from the beginning as certainly as that in 1641; and accordingly the first firing against that King’s troops was from a Masschusset meeting-house. 11
The Presbyterian was considered to be one of the chief instigators of the War for Independence, hence King George\’s comment to Hutchinson when he was asking if the Congregationalists being considered were of the Presbyterian stripe.
❹ The Presbyterian Church was started by John Knox in Scotland. It’s presence in the vocabulary being used by those in Parliament wasn’t so much a reference to doctrine as much as it was a referral to the way in which a biblically based argument was being used by “Presbyterians” to justify severing ties with England.
You see this explained by John Adams in a letter he wrote to Hezekiah Niles, who was the editor and publisher of the Niles’ Weekly Register from 1811-1836 and before that was the editor of the Baltimore Evening Post.
In his letter, Adams refers to Dr. Jonathan Mayhew who was one of the earliest ministers to object to the idea that it was a Christian’s duty to suffer beneath the administration of a tyrant. Rather, according to Mayhew, it was the Christian’s obligation to resist (“Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p39).
In addition to being an articulate speaker, Mayhew was also a prolific writer. At one point, he wrote a lengthy exposition entitled, “Conduct of the Society for Propagating the Gospels in Foreign Parts.” This was a rebuke directed towards the Church of England, who, under the auspices of witnessing to unchurched peoples, were using their charter to enforce an Anglican approach to one’s relationship with Christ and church government.
This was, again, an extension of the “Act of Uniformity” referenced earlier. Because it struck at the way in which the Church was to be set up according to a biblical model as opposed to a state sanctioned hierarch, the “Presbyterian” dynamic was considered by the Church of England to be a problem that needed to be rooted out.
Mayhew’s addresses this in Section XIV which is entitled, “That the Society have long had a formal design to root out Presbyterianism, &c. and to establishing both Episcopacy and Bishops in the colonies: In pursuance of which favorite project, they have in a great measure neglected the important ends of their institution.”
However this may or may not resonate as a serious issue in the mind of a 21st century layperson, in the eighteenth century when Christianity was more than just a token tradition, it had monumental ramifications which Adams explains…
If any Gentleman Supposes this Controversy to be nothing to the present purpose, he is grossly mistaken. It Spread an Universal Alarm against the Authority of Parliament. It excited a general and just Apprehension that Bishops and Diocesses and Churches, and Priests and Tythes, were to be imposed upon Us by Parliament. It was known that neither King nor Ministry nor Archbishops could appoint Bishops in America without an Act of Parliament; and if Parliament could Tax Us they could establish the Church of England with all its Creeds, Articles, Tests, Ceremonies and Tythes, and prohibit all other Churches as Conventicles and Sepism Shops.12
What Adams is saying is that the Revolution was more than just an agitated populace wanting a more just representation in Parliament. The Church of England was using its politically based essence to impose the authority of English Rule on all things pertaining to church and beyond. In addition, it insisted than any other denomination was unlawful (Conventicles) and sick (Sepism Shops). And this included Presbyterians.
❺ Dr Henry Caner represents a great illustration of how certain Episcopalians were considered Tories because of their commitment to the Church of England. Like many of his Episcopal contemporaries, Caner felt compelled to leave the country and flee to England in order to avoid any fallout from having remained loyal to the crown (see sidebar). (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/39316/39316-h/39316-h.htm#Footnote_70_70)
The bottom line is that “religion,” specifically Christianity, was not only the philosophical foundation upon which our Founders based their justification for separating from England, it was also the way in which a flawed approach to Scripture was being used by the Church of England to enforce a political agenda.
It was the American clergy during this time – the “Black Robe Regiment” – that placed these Realities before their engaged congregations and in so doing provided the needed resolve, endurance and courage to stand up against tyranny and defeat what was a fundamentally flawed approach to government.
1. “Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion: A Tory View”, Internet Archive, https://archive.org/stream/originandprogres011156mbp/originandprogres011156mbp_djvu.txt, accessed April 12, 2023
2. Ibid
3. “The New England Historical and Genealogical Register for the Year 1865“, David Clapp and Son, Boston, MS, 1865, “A Journal Kept by John Leach, During His Confinement by the British, In Boston Gaol, in 1775″p 256
4. “The Diary and Letters of His Excellency Thomas Hutchinson: Captain-General and Governor in Chief of His Late Majesty\’s Province of Massachusetts Bay in North America”, S. Low, Marston, Searle and Rivington, London, England, 1883-1886, p167-169
5. “The Loyalists of Massachusetts and the Other Side of the Revolution“, James H. Stark, W. B. Clarke Co, Boston, MA., 1807, p8
6. “Romantic Biography of the Age of Elizabeth: Or, Sketches of Life From the Bye-Ways of History“, Benedictine Brethren of Glendalogh, edited by William Cooke Taylor, LL.D. ETC, Richard Bentley, New Burlington Street, London, England, 1842, p82
7. “Historical and Political Reflections on the Rise and Progress of the American Rebellion”, Page 54. Joseph Galloway, London: G. Wilkie, 1780. Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (81)
8. “Pennsylvania Province and State: A History from 1609 to 1790“, Albert S. Bolles, Ph.D., LL.D, John Wanamaker, Philadelphia, PA and New York, NY, 1899, p417
9. “The Papers of Benjamin Franklin”, “Letter in Answer to the Proposition of quitting the Alliance of France”, Vol 28 https://franklinpapers.org/framedVolumes.jsp, accessed April 14, 2023
10. “Naval Documents of the American Revolution“, Volume VI, edited by William James Morgan, Naval History Division, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., 1972, p 68
11. “An Address to the British Government on a Subject of Present Concern, 1776,” The Theological, Philosophical and Miscellaneous Works of the Rev. William Jones, 12 vols. (London, 1801), Vol. 12, p 356
12. “From John Adams to Hezekiah Niles, 13 February 1818”, “National Archives, Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6854, accessed April 22, 2023
Twenty Five Inconvenient Realities
The Separation of Church and State is a phrase often used by people who want to insist that Christianity had no real role in our nation’s founding – certainly nothing that had any significant influence on those that articulated our cause, created our Constitution and fought the battles that culminated in the surrender of Great Britain.
You see this in comments like what you see below from the “Freedom From Religion” website:
The Christian Right is trying to rewrite the history of the United States, as part of their campaign to force their religion on others who ask merely to be left alone. According to this Orwellian revision, the Founding Fathers of this country were pious Christians who wanted the United States to be a Christian nation, with laws that favored Christians and Christianity.
Not true! The early presidents and patriots were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New Testaments.
You have to be very selective in the information you use to validate such a statement. At the same time, you have to be willfully oblivious to the specific references to God and Christ that punctuate the relevant events and documentation that established the United States.
Below is a brief yet potent list: Read more
American Concrete
When it comes to the topic of our nation’s Christian heritage, you have two main schools of thought:
The liberal mindset that insists our forefathers viewed religion as something to be negotiated as an administrative duty
The Conservative Christian platform that maintains an aggressive acknowledgement and pursuit of God’s Assistance characterized the collective perspective of the founding fathers
Much of the controversy stems from a ruling given by the Supreme Court in 1947 and the way they interpreted a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut in 1802. They declared that Jefferson’s usage of the term “the separation of church and state” constituted “the authoritative declaration of the scope and effect” of the First Amendment.1
Since then, that ruling has become the standard by which all public expressions of religious convictions have been measured, leading to an ever increasing limitation being put on the acknowledgement of God in governmental agencies as well as an ever lengthening shadow of doubt being cast on our nation’s religious heritage. The debate is, at times, passionate and you’ve got buffoons on both sides of the aisle. The venom and the inaccuracies can culminate in a spectacle that can make it difficult to know which argument is correct. But there is a bottom line that transcends the way in which a solitary statement can be potentially dissected to the point where its meaning becomes illusive. That bottom line is to consider, not only the comment that was made, but also:
- the context of that comment
- the character of the person speaking
- the cultural backdrop that made what that person said both relevant and influential
In other words, rather than just scrutinizing what was said, look at also why it was said, to whom was the person speaking and who was it that made the comment. At that point, you’ve got a full color, three dimensional rendering of what was stated as opposed to an intentionally cropped, black and white snapshot.
Using that kind of approach, let’s take a look at Thomas Jefferson and his exchange with the Danbury Baptists.
Jefferson’s Resume
Jefferson’s mental capacity and creativity went beyond mere academics. At the front door of his home, there’s a seven day clock that he designed. It’s counterweights hang on either side of the front entrance and extend through the floor. The height at which the counterweights hang indicate the days of the week that are written on the wall and beneath the floor. Monticello as a whole – the layout of the grounds and the structural design – all served as a testament to the creative intelligence and the intellectual ingenuity of their architect.
In 1962, President John F. Kennedy was speaking at a dinner in the White House honoring all of the living recipients of the Nobel Prize. He said, “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has every been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”2
Thomas Jefferson was extraordinary. Prior to earning his license as a lawyer, he had earned his college degree from the College of William and Mary, having studied Mathematics, Philosophy, Metaphysics as well as French and Greek. It was there that he would also be introduced to the writings of John Locke, Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon – great thinkers that would shape his approach to politics and America’s quest for liberty.
After writing the Declaration of Independence, he returned to Virginia where he served in the Virginia State Legislature, eventually ascending to the position of Governor. His role in crafting the new state government was significant. For nearly three years he assisted in the construction of the state constitution. His most notable contribution was the “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom” – an accomplishment he had immortalized on his tombstone.
Jefferson was also very familiar with the Bible and the teachings of Christ. During his presidential years, he wrote a 46 page work entitled “The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted from the Account of His Life and Doctrines as Given by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.”3 Moreover, he understood the necessary role the Christian doctrine played in the formulation of a government based on the Absolutes of Scripture as opposed to the machinations of men, be they manifested in the context of royalty or enlightened reason.
While he was convinced that the established clergy of the day were corrupt and the imposition of any one creed by a legislature was fundamentally flawed, it was the transcendent dynamic of the Christian doctrine upon which he founded his philosophical approach to freedom and sound government.
Jefferson’s Starting Point
It’s here where the liberal and conservative perspectives diverge. The liberal platform maintains that Jefferson’s usage of the phrase “separation of church and state” in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was intended to purge any mention of God in an official context, be it the Pledge of Allegiance, the display of any Christian symbols during the Holidays , prayer in schools and the list goes on and on.
His previously stated comments pertaining to the Christian component of our nation’s government , the culture of the time and the audience he was addressing are all either diluted or dismissed in order to craft a liberal platform that presents America as a purely secular enterprise. Furthermore, there’s a philosophical starting point that Jefferson uses in the two documents he requested be immortalized on his tombstone that gets glossed over as though it has no real bearing on the issue. But if this is the cornerstone of his thought processes pertaining to religious freedom and liberty in general, this is a crucial piece of evidence that needs to be admitted as part of the conversation.
Take a look…
In both documents, he bases one’s right to liberty on the fact that God created man to be free.
The Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States…(emphasis added)
The opening statement of Virginia’s Statute for Religious Freedom:
Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;
Jefferson’s sense of reason, in terms of a man’s ability to worship and live as a free entity, was founded on the manner in which God had designed him. In other words, it was the doctrine of the church that gave shape and substance to the state.
Jefferson’s sense of reason, in terms of a man’s ability to worship and live as a free entity, was founded on the manner in which God had designed him. In other words, it was the doctrine of the church that gave shape and substance to the state. Remove the philosophical foundation of Scripture from Jefferson’s approach to liberty and you reduce the essence of our nation to a complaint rather than an Absolute. Furthermore, by insisting that there be no acknowledgement of the biblical paradigm that supports the ideological structure of our government, we invite the decay and corruption that inevitably accompanies the fallibility of a purely human enterprise.
Jefferson’s faith was unorthodox and his determination to avoid any appearance of officially sanctioning a particular denomination was nothing short of aggressive, but to twist his usage of the phrase “separation of church and state” into a quasi-legislative impetus to remove prayer from schools and strike the “one nation under God” phrase from the pledge of Allegiance, is to ignore the obvious cornerstone of Jefferson’s thought process. In addition, should the liberal perspective be embraced, you make Jefferson himself the “chief of sinners” in that he violates his own supposed conviction by invoking a overtly Christian dynamic in the very documents that define his perspective on the freedoms we enjoy.
Jefferson’s Audience
In addition to considering the background of Thomas Jefferson and his philosophical starting point when it came to the issue of religious liberty, one also needs to look at the society that Jefferson was addressing in the letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptists.
In 1776, the Declaration of Independence, in addition to proclaiming America’s resolve to separate itself from the authority of the crown, it also created a mandate for all states to create their own constitution. While many of the early settlers had left Old World in order to worship according to the dictates of their conscience, not everyone was dissatisfied with the Anglican Church. As a result, while the fabric of America’s religious culture was predominantly Protestant, it was nevertheless interwoven with a number of different denominations.
The Church of England was predominant in Virginia, in New England you had a blend of Congregationalists (an evolution of the original Puritans), Presbyterians and Quakers with a small percentage of other denominations scattered throughout the Northeast.
It’s imperative to realize that between 1700 and 1740, an estimated 75-80 percent of the population attended churches which were being built at a headlong pace. When Thomas Jefferson became Vice President in 1797, the Second Great Awakening began and an abundance of revival meetings occurred throughout the country in a sustained pattern that would continue to the Civil War. So common was this anomaly that it was referred to as “the great absorbing theme of American life.”4 And part of what made the evangelical movement so potent was the way in which it was perceived as the best way in which to promote and preserve republican government.
Nineteenth century evangelical literature abounds with statements that could have been inspired by the religion section of Washington’s Farewell Address or copied from the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780: “the religion of the Gospel is the rock on which civil liberty rests”; “civil liberty has ever been in proportion to the prevalence of pure Christianity”; “genuine Religion with all its moral influences, and all its awful sanctions, is the chief, if not the only security we can have, for the preservation of our free institutions”; “the doctrines of Protestant Christianity are the sure, nay, the only bulwark of civil freedom”; “Christianity is the conservator of all that is dear in civil liberty and human happiness.”5.
But while the message of preachers was being embraced as something that promoted the nation’s approach to liberty as well as the key to one’s eternal salvation, it didn’t resolve the tension that existed in many states, as far as the way certain state constitutions made religion – specifically the patronization of a specific denomination – compulsory.
In 1724, in the state of Connecticut, if you were a member of the Anglican church, you were required by law to pay a percentage of your income to the local Congregationalist church under penalty of imprisonment or seizure of goods.6 Up until 1818, the Congregational church was the established church of Connecticut which translated to a number of legislative tactics deployed for the expressed purpose of discouraging and harassing members of any “dissenting” denomination.7
In the year 1801, the Baptist churches that comprised the Danbury Baptist Association resolved to approach the newly elected President for the sake of soliciting from him a statement that would reinforce and further promote the idea of disestablishment – the elimination of government-sanctioned discrimination against religious minorities.8
Jefferson’s reply would be reprinted in publications across the nation.9 The effect of Jefferson’s letter is subjective in that it would be several years before Connecticut’s religious tone would be altered to the point where its constitution would be stripped of any legislative power to promote one denomination over another. Other states would follow suit over time, but the bottom lines is that in the early years of the nineteenth century, “religious freedom” wasn’t so much about discouraging public religious expressions as much as it was about eliminating that dynamic where you were legally obligated to attend and support a specific church.
It’s wise to pause for a moment and ponder the mindset of those who were reading Jefferson’s letter in 1802. While our currency today states that we trust in God, statistics reveal a collective disposition that is largely cynical of traditional Christianity.10 In a 2013 article written by Steve McSwain entitled “Why Nobody Wants to Go to Church Anymore,” he cites some compelling stats that proclaim upwards of 80% of Americans are finding “more fulfilling things to do on the weekend” besides going to church.11 That’s not to say that some of these same people aren’t listed on the membership role of a local fellowship, but their commitment to God is casual at best.
This is an important dynamic to consider in that, to a nineteenth century citizen of the US, given the religious tenor of the nation as a whole, removing any and all references to Christ from the public arena was not something to be desired let alone considered. Christianity was regarded as both the foundation as well as the fuel for a moral society which, in turn, promoted a healthy republic.
Jefferson demonstrated that himself in his personal life as well as his public policies.12 “The Christian religion,” he wrote in 1801, when “brought to the original and simplicity of its benevolent institutor (Jesus Christ), is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty.”13 This is not the sentiment of a man determined to remove faith based gestures from the public arena. And while it wasn’t in Jefferson’s mind to eliminate the concrete of Christianity from America’s foundation, neither was it the ambition of the people he governed or the people who governed alongside him.
Jefferson’s Peers
To state that Jefferson’s was not the only signature on the Declaration of Independence nor was he the only voice that shaped our Constitution (Jefferson was in France when our Constitution was written, but he was nevertheless influential through his correspondence) is to rehearse the obvious. Yet, when you consider the weight given to a single phrase made in a letter that, while politically strategic, had no legislative power, it’s difficult not to feel as though Jefferson’s correspondence with the Danbury Baptists is the only piece of evidence being admitted into the courtroom.
When you consider the other personalities and their respective statements along with their voting record, the resulting dynamic isn’t so much something that isolates Jefferson’s statement to the Danbury Association as unique as much as it brings into focus what he truly intended.
The First Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention were the legislative bodies that crafted the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution respectively. There were 56 signatures on the Declaration of Independence and 55 delegates attended the Constitutional Convention in 1787. With no more than five exceptions, the members of the Constitutional Convention were all orthodox members of an established Christian denomination.14 The signatures on the Declaration of Independence boasts a similar enumeration of men who vocally volunteered their commitment to Christ with little hesitation. Following the death of Richard Henry Lee (President of the Continental Congress and the man who officially introduced in Congress the call for America’s independence), his papers and correspondence, including numerous original handwritten letters from patriots (e.g., George Washington, Benjamin Rush, John Dickinson, etc.), were passed on to his grandson who compiled those documents into a two-volume work published in 1825. After having studied those personal letters, the grandson described the great body of men who founded the nation in these words:
“The wise and great men of those days were not ashamed publicly to confess the name of our blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! In behalf of the people, as their representatives and rulers, they acknowledged the sublime doctrine of his mediation.”15
The reason the American experiment succeeded is because it was based on the Absolutes in Scripture that pertained to the way in which man was created to think and live as a free enterprise.
Political theory and personal preferences can be debated to the point where legislative conclusions are determined more so by charisma and compelling rhetoric than the substance of the truths being considered. Our Founding Fathers knew that and for that reason chose to bring their collective pursuit of liberty beneath the umbrella of Biblical Truth.
Within their ranks you had different degrees of orthodoxy as well as a variety of individual perspectives on issues such as slavery and those that were fit for positions of political leadership. But they all believed that man was “…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable human rights” and it was that consensus that allowed them the opportunity to come together as a unified legislative body and proclaim the freedom of those they represented to King George and to the world.
In Conclusion
Pop Quiz…
Question #1: How often from June 12, 1775 till August 3rd, 1784 did Congress proclaim a National Day of either Fasting or Thanksgiving?
Answer: 18 times. Twice a year – once in March and once in October.16
Question #2: The following statement is inscribed on the Liberty Bell: “Proclaim Liberty thro’ all the Land to all the Inhabitants thereof.” What text is that taken from?
Answer: Leviticus 25:10
Question #3: What President attended church services every Sunday during his administration, approved the use of the War Office as well as the Office of the Treasury for religious services and also approved the use of the Marine Band to provide instrumental accompaniment for the religious services going on within those government facilities?
Answer: Thomas Jefferson17
Question #4: Who, more than any other single person, is pictured in various locations throughout Capitol Hill? Answer:
Moses18
Question #5: Above the figure that represents Science in the Library of Congress, there is an inscription. What is that inscription?
Answer: Psalm 19:1 (The Heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth his handiwork [Psalm 19:1])
: Who stated the following: “… it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”
a) Billy Graham
b) George Washington
c) George W. Bush
d) Charles Spurgeon
Answer: George Washington (proclamation October 3, 1789)
Question #7: It was on April 22, 1864 that Congress resolved to institute the phrase, “In God We Trust” as our national motto. Where did they get that phrase from?
Answer: The third verse of our national anthem:
Praise the Pow’r that hath made and preserv’d us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause is just, And this be our motto: “In God is our trust”19
“The Light of Truth” painting depicting truth slaying the dragon of ignorance. Four sets of cherubs are featured featuring the four elements of sound law: the square, the plumb, the level and the Bible.
The “separation of church and state” phrase can not be accurately utilized as a legal foundation upon which to build legislative mandates to remove Christian symbols from the marketplace. When one pauses long enough to objectively evaluate the whole of Jefferson’s political regard for Christianity, the collective disposition towards religion that belonged to his peer group and the esteem for Christ that characterized the people he governed, to arrive at such a conclusion is nothing less than an irresponsible interpretation of the facts.
Yet, regardless of substantive the argument may be – that the 1947 interpretation of Jefferson’s phrase was altogether wrong – there are other forces at play that make this debate more than just an intellectual joust. The fact that no one balked when Washington so vigorously asserted a Christian dynamic in his farewell address or no one objected to Theodore Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson crafting the preface to the Bibles that were distributed to soldiers being deployed to Europe during WWI is because the religious tenor of nation as a whole was far more healthy.
The Light of Truth is a painting that’s featured on the ceiling of the Members of Congress Reading Room in the Jefferson building which was opened in 1897. The artist, Carl Gutherz, pictures four sets of cherubs to represent four tools that are needed to fashion law that is accurate and sound: the plumb, the square, the level and the Bible. The governmental patrons that commissioned the work of Gutherz were no more concerned about his art constituting a violation of the Establishment Cause then were the members of congress who took the time to read the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as they were reprinted on the inside cover of those Bibles that were distributed to servicemen during World War II.
Again, America in the 1940’s is revealed as being a nation that was collectively embracing the Truth of God, rather than dismissing it as antiquated and limiting. The fundamental essence of our corporate perspective on the First Amendment is defined by our national regard for Christ. It’s not a legal discussion only as much as it’s a reflection of who we are spiritually. If we are to thrive and not just endure as a nation, it’s not a debate that needs to be won as much as it’s a revival that needs to occur.
Traditionally, it’s only in times of crisis when our collective knees bow in worship and the indignation of those who want to remove Christian symbols from the marketplace is processed as an obstacle to the common good rather than a catalyst. If we are to enjoy the advantages that go along with being reverent without having to be alerted to our spiritual lethargy by something dramatic, then it’s only common sense to focus on what’s True and labor to influence those on the peripheral in that direction.
Again, it’s not our history that needs to be revisited, it’s our God that needs to be lifted up (Jn 12:32). Only then do our backgrounds and varying convictions blend together in a way that is Truly strong and enduring. Only then does our spiritual heritage come into focus in a way that is not tainted by a worldly desire to distance ourselves from the Author of our freedoms. Only then is our foundation set in the concrete that is truly American as opposed to the shifting sands of cultural whims and academic trends.
1. Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p92
2. “John F. Kennedy: Remarks at a Dinner Honoring Nobel Peace Winners of the Western Hemisphere”, The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=8623, accessed November 2, 2015
3. “Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power”, John Meacham, Random House, New York, NY, 2012, p471
4. “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p99
5. Ibid, p109
6. “Connecticut in Transition, 1775-1818”, Richard Joseph Purcell, American Historical Association, 1918, p47
7. Among the laws that the Congregational Church used to make life difficult for dissenters was a “certificate law,” that compelled you to verify your church attendance and the regularity of your tithe via a certificate. Obtaining this certificate could be challenging in that, at one point during the life of this law, the certificate had to be signed by two civil officers or a justice of the peace. Since many of the the civil officers in place were Congregationalists, getting their signature was not accomplished without having to endure a significant amount of harassment and discouragement. For more reading on this subject, refer to “The Connecticut State Constitution”, Wesley W. Horton, Oxford University Press, 2012, p10
8. In an October 7, 1801, letter to then-president Jefferson, the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptists expressed concerns that the Congregationalist-dominated establishment / government in Connecticut might successfully stifle dissenting sects – theirs in particular. The letter carried the Danbury Baptists’ plea for Jefferson’s assistance, or at least the lending of Jefferson’s presidential stature, to thwart establishment-driven, government-sanctioned discrimination against religious minorities. “Freedom of Religion, the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court: How the Court Flunked History”, Pelican Publishing Company, Gretna, Louisiana, 2008, p176
9. “Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State”, New York University Press, NY, 2002, p47 (https://play.google.com/books/reader?printsec=frontcover&output=reader&id=aSg20UE2DHgC&pg=GBS.PT42.w.1.0.45.0.1, accessed Nov 17, 2015)
10. Twenty-eight percent of Americans believe the Bible is the actual word of God and that it should be taken literally. This is somewhat below the 38% to 40% seen in the late 1970s, and near the all-time low of 27% reached in 2001 and 2009. “Gallup”, “Three in Four Still See the Bible as the Word of God”, http://www.gallup.com/poll/170834/three-four-bible-word-god.aspx, accessed November 7, 2015
11. “Huffington Post”, “Why Nobody Wants to Go to Church Anymore”, Steve McSwain, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mcswain/why-nobody-wants-to-go-to_b_4086016.html, accessed November 7, 2015
12. Jefferson regularly attended church services in the hall of the House of Representatives. In addition, he allowed church services to be held in several federal buildings throughout the capitol on Sundays. Dr. James Hutson, in his book “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic,” states “It is no exaggeration to say that, on Sundays in Washington during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, the state became the church.” “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p91
13. Ibid, p84
14. “Founding Fathers: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution”, M.E. Bradford, 1994, University Press of Kansas, p xvi (http://www.amazon.com/Founding-Fathers-Framers-Constitution-Revised/dp/0700606572/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1449433424&sr=1-1#reader_0700606572) see also http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qtable.htm)
15. “Original Intent: The Courts, The Constitution & Religion”, David Barton, Wallbuilder Press, Aldedo, TX, 2010, 152
16. “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p53
17. Ibid, p91
18. “One Nation Under God”, Eugene F. Hemrick, Our Sunday Visitor, Huntington, Indiana, 2001, p49
19. “A Nation Under God? The ACLU and Religion in American Politics”, Thomas L. Kranawitter, David C. Palm, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Oxford, UK, 2006, p39
President Trump: Convicted Felon or Political Target
Imagine buying a printer and documenting it as a business expense.
Perfectly legal.
But pretend for a moment that instead of buying a printer, you bought heroin. Now, not only are you breaking the law by purchasing illegal drugs, but you’re also committing a crime in the way you reported it as “something for the office.”
If instead of buying a printer, you bought an ice cream cone, you’ve got a “falsified business expense,” but that’s not necessarily a problem. What makes it criminal is the crime being concealed by documenting the expense as something legitimate.
If someone is going to accuse you of committing a felony because of a falsified business expense, they have to prove to the jury that you’re guilty of committing a crime that was funded by the money you reported as a legal transaction. In the case of our example, the purchase of heroin.
But if you bought ice cream, that’s not illegal and however you accounted for it is not a felony and…
…they don’t have a case.
These are the 34 “felonies” that President Trump was charged with:
| Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust | 2/14/17 |
| Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842457 | 2/14/17 |
| Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842460 | 2/14/17 |
| Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account, bearing check number 000138 | 2/14/17 |
| Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust | 3/16/17 |
| Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 846907 | 3/17/17 |
| Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account, bearing check number 000147 | 3/17/17 |
| Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump | 4/13/17 |
| Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump | 5/22/17 |
| Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 855331 | 5/22/17 |
| Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002700 | 5/23/17 |
| Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump | 6/16/17 |
| Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 858770 | 6/19/17 |
| Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002740 | 6/19/17 |
| Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 858772 | 6/9/17 |
| Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002741 | 6/19/17 |
| Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump | 7/11/17 |
| Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 861096 | 7/11/17 |
| Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002781 | 7/11/17 |
| Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump | 8/1/17 |
| Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 863641 | 8/1/17 |
| Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002821 | 8/1/17 |
| Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump | 9/11/17 |
| Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 868174 | 9/11/17 |
| Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002908 | 9/12/17 |
| Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump | 10/18/17 |
| Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 872654 | 10/18/17 |
| Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002944 | 10/18/17 |
| Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump | 11/20/17 |
| Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 876511 | 11/20/17 |
| Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002980 | 11/21/17 |
| Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump | 12/1/17 |
| Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 877785 | 12/1/17 |
| Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 003006 | 12/1/17 |
These were all identified by the prosecution as falsified business records.
34 falsified business records, 34 felonies.
But remember, in order for a falsified business record to quality as a felony, it has to be proven that the money was intentionally categorized to conceal the fact that the law had been broken.
An excerpt from Manhattan prosecutors’ bill of particulars in the Donald Trump hush-money case referenced in the “Old, unused, and ‘twisty’ — meet the obscure NY election-conspiracy law that just might get Trump convicted” article printed in the Business Insider, April 27, 2024.
But what was the crime?
You can’t tell by looking at the business records, apart from the name, “Michael Cohen.”
In 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s lawyer, cut a check to Stormy Daniels in exchange for her discretion when it came to her relationship to Donald Trump, given its sordid characteristics that occurred in 2006. That same check was later categorized as an illegal contribution to Trump’s presidential campaign and Cohen wound up serving three years in prison.1
Later, however, it was alleged that Trump tried to reimburse Cohen for the money paid out to Daniels and used a series of falsified business records in order to conceal the true nature of the payment made to the former porn star. In doing so, at least one of three crimes were committed (see sidebar):2
- Violation of State Election Law
- Tax Fraud
- Federal Election Law
But you can’t simply list 34 transactions and call them 34 felonies. You have to prove that every one of those line items was intentionally mis-categorized in order to conceal a violation of either State Election Law, New York Tax Law, or Federal Election Law.
It looks like this:
But at each stage of the prosecution’s case, you have some toxic flaws that neither the judge, nor the jury, nor the prosecuting attorney’s seemed willing to acknowledge.
Let’s take a look…
Here’s the problem…
Washington Examiner reporter, Byron York, explains:
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has charged Trump with falsifying bookkeeping records of a nondisclosure payment in order to commit or conceal another crime, Bragg still hasn’t revealed what that other crime is. It’s really the key to the whole case. Without the other crime, there would be no charges against Trump in this matter. The fact that we — and that includes the defendant — still don’t know what the other crime is is one of the great injustices of a felony prosecution that never should have happened…[Bragg’s] theory is that if Michael Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 in the fall of 2016 to keep her from going public with her story that she and Trump had a sexual encounter and then Trump repaid Cohen in 2017, then that was a campaign contribution and should have been reported to the FEC. The payments were made “for the purpose of influencing any election,” the theory continues, and the Trump campaign should have filed a document with the FEC listing among its campaign contributions and expenditures that it received and spent $130,000 for “hush money.”
If you think that sounds a little odd for an FEC disclosure, you’re right. That’s where one of the critical witnesses to be called by the Trump defense comes in. Bradley Smith is a former chairman of the FEC, and on many occasions, including long before Trump, he has argued that there are all sorts of things a candidate can spend money on that are not legally classifiable as “for the purpose of influencing any election.” … Smith, having headed the FEC, has many examples from the commission’s enforcement of federal election law that illustrate his point. He knows what he is talking about, and it seems clear that his expert opinion is that paying off Daniels, no matter what one might think of it, is not a campaign expenditure or donation that FECA requires a candidate to disclose. The Trump defense plans to call Smith as a witness. Not because he has any personal knowledge of the Trump transaction but because he understands, and has enforced, the campaign law that Bragg’s prosecutors appear to be planning to use against Trump. But Merchan has forbidden Smith from testifying about most of the issues involved in the case.3
Everything about the prosecution’s case requires the money paid to Stormy Daniels by categorized as illegal in the context of Election Law. If the priority is a fair trial, it only makes sense that you would seek out the clarity provided by someone who can speak with authority as to whether or not Trump did, in fact, break the law from the standpoint of the FEC.
Bradley Smith is that authority and Bradley Smith was forbidden by Judge Merchan to provide that clarity.
Jonathan Turley is a professor at George Washington University Law School and has testified in United States congressional proceedings about constitutional and statutory issues. Since the 1990s, Turley has been a legal analyst for several major news networks and is currently a legal analyst with Fox News. He said this about the prosecution’s closing argument made by Joshua Steinglass:
Steinglass just said that it is a fact that these were campaign violations. Nothing from the judge and nothing for the defense. This jury has now been told dozens of times that the payments were campaign violations and the Judge is letting that false claim stand uncontradicted…He literally said that Trump lied in denying that these were campaign contributions because they were in fact such violations. Merchan is treating this all as argument. However, Steinglass is making a statement of law that is contradicted by a wide variety of experts.4
Among the “wide variety of experts” that Turley is referring to is Bradley Smith, whose testimony would’ve prevented Steinglass from invoking the discredited assumption that Trump had violated Election Law as an established fact (see “What an Expert Witness For Trump’s’ Defense Would Have Told Jurors if He Hadn’t Been Muzzled by the Judge” sidebar).
It’s as though the court wasn’t really looking for the truth as much as it was looking for an excuse to find Trump guilty.
Here’s the problem…
The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) had closed its investigation into whether former President Trump illegally made hush money payments to women prior to the 2016 election.
The FEC voted 4-1 to close the inquiry after failing to find that Trump or his campaign “knowingly and willfully” violated campaign finance law when his former attorney Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels to keep her from disclosing an alleged affair.5
The FEC declared President Trump innocent of any wrongdoing involving his payment to Stormy Daniels in 2021. Yet, the State of New York decided to ignore that verdict and attempted to charge him with the same crime in 2024.
Another weakness in the prosecution’s case is the fact that President Trump’s alleged violation happened six years ago – a full year beyond the state’s statute of limitations. While a provision was made to extend that timeframe, given the way courts were disrupted by COVID-19, the fact that under any other circumstance, the prosecution’s case would never have made it to trial.
Bear in mind that a falsified business record is a misdemeanor. In order for it to be classified as a felony, the prosecution had to allege that the money was intentionally misrepresented in order to conceal another crime. But not only did that misdemeanor have to be linked to another crime in order for it to qualify as a felony, it had to be asserted as a felony in order for an exception to the statute of limitations to apply.
Here’s the problem…
Again, in order for the 34 counts of falsified business records to resonate as felonies, it has to be proven that they were falsely documented in order to conceal another crime. The prosecution asserted that one of the three possible crimes was a violation of New York State Law Section 17-152 which refers to a “Conspiracy to promote or prevent election.” It goes on to say that, “Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”6
At one point, Judge Merchan elaborated by saying, “Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct.”7
The problem, however, is that the state has no jurisdiction when it comes to Federal elections. In other words, if the FEC declares that the money paid by President Trump to Michael Cohen was not in violation of the law, that ruling supersedes and preempts any provision of State law with respect to election to Federal office.8
Judge Merchan and the prosecution were completely wrong in making a violation of State Election Law as part of the trial because Federal Law renders any attempt on the part of the state to override a Federal ruling a moot point.
Here’s the problem…
In his legal review, Professor Gregory Germain elaborated on the issue of tax fraud as presented by the prosecution:
Early in the case, the District Attorney suggested that Trump might have been disguising the payments to commit tax fraud. But the DA introduced no evidence to support that claim. Trump asked Judge Merchan to prevent the District Attorney from arguing the tax fraud point. The District Attorney argued that falsifying the payment as income to Cohen rather than a reimbursement was a “tax law violation,” but Trump pointed out that there is no evidence that anyone received a tax benefit from the characterization. The court did not rule on the issue.9
So, however “tax fraud” might’ve been documented in the prosecution’s “Bill of Particulars,” it was never proven let alone discussed.
Here’s the problem…
N.Y. Election Law § 17-152 states, “any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means … shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” This crime has two elements:
- To be guilty, a jury must find the accused: (1) conspired to affect an election; and (2) committed another act by “unlawful means” in furtherance of the conspiracy.
- A jury must agree unanimously on the acts constituting elements of a crime. (See U.S. v. Gotti, 451 F.3d 133, 137 (2d Cir. 2006) (“The jury must be unanimous not only that at least two [predicate] acts were proved, but must be unanimous as to each of two predicate acts.”); U.S. v. Carr, 424 F.3d 213, 224 (2d Cir. 2005) (“The jury must find that the prosecution proved each one of those two … specifically alleged predicate acts beyond a reasonable doubt.”).)10
A jury can’t declare someone to be guilty without being unanimous. Despite that being a known precedent, Judge Merchan told jurors, in his verbal instructions to the jury, “Your verdict, on each count you consider, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous. In order to find the defendant guilty, however, you need not be unanimous on whether the defendant committed the crime personally, or by acting in concert with another, or both.11”
While it may sound like the Judge is insisting on a consensus, he simultaneously makes it clear that the jury doesn’t have to be unanimous in which of the three possible manifestations of “unlawful means” were actually committed. Not only is that a gross violation of legal precedent, it’s also a violation of President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right which says that all those accused of a crime have the right to “be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.”12
At every level of this trial, you have a corrupted manipulation of the law…
- The Hush Money paid to Stormy Daniels did not have to be filed as a campaign expenditure
- There was no violation of Federal Election Law.
- The State has no jurisdiction over Federal Elections.
- There was no evidence of Tax Fraud
- Jury didn’t have to be unanimous on what crime was committed
In addition…
- The jury pool is coming from a county that consists of 663,000 registered Democrats as opposed to 66,000 Republicans.13
- A key witness for the defense was not allowed to testify
- Prosecution’s star witness confessed to lying under oath
- Given Merchan’s political activity as well as his daughter being formally questioned by Congress as to how she stands to benefit financially by Trump’s indictment and defeat (see sidebar), his bias makes his refusal to recuse himself a potential violation of New York State Law standards for recusal which state that judges may not “directly or indirectly engage in any political activity.”16 The rules further state, “A judge shall not allow family, social, political, or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.”17
What Was Donald Trump’s Crime? Liberals have a hard time in saying what Trump was guilty of.
Finally, Michael Colangelo was President Joe Biden’s third-highest-ranking Department of Justice official. He quit to join the Manhattan office investigating Donald Trump on November 18, 2022 – only three days after Trump announced his 2024 run and the same day Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed special counsel Jack Smith, and White House attorneys met for eight-hours with Nathan Wade. Colangelo’s association with the case and his nonsensical departure from his prestigious position makes it all the more logical to assume that the Biden White House was instrumental in ensuring that the case against President Trump had the look and feel of something legitimate.
It’s especially suspicious, given the way that Alvin Bragg was apparently reluctant to prosecute President Trump up until Colangelo joining the effort. He was so instrumental in building the case, he actually presented the opening arguments.18
Depending on the media you consume, it’s easy to believe that President Trump was found guilty on 34 felony convictions including what you see above. The problem with the headlines is that they rarely communicate the bottom lines that define the legal substance of, not just the allegations, but even the court proceedings that handed down a guilty verdict.
According to legal experts, Merchan’s standards for a conviction are abnormal. Not only were his instructions vague and illegal, but the prosecution never really made its point. Turley, who was been inside the courtroom, writes. “The jury has been given little substantive information on these crimes, and Merchan has denied a legal expert who could have shown that there was no federal election violation. This case should have been dismissed for lack of evidence or a cognizable crime.”19
Alan Dershowitz was a Democrat up until September of 2024. Prior to that, he supported Hillary Clinton and represented several high profile clients in their legal struggles.
He had a chance to be in the courtroom when Judge Merchan cleared everyone out in order to rebuke Robert Costello. From the perspective of Dershowitz, it was more than inappropriate…
Even if what Costello did was wrong, and it was not, it would be utterly improper and unlawful to strike his testimony — testimony that undercut and contradicted the government’s star witness.
The judge’s threat was absolutely outrageous, unethical, unlawful and petty.
Moreover, his affect while issuing that unconstitutional threat revealed his utter contempt for the defense and anyone who testified for the defendant.
The public should have been able to see the judge in action, but because the case is not being televised, the public has to rely on the biased reporting of partisan journalists.
But the public was even denied the opportunity to hear from journalists who saw the judge in action because he cleared the courtroom.
I am one of the few witnesses to his improper conduct who remained behind to observe his deep failings.20
He goes on to observe how, because the trial wasn’t televised, the only perspective on what happened inside the courtroom was going to be coming from media types, many of who were just as biased as Judge Merchan.
He concludes his observations with a fitting statement that captures everything that falls into the category of the way in which President Trump was not found guilty as a convicted felon as much as he was put on trial as a political target…
“The American public is the loser.”21
1. “Stormy Daniels – Donald Trump Scandal”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels%E2%80%93Donald_Trump_scandal, accessed January 31, 2025
2. The excerpt from Manhattan prosecutors “Bill of Particulars” references four crimes. However, only three were referenced by Judge Merchan in his instructions to the jury. The fourth one is State Penal Law 175.05 and refers to falsifying business records and is classified as a misdemeanor. It may be that this was considered both obvious and redundant and for that reason, wasn’t referenced by Judge Merchan.
3. “When the judge gags a key witness for Trump’s defense”, Washington Examiner, Byron York, May 6, 2024, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/daily-memo/2993414/when-the-judge-gags-a-key-witness-for-trumps-defense/, accessed February 22, 2025
3. “Why Is the Judge in Trump’s New York Trial Muzzling a Key Defense Witness?”, “Townhall”, Guy Benson, 5/8/2024, https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2024/05/08/why-is-the-judge-in-trumps-new-york-trump-trial-muzzling-a-witness-for-the-defense-n2638747, accessed February 3, 2024
4. Jonathan Turley, https://x.com/JonathanTurley/status/1795582312073101372, accessed February 1, 2025
5. “FEC drops investigation into Trump hush money payments”, Jordan Williams, 05/06/21, “The Hill”, https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/552271-fec-drops-investigation-into-trump-hush-money-payments/, accessed February 4, 2025
6. “The New York State Senate”, “SECTION 17-152 | Conspiracy to promote or prevent election”, https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ELN/17-152, accessed February 22, 2025
7. “What is the New York election law at the center of Trump’s hush money trial?”, ABC News, Ivan Pereira and Peter Charalambous, May 30, 2024, https://abcnews.go.com/US/new-york-election-law-center-trumps-hush-money/story?id=110678995, accessed February 22, 2025
8. Office of the Law Revision Counsel, United States Code, §30143. State laws affected, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title52-section30143&num=0&edition=prelim, accessed February 22, 2025
9. Syracuse University, College of Law, “Professor Gregory Germain writes: The Most Important Part of Trump’s Hush Money Case begins Next Week”, Professor Gregory Germain, May 22, 2024, https://law.syracuse.edu/news/professor-gregory-germain-writes-the-most-important-part-of-trumps-hush-money-case-begins-next-week/, accessed February 22, 2025
10. America First Legal, “Legal Errors in the New York Prosecution of President Trump Jury Unanimity”, https://media.aflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/01181702/Merged-One-Pagers.pdf, accessed February 22, 2025
11. New York State Unified Court System, “Post Summation Instructions”, https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf, accessed February 22, 2025
12. Constitution Annotated, Sixth Amendment, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-6/, accessed February 22, 2025
13. “Election by County”, “New York State Board of Elections”, https://elections.ny.gov/enrollment-county, accessed February 1, 2025
14.Federal Election Contribution, Individual Contributions, https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?contributor_name=juan+merchan&contributor_occupation=judge&two_year_transaction_period=2020, accessed February 22, 2025
15. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, “Letter to Ms. Lauren Merchan”, https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-08-01%20JDJ%20to%20L.%20Merchan%20re%20Authentic%20Campaigns.pdf, accessed February 22, 2025
16. Cornell Law School, “N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 22 § 100.5 – A judge or candidate for elective judicial office shall refrain from inappropriate political activity”, https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/new-york/22-NYCRR-100.5, accessed February 25, 2025
17. Casetext, “N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 100.2”, https://casetext.com/regulation/new-york-codes-rules-and-regulations/title-22-judiciary/subtitle-a-judicial-administration/chapter-i-standards-and-administrative-policies/subchapter-c-rules-of-the-chief-administrator-of-the-courts/part-100-judicial-conduct/section-1002-a-judge-shall-avoid-impropriety-and-the-appearance-of-impropriety-in-all-of-the-judges-activities, accessed February 22, 2025
18. Congress.gov, “Biden’s #3 Man at DOJ Resigned to Join Alvin Bragg’s‘Get Trump’Team on November 18,2022”, Bradley Jaye, JUne 12, 2024, https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/117426/documents/HHRG-118-JU00-20240613-SD012-U12.pdf, accessed February 22, 2025
19. Jonathan Turley, “The Closing: Trump’s Final Argument Must Bring Clarity to the Chaos in Merchan’s Courtroom”, Jonathan Turley, May 28, 2024,
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/05/28/the-closing-trumps-final-argument-must-be-clarity-to-chaos-in-merchans-courtroom/, accessed February 22, 2025
20. New York Post, “I was inside the court when the judge closed the Trump trial, and what I saw shocked me”, Alan Dershowitz, May 21, 2024, https://nypost.com/2024/05/21/opinion/i-was-inside-the-court-when-the-judge-closed-the-trump-trial-and-what-i-saw-shocked-me/, accessed February 22, 2025
21. Ibid
See also…
Judge limits scope of testimony from Trump’s planned expert witness
Legal Errors in the New York Prosecution Against President Trump
Why Does it Have to be so Difficult?
I was looking at the story about how the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea. It was a timely devotion because of the way my bride and I were rehearsing some challenges yesterday.
In the chapters leading up to the exodus, God had demonstrated His Reality in the context of several miraculous signs that were so compelling, that no one in Egypt doubted the superiority of Israel’s God. After the Passover, Pharaoh couldn’t wait to send the Israelites on their way. This wasn’t just an example of brilliant statesmanship on the part of Moses, or a series of unfortunate events that coincidentally promoted the idea of granting Israel their independence. This was the miraculous Power of God in full display and what was an impossible situation, as far as the Hebrews being subject to the most powerful empire on earth with no hope of ever being free from a life of bondage, were now leaving in the context of a total and complete victory over their former taskmasters.
But then, Pharaoh changes his mind and he goes after the Israelites. He corners them against the Red Sea and there’s nothing the Hebrews can do but just wait for Pharaoh’s chariots and spears to end their lives.
But then, God parts the Red Sea and before it’s all over, Israel will, once again, see God doing what only He can do with the result being total and complete victory.
But before the waters parted, the Hebrews go up to Moses and, rather than calmly asking that he approach the Lord and ask for some help, they are terrified and wonder out loud if the whole purpose of leaving Egypt was to simply be killed in the desert.
When Moses approaches God, the Lord responds by asking him, “Why are you crying out to me?” (Ex 14:15)
The commentary on this verse is pretty minimal. But I hear it as God asking Moses, why are you freaking out?
Perhaps that’s not the most scholarly approach. Moses wasn’t necessarily terrified, but I can’t help but think that God was pointing back to the last several months of signs and wonders and asking Israel through His conversation with Moses, “Why are you so forgetful? Do you not remember all of what’s happened recently? Do you think that I’m somehow perplexed by what’s going on now?”
We know how the story ends. The Red Sea parts, Pharaoh’s army is destroyed and Israel can’t stop cheering.
But in the very next chapter, the nation of Israel is out of water and they’re in the desert and they…
…grumble (Ex 15:24)
Here’s where I have a question.
Why is it that the Red Sea couldn’t be the last round of major obstacles. You come within a heartbeat of being totally destroyed by Pharaoh’s army, you’ve got Pharaoh in front of you, the sea behind you, you’ve got nowhere to run, there’s nothing you can do and then, God delivers you and…
…cue music, the Israelites ride off into the sunset to the Promised Land and the lights come up.
Happy Ending!
But it’s one round of major problems after another. Chapter 14, Pharaoh’s army is holding a knife to your throat. Chapter 15, you run out of water. Chapter 16, you run out of food. Chapter 17 you run out of water again and you get attacked by the Amalekites.
Why does God allow so much adversity? It’s like with every problem that gets solved, suddenly you’re looking at something else that seems even worse.
It doesn’t take much to get to a place where you feel like nothing ever really gets done. No matter how many times you cry out to the Lord, it’s like there’s nothing there and you’re just engaging in what amounts to a pointless exercise that does nothing more than give you a false sense of encouragement.
But then, after the dust settles, you realize, after looking back, that some things have changed. You’re compelled to revisit some major breakthroughs and resolutions that, at the time, were major headlines in your life and you were thanking God and celebrating His Reality!
Perhaps, it’s healthy to imagine God asking you in your moment of need, “Why are you crying out to me?”
“Have you forgotten all that I’ve done?”
“Do you remember the empty tomb?”
“Have you forgotten Who I am?”
No. No, Lord. I’ve not forgotten and You’re right. I need to take a breath and be mindful of, now just what You’ve done, but Who it is I’m talking to.
But why can we not just take care of “this” once and for all? Why do I feel compelled to come back to You with a different scenario, but, more often than not, the same problem?
Why did You let the Israelites go thirsty? Why do You let them go hungry? Yes, You provided for them, but not before they got to a place where they were desperate. Why does it have to get to a place where people are hurting before You move?
Maybe it’s because no one is asking God for help until they’ve exhausted all their resources and they’re compelled to remember, “…from whence cometh my help.” (Ps 121:1)
Or perhaps it’s because it’s only when you’re having to exercise the muscle of genuine faith, that muscle actually grows.
JD Walt in his devotional, “The Gift of Thirst,” has a great little take on this when he says…
Something about thirst creates desperation. Something about desperation focuses prayer. Something about prayers of desperation creates a context for divine breakthroughs. Something about divine breakthroughs transform nominal religion into blazing faith. Something about blazing faith changes not just one life but transforms entire communities and traverses up and down generational lines.
God always has a point and some of the greatest breakthroughs, which are also the greatest times of growth, happen only after some of the greatest trials. A.W. Tozer once said,”It is doubtful whether God can bless a man greatly until he has hurt him deeply.”
You see that in James 1:2-4:
Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. (Jas 1:2-4)
Why does it have to be so difficult? Because sometimes that’s the only way you can see Him for Who He is and be able to benefit from all that He does.
Twenty Five Inconvenient Realities
The Separation of Church and State is a phrase often used by people who want to insist that Christianity had no real role in our nation’s founding – cerntainly nothing that had any significant influence on those that articulated our cause, created our Constitution and fought the battles that culminated in the surrender of Great Britain.
You see this in comments like what you see below from the “Freedom From Religion” website:
The Christian Right is trying to rewrite the history of the United States, as part of their campaign to force their religion on others who ask merely to be left alone. According to this Orwellian revision, the Founding Fathers of this country were pious Christians who wanted the United States to be a Christian nation, with laws that favored Christians and Christianity.
Not true! The early presidents and patriots were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New Testaments.
You have to be very selective in the information you use to validate such a statement. At the same time, you have to be willfully oblivious to the specific references to God and Christ that punctuate the relevant events and documentation that established the United States.
Below is a brief yet potent list:
What qualified our statement to King George as a legitimate cause as opposed to a mere complaint is the way in which our Founders showed how his monarchy violated Divine Absolutes. However unjust or belligerent his adminstration may have been, it was the manner in which his rule restricted rights that were not his to dispense as much as they were God’s to guarantee – that is what gave our cause the Substance it needed to resonate as something that was True and not just preferred.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.1
That is the starting point. The rights we have are God-given and the governments that are established by men to ensure those rights, but…
…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.2
We are founded on a Biblical Absolute and not a legal argument.
During the eight years we were at war with Great Britain, Congress proclaimed a National Day of Fasting, Prayer and Humiliation 16 different times. You can view an image of those proclamations as they are preserved in the Library of Congress as well as a readable transcription by clicking here.
The verbiage of these proclamations is not conducive to an all-inclusive dynamic as far as it being something that accommodates all faiths. Rather, it specifies Christ and a need to seek His Forgiveness and Direction.
For example, a portion of the Proclamation from March 20, 1781 reads as follows:
The United States in Congress assembled, therefore do earnestly recommend, that Thursday the third of May next, may be observed as a day of humiliation, fasting and prayer, that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure, and through the merits of our blessed Savior, obtain pardon and forgiveness:
There’s a couple of things that are worth noticing: First, the commitee that was tasked with drafting this proclamation included James Madison who many want to believe to be a Deist. Someone with that kind of spiritual temperment would not be advocating Christ as “our blessed Savior.”
Secondly, to characterize Congress as a humanistic enterprise that placed no priority on the Reality and the Necessity of Divine Intervention requires a willful disregard for the repeated directives that came from their collective pen that recommended an intentional timeframe dedictated to an intensely focused and humble posturing before Jesus Christ.
In 1854, James Meacham, the Representative from Vermont, delivered a report pertaining to an issue involving the First Amendment. At one point, he said this:
Down to the Revolution, every colony did sustain [the Christian] religion in some form. It was deemed peculiarly proper that the religion of liberty should be upheld by a free people. Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have strangled in its cradle. At the time of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect. Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation.3
In the same report, Meacham concluded by saying:
In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the founders of the Republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.4
The first words of the Treaty that represented Great Britain’s surrender to America in 1783 were:
In the Name of the most Holy & undivided Trinity.5
The Liberty Bell was used to summon delegates to Pennslyvania Hall to discuss the matters of the day. Benjamin Franklin wrote to Catherine Ray in 1755, “Adieu, the Bell rings, and I must go among the Grave ones and talk Politicks.”6
It’s most famous tolling, however, was on July 8, 1776 when it was used to summon the townspeople to hear the public reading of the Declaration of Independence.7
Yet, up until that point, the bell wasn’t seen as an icon as much as it is today because of the way the text that’s inscribed on the bell was applied to the issue of slavery in 1844.
The inscription is Leviticus 25:10:
Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof. (Lev 25:10 [KJV])
William Lloyd Garrison, abolitionist and publisher of The Liberator, reprinted a poem written by H.R.H. Moore which represented the first documented use of the name, “The Liberty Bell.” Garrison saw it as an appropriate and effective way to combine the Biblical substance of the verse inscribed on the bell with the poetry of Moore which included the line, “Ring it, till the slave is free” and let the collective meaning serve as a rebuke against those who supported slavery.
In an article printed in Time Magazine, Dr Ben Carson tells of how when the body of Abraham Lincoln was laid in Independence Hall, he was placed in a manner where the Liberty Bell and the inscription was directly overhead. During the 20 hour public viewing, over 150,000 people paid their respects to the Great Emancipator.
In the article penned by Dr Carson, he concludes by saying:
Whether you’re black or white, Democrat or Republican, The Liberty Bell’s true story reminds Americans of all stripes that our nation’s history—and future—belongs to us all. It challenges us to tear down systems that hold us captive and honor the price great men and women have paid to cast and re-cast the American mold to form a more perfect union.8
The story of the Liberty Bell and the nation it represents possesses the profound and essential content that it does because of how it points to a Divine Absolute and not just a desired political climate.
On May 2, 1778, General Washington issued the following General Orders:
The Commander in Chief directs that divine Service be performed every Sunday at 11 o’clock in those Brigades to which there are Chaplains—those which have none to attend the places of worship nearest to them—It is expected that Officers of all Ranks will by their attendance set an Example to their men.
While we are zealously performing the duties of good Citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of Religion—To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian—The signal Instances of providential Goodness which we have experienced and which have now almost crowned our labors with complete Success, demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of Gratitude & Piety to the Supreme Author of all Good.9
George Washington made frequent references to the Power and Goodness of God throughout his career as the Commanding General of the Continental Army as well as his time as Commander in Chief.
The fact that he made a point of ensuring that Christian worship services were held throughout the army he commanded and made it clear that he expected his officers to lead by example by being both present and engaged reveals the priority he placed on the acknowledgement of the “Supreme Author of all Good.”
While enduring the hardship and lethal challenges of the winter spent at Valley Forge, Washington directed his troops to set aside a day for thanksgiving and fasting. On December 18, 1777, Reverend Israel Evans delivered one of the sermons and Washington later wrote him to thank him. In that letter, he said:
…it will ever be the first wish of my heart to aid your pious endeavours to inculcate a due sense of the dependence we ought to place in that all-wise and powerful Being, on whom alone our success depends.10
Our national motto is derived from the third verse or our National Anthem:
Praise the Pow’r that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust“
Yet again another example of how many recognize that the “separation” of church and state doesn’t mean the elmination of the church and its influence on the state.
Thomas Jefferson’s orthodoxy wasn’t at all with what most would regard as doctrinally sound. While he believed that Jesus represented the greatest expositor of moral standards ever, Jefferson did not subscribe at all to His Deity.11
In a letter to Thomas B. Parker in 1819, he said:
my fundamental principle would be the reverse of Calvin’s, that we are to be saved by our good works which are within our power, and not by our faith which is not within our power.12
But while his convictions pertaining to the Gospel of Jesus Christ may have been questionable, he still saw religion as being a necessary component to the philosphical foundation a government had to be based on in order to define and defend an individual’s rights.
You see this in a letter he wrote to P.H. Wendover in 1813. Jefferson, referring to the discourses of a Mr. McCloud, says…
I feel my portion of indebtment to the reverend author for the distinguished learning, the logic and the eloquence with which has proved that religion, as well as reason, confirms that soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted.13
In addition, while serving in the House of Burgesses, Thomas Jefferson worked alongside Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee to craft a resolution for the state of Virginia to set aside a day of fasting and prayer. He said…
We were under conviction of the necessity of arousing our people from the lethargy into which they had fallen as to passing events; and thought that the appointment of a day of general fasting and prayer would be most likely to call up and alarm their attention.14
Later, he wrote that the reaction was like a “shock of electricity…”
We returned home, and in our several counties invited the clergy to meet assemblies of the people on the 1st of June [actually at various times in June and July], to perform the ceremonies of the day, and to address to them discourses suited to the occasion. The people met generally, with anxiety and alarm in their countenances, and the effect of the day thro’ the whole colony was like a shock of electricity, arousing every man and placing him erect and solidly on his centre.15
The bottom line is that Thomas Jefferson saw in Christianity a reliable and needed foundation that, while it could not be coerced, could nevertheless support a legitimate assertion of individual rights and justify a national pursuit of independence.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson corresponded frequently after they had both retired from public life. In one particular letter, Adams and Jefferson were discussing a recent comment that had found its way into print that suggested that “Science and Morals are the great Pillars on which this Country has been raised to its present population, Opulence and prosperity, and these alone, can advance, Support and preserve it.”16
In his letter to Jefferson, Adams disagreed and he articulated his position in part by saying…
The general Principles, on which the Fathers Achieved Independence, were the only Principles in which, that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United…17
Among those that comprised the Second Continental Congress you had men that owned slaves and those that despised the slave trade. In addition, you had varying temperaments, vocations, as well as different philosophies when it came to loyalty to the crown.
Adams was part of the five-man team tasked with writing the “Declaration of Independence.” Whatever was getting ready to be sent to King George had to be both substantial and unanimous. But how do you unite a group of statesmen with such different backgrounds and perspectives given the risks that were involved?
As one who was there to witness it first hand, Adams could confidently say that it was because of the way each of the delegates could come together beneath the umbrella of their Christian faith that they were able to outline our country’s position with one voice.
Anytime your relationship with Christ becomes defined more by a routine and an institution as opposed to a personal rapport with your King, your perspective on yourself and the world around you suffers. You see yourself exclusively in terms of your circumstances and the Purpose, Peace and Power that flows from an intentional focus on God and His Truth is overshadowed by the thought of who you are as opposed to Whose you are (Is 43:1; Matt 10:30-31; Phil 2:13; Rev 20:15).
From 1735-1743, preachers like George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards were able to profoundly impact the colonies by proclaiming the Gospel in a way that emphasized the personal aspect of an authentic relationship with Christ. As opposed to sacraments and religious gestures, ministers like Whitefield and Edwards directed their listeners to the Gospels where it could be readily seen that it was a personal decision to believe in the empty tomb that secured one’s salvation.
The basic themes of the Great Awakening included:
- All people are born sinners (Rom 3:23)
- Sin without salvation will send a person to hell (Eph 2:8-9)
- All people can be saved if they confess their sins to God, seek forgiveness and accept God’s grace (Rom 10:9-10)
- All people can have a direct and emotional connection with God (Gal 3:28)
- Religion shouldn’t be formal and institutionalized, but rather casual and personal (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6)18
While the essential doctrines being espoused may not have directly impacted the colonies’ collective dispostion towards Independence, between 1700 and 1740, an estimated 75-80 percent of Americans were actively attending churches which were, “…being built at a headlong pace.”19 This was a result of the Great Awakening and it was this ever growing constituency of believers that provided the material and philosophical support for the Revolution because of the way they were now rethinking the manner in which their rights were, in fact, guaranteed by God and not dispensed by a monarch.
This change in their perspective was due in a large part to the way in which Revolutionary War era ministers were endorsing America’s resistance to the crown as a biblically sanctioned cause. And because you had such a large majority of colonists now attending worship services, the result was a unified group of patriots that were linking arms across those borders previously defined by state sanctioned churches and vivid denominational differences.
Dr. James Hutson from the Library of Congress explains…
The plain fact is that, had American clergymen of all denominations not assured their pious countrymen, from the beginning of the conflict with Britain, that the resistance movement was right in God’s sight and had His blessing, it could not have been sustained and independence would not been achieved. Here is the fundamental, the indispensable, contribution of religion and its spokesmen to the coming of the American Revolution.20
While serving as President, he made a point of attending church every Sunday and he made available Federal Buildings and the Marine Band for worship services. Dr. James Hutson, in his book “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic,” states…
It is no exaggeration to say that, on Sundays in Washington during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, the state became the church.23
Today’s interpretation of the “separation of church and state” does not square at all with Jefferson’s allocation of state resources for expressly Christian worship services. In order for his adminstrative acts to not conflict with his letter to the Danbury Baptists, it is logically mandated to rethink the notion that the First Amendment refers to the elimination of all reference to Scripture as a basis for our laws and political philosophy.
The issue was not the Authority of the Word of God. Rather, the issue of the separation of church and state was whether or not the government could impose a uniform approach to the Throne of God. It was the way that different states and their sanctioned churches could tax their constituents and take from those monies a portion to support a specific denomination, or the manner in which certain states required you to be a member of a particular church in order to run for public office. This was the sort of politically mandated spirituality that permeated 18th century America. The “separation of church and state” had nothing to do with whether or not you could legally kill your child before it was born or if it was legally feasible to redefine the institution of marriage.
The first meeting of the Continental Congress happened on September 5, 1774. Among the first things that was decided was that each session should be opened up in prayer by Rev. Jacob Duche‘. While his intial presentation was typical of what might be expected from a man of the cloth, he then began to pray in a manner that was obviously unscripted.
Silas Deane, the Connecticut delegate, recorded that…
He read the lessons of the day, which were accidentallly extremely applicable, and they prayed without book about ten minutes so pertinently, with suchfervency, purity and sublimity of style and sentiment, and with such an apparent sensibility of the scenes and business before, that even Quakers shed tears.24
The starting point for the First Continental Congress was not a casual, “remove your hat” kind of prayer. It was an intentional and passionate appeal for wisdom that resonated with everyone, regardless of their orthodoxy.
June 28, 1787 was a Thursday. The Revolutionary War had been won and representatives of each state from the newly formed “United States of America” were now meeting to create a Constitution.
Progress had been very slow. Several weeks of unproductive deliberation inspired Dr. Benjamin Franklin to stand up and make a suggestion. His words are recorded by James Madison and can be read in the minutes of the Federal Convention as they’re preserved in “Elliot’s Debates, Volume 5, p253.”
Mr. President, the small progress we have made after four or five weeks’ close attendance and continual reasonings with each other – our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ayes–is, methinks, a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the human understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those republics which, having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution, now no longer exist. And we have viewed modern states all round Europe, but find none of their constitutions suitable to our circumstances.
In this situation of this assembly, groping, as it were, in the dark, to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?
In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were beard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance?
I have lived, sir, a long time, and, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed, in this political building, no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and by-word down to future ages. And, what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom, and leave it to chance, war. and conquest.25
Franklin’s suggestion authenticates the way in which the Continental Congress collectively sought the Wisdom of God during the War of Independence and it also shows the disposition of one of its elder statesmen as far as the Reality and Necessity of God’s Assistance in establishing an enduring and effective government.
For more reading on this, click here.
Remember the “Boston Tea Party?”
Today it would’ve been around $1,000,000.00 worth of tea. It took the colonists 3 full hours to empty the British ship of its 342 chests of tea into the harbor.26
America had repeatedly asked for representation in Parliament in order to facilitate a more comprehensive approach to taxes only to be taxed with even greater indifference and aggression. The colonies decided the best way to respond was to simply eliminate one of the major things that was being taxed. Perhaps then King George would be willing to pay more attention to the petition of his subjects.
The ”Boston Tea Party” did succeed in getting King George’s attention. But instead of a more productive dialogue, Boston harbor was closed, free elections of town officials were ended, colonists were required to quarter British soldiers on demand and Massachusetts was placed under martial law.
When Virginia learned of the crown’s tyrannical disposition, rather than taking to the streets and staging demonstrations, instead the House of Burgesses proclaimed a day of fasting and prayer to avert “the heavy calamity which threatens destruction to our civil rights.”27
This was the Fast that was written in part by Thomas Jefferson referenced earlier. The thing to be noticing is that you have a collective resolve to respond to current events by seeking out the Assistance and the Power of God.
The first part of the Proclamation reads as follows:
This House being deeply impressed with Apprehension of the great Dangers to be derived to British America, from the hostile Invasion of the City of Boston, in our Sister Colony of Massachusetts Bay, whose Commerce and Harbour are on the 1st Day of June next to be stopped by an armed Force, deem it highly necessary that the said first Day of June be set apart by the Members of this House as a Day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer, devoutly to implore the divine Interposition for averting the heavy Calamity, which threatens Destruction to our civil Rights, and the Evils of civil War; to give us one Heart and one Mind firmly to oppose, by all just and proper Means, every Injury to American Rights, and that the Minds of his Majesty and his Parliament may be inspired from above with Wisdom, Moderation, and Justice, to remove from the loyal People of America all Cause of Danger from a continued Pursuit of Measures pregnant with their Ruin.
Ordered, therefore, that the Members of this House do attend in their Places at the Hour of ten in the Forenoon, on the said 1st Day of June next, in Order to proceed with the Speaker and the Mace to the Church in this City for the Purposes aforesaid; and that the Reverend Mr. Price be appointed to read Prayers, and the Reverend Mr. Gwatkin to preach a Sermon suitable to the Occasion.
Ordered, that this Order be forthwith printed and published. By the House of Burgesses.28
This was the way in which both the populace and those that represented them positioned both their resolve and their perpsective. This was not secular statesmanship nor was it reckless rebellion. It was a determined effort to qualify every word and every action according to the Wisdom and Provision of God.
Peter Oliver was a lawyer and by the time of the Revolution had risen to the position of chief justice of the Superior Court in Massachusetts. He was incredibily wealthy and served in a variety of community and church positions and was fiercely loyal to the crown.
His perspective on the Revolutionary War was that of a Tory. Unlike the way in which most historians present John Adams and other such Patriots as noble statesmen, Oliver saw them as deluded troublemakers.
Not long after Cornwallis’ surrender, Oliver published a book entitled, “Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion: A Tory View.” What makes his perspective valuable is that he has nothing to gain by glamorizing or exaggerating any one aspect of the American effort to win their independence, in that he views all of it as a form of sedition.
At one point, he sets aside an entire section of his text to describe the “Black Regiment.”
He begins by saying…
It may not be amiss, now, to reconnoitre Mr. Qtis’s black Regiment, the dissenting Clergy, who took so active a Part in the Rebellion.29
He elaborates on the “dissenting clergy” as flawed ministers, who according to Oliver, were ordained only because of a grave mistake having been made by the Governors of the Church of England. He identifies several men of the cloth including Jonas Clark, Dr. Charles Chaucy and others as being, not only members of the Regiment, but also extremely influential. He references two annual conferences that hosted pastors from all of the state and it was there that the “Black Regiment” was able to exert a substantial amount of influence in the name of rebellion and evil.
In this Town was an annual Convention of the Clergy of the Province, the Day after the Election of his Majestys Charter Council; and at those Meetings were settled the religious Affairs of the Province; & as the Boston Clergy were esteemed by the others as an Order of Deities, so they were greatly influenced by them. There was also another annual Meeting of the Clergy at Cambridge, on the Commencement for graduating the Scholars of Harvard College*, at these two Conventions, if much Good was effectuated, so there was much Evil. And some of the Boston Clergy, as they were capable of the Latter, so they missed no Opportunities of accomplishing their Purposes. Among those who were most distinguished of the Boston Clergy were Dr. Charles Chauncy, Dr. Jonathan Mayhew & Dr. Samuel Cooper?* & they distinguished theirselves in encouraging Seditions & Riots, untill those lesser Offences were absorbed in Rebellion.30
You see Oliver’s “concern” reiterated on multiple occasions and in different ways.
The bottom line is that the mindset of the Patriot looking to separate from England was more than just a political preference, it was something justified and endorsed by the Word of God and it was the clergy that reinforced that message in the context of the sermons they preached and the example they set.
You can read more by clicking here.
Not every Englishman disagreed with America’s quest for freedom. Even William Pitt, England’s Prime Minister who served from 1766 – 1778 was an outspoken critic of the monarchy’s perspective on the colonies. He said, “The spirit which now resists your taxation in America, is the same which formerly opposed loans, benevolences, and ship-money, in England… the same spirit which established the great, fundamental, essential maxim of your liberties, that no subject of England shall be taxed but by his own consent.”31
It was because of this subtle support of the colonies that King George had to turn to paid mercenaries in order to adequately staff the army he would send to the Americas. But even foreign powers were hesitant to war against the Patriots in New England.
When George appealed to Holland for assistance, John Derk van der Capellen, one of their more prominent nobles, expressed his opinion to his fellow countrymen by saying:
In what an odious light must this unnatural civil war appear to all Europe, a war in which even savages . . . refuse to engage; more odious, still, would it appear for a people to take a part therein who were themselves once slaves, bore that hateful name, but at last had spirit to fight themselves free. But, above all, it must appear superlatively detestable to me, who think the Americans worthy of every man’s esteem and look upon them as a brave people, defending in a becoming, manly and religious manner those rights which, as men, they derive from God, not from the legislature of Great Britain.32
Capellen was saying that it didn’t reflect well on the English to be fighting a war against the Americans who, not only were correct in the way they saw their rights as being entitlements guaranteed by God and not dispensed by a king, but also as a people resolved to resist in a “religious manner.”
Throughout the war, not only was General Washington adamant in encouraging a perpetual state of reverence and gratitude to God (see sidebar), but Congress also frequently admonished their populace to fast and repent.34
The fact that the United States was so determined to be consistent in the way they conducted themselves before God as they fought against King George played a large part in how other nations viewed the Revolutionary War.
In his Second Treatise of Government, John Locke dismantled the flawed philosophy supporting the idea that monarchs could justify their authority over their subjects by claiming to be Divinely superior to any human court or governing body.35
He said…
For Men being all the Workmanship of one Omnipotent, and infinitely wise Maker; All the Servants of one Sovereign Master, sent into the world by his order and about his business, they are his Property, whose Workmanship they are, made to last during His, not one another’s Pleasure.36
By saying that all men were the “…workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise maker,” he was stripping away the manufactured rank and title that some had asserted as a way to elevate themselves over their peers. Rather, we were to perceive ourselves as equals having been created by God for His Purpose and not our own.
Locke had a profound impact on those tasked with crafting the “Declaration of Independence.” You can see both his verbiage and his thinking represented in the opening lines penned by Thomas Jefferson when he said:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.37
While many throughout history would sort men according to distinguished sounding titles and family crests, we built our argument on the platform that says our rights are not a king’s to dispense, but they are God’s to guarantee.
The fact that you and I are created in the image of God is what was used to ensure our Declaration resonated as a legitimate cause and not just a mere complaint. And it’s because we bear His Likeness that this isn’t just another day and you’re not just another face in the crowd. Your life is more than your situation and you are more than your mistakes.
That’s the Reality of God and the beauty of grace.
We are not just existing, we are seen…
…and you weren’t merely “sorted…”
You were created.
The war was over. Our Independence had been won and George Washington was getting ready to retire from public service after having, not only commanded the Continental Army, but also having served as our nation’s first president for two consecutive terms.
As he was getting ready to retire, he wrote a circular to be distributed to all the states that would serve as his farewell address on June 8, 1783.
He concluded his letter by saying the following:
I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination & obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large and particularly for their brethren who have served in the field—and finally that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do Justice, to love mercy and to demean ourselves, with that Charity, humility & pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion & without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation.38
Washington was quoting from Micah 6:8. But he was doing more than simply extending a stately nod to the majesty of Scripture. He was emphasizing that the success of the states and the prospect of being a, “…happy Nation” was bound up in the extent to which its citizens labored to obey Scripture and imitate Christ (Eph 5:1).
Modeling yourself after Christ is not merely being “nice.” To imitate Him is to be the best version of yourself in whatever it is that you do (2 Cor 9:8).
Think about it.
When your focus is on Christ, you’re doing the right thing at the right time in the right way for all the right reasons.
If you want to be successful and prosperous, according to Joshua 1:8, then both your schedule and your strength are going to be coming from Him.
That’s the secret to success. It’s not so much a “plan” as much as it is a Person – your relationship with Him and your commitment to follow His Instructions.
Make a point of involving your King in the details of your life. When you do, you’re following in the footsteps of some truly amazing individuals including George Washington who would certify your approach as something that would produce both a happy individual…
…as well as a happy Nation!
In the book “Principles and Acts of the Revolution,” there is what is documented as “An authentic account of Friday’s debate on the second reading of the bill for regulating the civil government of Massachusetts Bay.” This is the “minutes” of a Parlimentary session that happened in London on April 26, 1774.
At one point, Sir Richard Sutton rose to read a letter from a crown appointed governor that described the disposition of the colonists…
Sir Richard Sutton read a copy of a letter, relative to the government of America, to the board of trade, shewing that, at the most quiet times, the dispositions to oppose the laws of this country were strongly ingrafted in them, and that all their actions conveyed a spirt and wish for independence. If you ask an American who is his master? he will tell you that he has none, nor any governor but Jesus Christ.39
On November 20, 1772, the town of Boston adopted a piece written by Samuel Adams, the cousin of John Adams, entitled, “The Rights of the Colonists, a List of Violations of Rights and a Letter of Correspondence.”
The purpose of the document was, in part, “to State the Rights of the Colonists and of this Province in particular, as Men, as Christians, and as Subjects.”40
He begins by articulating the “Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men” which are:
- a Right to Life
- a Right to Liberty
- a Right to Property
…along with the Right to Support and Defend those same Rights.
It’s in this section where Adams echoes the sentiments of John Locke by stating:
“Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty” in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to, by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, as well as by the law of Nations and all well grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former.41
He then goes on to list the “Rights of the Colonists as Christians.” He begins by saying:
These may be best understood by reading – and carefully studying the institutes of the great Lawgiver and head of the Christian Church: which are to be found closely written and promulgated in the New Testament.45
He makes the point that an individual is to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. This was the gist of the Toleration Act in 1689 as well as several other legislative actions put in place by the English government – all of which amounted to a reiteration of what it says in the Word of God as far as your worship needs to be “in spirit and truth (Jn 4:24)” and not according to the dictates of a state sanctioned collection of mandates.
Finally, he enumerates the “Rights of the Colonists as Subjects.” He says:
All persons born in the British American Colonies are by the laws of God and nature, and by the Common law of England, exclusive of all charters from the Crown, well Entitled, and by the Acts of the British Parliament are declared to be entitled to all the natural, essential, inherent and inseparable Rights Liberties and Privileges of Subjects born in Great Britain, or with the Realm.46
What he’s saying here is that Colonists have the same rights as Englishmen which are fundamentally based on the laws of God and nature.
Every collection of entitlements, then, according to Adams, has as its foundation the immutable laws of God.
Even the Law of Nature, an expression that often surfaces in the writings of 18th century political thinkers, has as its basis, a biblical scaffolding referenced by John Locke (see “John Locke: The Law and the Light of Nature” sidebar) as well as Cicero (see the “Republic of Cicero” sidebar).
In 1947, the “First Natural Law Institute” was convened at the College of Law at the University of Notre Dame. At this meeting, you had several distinguished individuals that included Clarence E. Manion, Dean of the College of Law.
At one point Manion was elaborating on “Coke’s Common Law,” referring to Edward Coke, a seventeen century jurist whose writings pertaining to British Common law went on to serve as the foundation for the system of checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution of the United States.
Coke authored some commentary on the famous “Calvin’s Case” which included a definition of the Law of Nature:
The Law of nature was before any judicial or municipal law (and) is immutable. The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart for his preservation and direction; and this is the eternal law, the moral law, called also the law of nature. And by this law, written with the finger of God in the heart of man, were the people of God a long time governed before the law was written by Moses, who was the first reporter or writer of law in the world. * * * God and nature is one to all and therefore the law of God and nature is one to all. * * * This law of nature which indeed is the eternal law of the creator, infused into the heart of the creature at the time of his creation, was two thousand years before any laws written and before any judicial or municipal laws. And certain it is that before judicial or municipal laws were made, kings did decide cases according to natural equity and were not tied to any rule or formality of law.48
Dean Manion went on to show how Coke’s commentary explained how the Christian doctrine had such a profound impact on the way in which the law was perceived and ultimately crafted by America’s founding fathers.
This is a fair digest of the fundamental principle upon which all our pre-Revolutionary legal education was based. The theistic element of this fundamental law was certain to be enthusiastically received and developed in and through the American Colonies, because religion of one kind or another had been the motivation for the establishment of each and every one of these colonies. Theology was the subject which the colonists discussed most passionately and it would have been very difficult for the Seventeenth or Eighteenth Century American mind to comprehend a strictly secular system of duties and obligations.49
March 23, 1775.
Richmond, Virginia.
The House of Burgesses were meeting in Saint John’s Church to discuss the recent actions of the First Continental Congress. The “Intolerable Acts” were passed by Parliament in early 1774 in response to the “Boston Tea Party.” Among other changes, the “Intolerable Acts” included the closing of the Boston Port and rescinding the Massachusetts Charter. Congress had met in September of that same in year to craft a response which called for a boycott of all British imports, an end to the exportation of any and all goods to Britain as well as the raising of a militia.50
It was now several months later. Despite the consensus shared by most Americans that the crown was not going to address any of the grievances that had been repeatedly voiced by the colonies, many hesitated endorsing a war and were yet hoping for a diplomatic solution.
It was in this moment that Patrick Henry rose to speak to the delegates gathered at Saint John’s Church. What followed was a speech made without notes and no transcript was made of the address he was about to deliver which would include the famous phrase, “Give me liberty, or give me death!”51
His desire was to present an argument that could change the minds of those who were determined to believe that diplomacy could sway a tyrant who saw negotiations, not as a way to arrive at a just compromise, but as a scheme to perpetuate a sinister agenda.
He began by acknowledging the reality of differing opinions, but then went on to emphasize the importance of giving all viewpoints an equal hearing, especially given the magnitude of the subject being discussed.
At one point, he said…
It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country.”52
A common flaw in the way Truth is pursued by some is the way in which a person’s bias inclines them to resist any information that has the capacity to undermine the perspective they are most comfortable with. Instead of a conviction characterized by a wise and balanced overview of the issue in question, preferences are substituted for principles and an emotionally charged opinion is submitted as an objective bottom line.
Ecclesiastes 7:16-18 says:
16 Don’t be excessively righteous, and don’t be overly wise. Why should you destroy yourself? 17 Don’t be excessively wicked, and don’t be foolish. Why should you die before your time? 18 It is good that you grasp the one and do not let the other slip from your hand. For the one who fears God will end up with both of them. (Ecc 7:16-18)
Regardless of the topic being discussed, it’s imperative to be balanced in the way you consider the criteria you allow to influence your thinking. It’s more than just a healthy way to ensure a good decision, it’s part of the daily debt you own to God out of respect for Who He is and what He expects (Ps 32:8-10; Prov 12:22-23; 29:1; Jas 1:5-8).
James Madison is often identified as someone who advocated a contemporary interpretation of the separation of church and state because of the way his “Memorial and Remonstrance,” written in 1785, argued against the use of state collected fees to finance the teaching of the Christian religion.
But to evaluate Madison’s stance on Christianity, let alone his perspective on its influence on government and society, solely on the basis of his “Memorial and Remonstrance” is both shortsighted and academically irresponsible given some of his acts as President and other official documents that he contributed to.
While President, James Madison approved the waiving of taxes and fees that would’ve normally be imposed on materials that were to be used for the printing of the Bible in 1812.53
In 1781, Madison worked alongside James Duane and Jesse Root to craft a Congressional Proclamation that would call for a national day of humiliation, fasting and prayer. A portion of read as follows:
The United States in Congress assembled, therefore do earnestly recommend, that Thursday the third of May next, beay be observed as a day of humiliation, fasting and prayer, that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous sidpleasure, and through the merits of our blessed Savior, obtain pardon and forgiveness…54
Madison wasn’t concerned so much about Christianity’s influence on Government as much as he was Government’s interference with Christianity.
To read a more detailed breakdown of Madison’s Remonstrance, click here.
While the First Amendment can be applied to all faiths, the Founders’ primary focus was on the dilemma created by the way in which certain groups wanted to interpret the Bible and not if it was appropriate to ignore the Bible.
You see this proven in the first week of the First Session of the First Congress in 1789. In the very week that Congress approved the Establishment Clause, it enacted legislation providing for paid Christian chaplains for both the House and the Senate.55
In Lynch vs Donnelly, Chief Justice Warren Berger elaborated on that by saying the legislative actions of the Congress that authored and approved the First Amendment demonstrate that the Separation of Church and State applied to the way in which government could mandate things like church membership and not the removal of the church as the foundation upon which we base our rights, morals and direction.
The Court’s interpretation of the Establishment Clause has comported with what history reveals was the contemporaneous understanding of its guarantees. A significant example of the contemporaneous understanding of that Clause is found in the events of the first week of the First Session of the First Congress in 1789. In the very week that Congress approved the Establishment Clause as part of the Bill of Rights for submission to the states, it enacted legislation providing for paid Chaplains for the House and Senate.56
In the same opinion, Berger says this about the complete separation of church and state:
No significant segment of our society and no institution within it can exist in a vacuum or in total or absolute isolation from all the other parts, much less from government. “It has never been thought either possible or desirable to enforce a regime of total separation . . . .” Nor does the Constitution require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. Anything less would require the “callous indifference” we have said was never intended by the Establishment Clause. Indeed, we have observed, such hostility would bring us into “war with our national tradition as embodied in the First Amendment’s guaranty of the free exercise of religion.”57
Later he says this:
There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789. Seldom in our opinions was this more affirmatively expressed than in Justice Douglas’ opinion for the Court validating a program allowing release of public school students from classes to attend off-campus religious exercises. Rejecting a claim that the program violated the Establishment Clause, the Court asserted pointedly: “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” Zorach v. Clauson. Our history is replete with official references to the value and invocation of Divine guidance in deliberations and pronouncements of the Founding Fathers and contemporary leaders….
Other examples of reference to our religious heritage are found in the statutorily prescribed national motto “In God We Trust,” which Congress and the President mandated for our currency, and in the language “One nation under God,” as part of the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. That pledge is recited by many thousands of public school children — and adults — every year.
Art galleries supported by public revenues display religious paintings of the 15th and 16th centuries, predominantly inspired by one religious faith. The National Gallery in Washington, maintained with Government support, for example, has long exhibited masterpieces with religious messages, notably the Last Supper, and paintings depicting the Birth of Christ, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection, among many others with explicit Christian themes and messages. The very chamber in which oral arguments on this case were heard is decorated with a notable and permanent — not seasonal — symbol of religion: Moses with the Ten Commandments. Congress has long provided chapels in the Capitol for religious worship and meditation.
There are countless other illustrations of the Government’s acknowledgment of our religious heritage and governmental sponsorship of graphic manifestations of that heritage. Congress has directed the President to proclaim a National Day of Prayer each year “on which [day] the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.” Our Presidents have repeatedly issued such Proclamations. One cannot look at even this brief resume without finding that our history is pervaded by expressions of religious beliefs such as are found in Zorach. Equally pervasive is the evidence of accommodation of all faiths and all forms of religious expression, and hostility toward none. Through this accommodation, as Justice Douglas observed, governmental action has “[followed] the best of our traditions” and “[respected] the religious nature of our people.”58
Those who want to silence the Influence of Christianity on the way our Founders designed our government and processed the decision to separate from England have to ignore the way in which the Christian doctrine permeated the culture during that time. It wasn’t a political “angle,” nor was it a popular tagline. It was a Reality that inspired the first settlers of the New World, it was a tension that pitted a biblically based platform against a government controlled liturgy and it was a perspective that saw the individual as someone who had been created in the image of God as opposed to a subject who existed to obey a monarch.
It was the Bible that give the needed Substance to our fight for Independence and the “separation of church and state” wasn’t a campaign to encourage a humanistic approach to Democracy or a relative perspective on Morality, but to ensure that the power of government would never be allowed to overule the Authority of Scripture.
Benjamin Rush was a physician, signer of the Declaration of Independence, the “father of public schools” and a principle promoter of the American Sunday School Union. He also served as the Surgeon General of the Continental Army, he helped write the Pennsylvania Constitution and was the Treasurer of the US Mint.
In 1787, he voted to adopt the Federal Constitution at the Pennsylvania State Convention.
In the aftermath of the Revolution, because you now had a government that was being directed by the people, a more informed and educated populace made the concept of Public Education that much more of a priority.
Benjamin Rush was among those who proposed the creation of a more formal and unified system of publicly funded schools and it was through the work of these forward thinking individuals that the modern institution of Public Education is as accessible and advanced as it is today.
In 1786 he wrote an essay entitled, “Thoughts Upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic.” It was in this piece that he emphasized the importance of Christianity and how its Substance promotes “the happiness of society and the well being of civil government.”
I proceed in the next place, to enquire, what mode of education we shall adopt so as to secure to the state all the advantages that are to be derived from the proper instruction of youth; and here I beg leave to remark, that the only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.
Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mahomed inculcated upon our youth, than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend is this place, is that of the New Testament.
It is foreign to my purpose to hint at the arguments which establish the truth of the Christian revelation. My only business is to declare, that all its doctrines and precepts are calculated to promote the happiness of society, and the safety and well being of civil govern|ment. A Christian cannot fail of being a republican. The history of the creation of man, and of the relation of our species to each other by birth, which is recorded in the Old Testament, is the best refutation that can be given to the divine right of kings, and the strongest argument that can be used in favor of the original and natural equality of all mankind. A Christian, I say again, cannot fail of being a republican, for every precept of the Gospel inculcates those degrees of hu|mility, self-denial, and brotherly kindness, which are directly opposed to the pride of monarchy and the pageantry of a court. A Christian cannot fail of being useful to the republic, for his religion teacheth him, that no man “liveth to himself.” And lastly, a Christian cannot fail of being wholly inoffensive, for his religion teacheth him, in all things to do to others what he would wish, in like circumstances, they should do to him.59
According to the Library of Congress…
The war with Britain cut off the supply of Bibles to the United States with the result that on Sept. 11, 1777, Congress instructed its Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from “Scotland, Holland or elsewhere.” On January 21, 1781, Philadelphia printer Robert Aitken (1734-1802) petitioned Congress to officially sanction a publication of the Old and New Testament which he was preparing at his own expense. Congress “highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion . . . in this country, and . . . they recommend this edition of the bible to the inhabitants of the United States.” This resolution was a result of Aitken’s successful accomplishment of his project.
In the Journals of Congress, dated September 12, 1782, you see a report submitted by James Duane on behalf of Rev Dr. White and Rev Mr. Duffied – chaplains of the United States Congress. They had been tasked with inspecting Robert Aitken’s work and this was their response:
Gentlemen, Agreeably to your desire, we have paid attention to Mr. Robert Aitken’s impression of the holy scriptures, of the old and new testament. Having selected and examined a variety of passages throughout the work, we are of opinion, that it is executed with great accuracy as to the sense, and with as few grammatical and typographical errors as could be expected in an undertaking of such magnitude. Being ourselves witnesses of the demand for this invaluable book, we rejoice in the present prospect of a supply, hoping that it will prove as advantageous as it is honorable to the gentleman, who has exerted himself to furnish it at the evident risk of private fortune. We are, gentlemen, your very respectful and humble servants,60
The result was a complete copy of the Holy Bible. In the front section of the Bible, you saw this endorsement from Congress:
Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled, highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report, of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorise him to publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.61
You can see a copy of the text by clicking here.
“The Annual Register” is a publication that presents an annual overview of all the political and cultural highlights of that particular year.62
Created in 1758 and still in circulation today, it’s regarded as a primary source text for historical research.63
1781 was a landmark volume because of the significance of the events that occurred that year including Britain’s surrender to the United States. Part of what made Cornwallis’ defeat stand out was the way in which General Washington conducted both himself and his troops in the aftermath.
Two days after the capitulation took place, divine service was preformed in all the different brigades and divisions of the American army, in order to return thanks to the Almighty for the great event; and it was recommended by General Washington, to all the troops that were not upon duty, in his general orders, that they would assist at divine service “with a serious deportment, and with that sensibility of heart, which the recollection of the surprising and particular interposition of Providence in their favor claimed.”64
In his General Orders, Washington, in addition to recommending that all troops not on duty attend a worship service, he also ordered that all prisoners be pardoned and released:
In order to diffuse the general Joy through every Breast the General orders that those men belonging to the Army who may now be in confinement shall be pardoned released and join their respective corps.65
The British Army had burned and destroyed countless properties that were not military targets, including churches.66 In addition, clergy had been targeted and there were instances of brutality on the battlefield that were not due so much to the horrors of war as they were the cruelty of certain British officers.67
Washington would not have been faulted for being less accommodating when Lord Cornwallis surrendered. Even in the context of the way prisoners of war were treated, the British were indifferent to the wellbeing of the Continental soldiers they held in custody and, while estimates vary, between eight and eleven thousand American prisoners died in prison due to neglect.68
And yet…
Washington personified a biblical approach to one’s enemy.
1) “Declaration of Independence”, America’s Founding Documents, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript, accessed June 27, 2022
2) Ibid
3) “H. Rept. 33-124 – Chaplains in Congress and in the Army and Navy. March 27, 1854. Ordered to be printed, Committee on the Judiciary. March 27, 1854”, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SERIALSET-00743_00_00-004-0124-0000/pdf/SERIALSET-00743_00_00-004-0124-0000.pdf, accessed April 1, 2023
4) Ibid (you can also see this report referenced on the online copy of the Congressional Record of the Proceedings and Debates of the 87th Congress in Volume 108 – Part 13 that covers the activity from August 20, 1962 to August 30, 1962. It’s on page 17597 and can be accessed by heading out to https://www.google.com/books/edition/Congressional_Record/dKHcR9moGwkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=1854
5) “Treaty of Paris (1783)”, “Milestone Documents”, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/treaty-of-paris, accessed April 1, 2023
6) “National Park Service”, “The Liberty Bell”, https://www.nps.gov/inde/learn/historyculture/stories-libertybell.htm, accessed April 1, 2023
7) “Liberty Bell Tolls to Announce Declaration of Independence”, “History”, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/liberty-bell-tolls-to-announce-declaration-of-independence, accessed April 1, 2023
8) “Ben Carson: What You Don’t Know About The Liberty Bell”, Time Magazine, Dr. Ben Carson, August 24, 2016, https://time.com/4464934/ben-carson-liberty-bell-history/, accessed April 2, 2023
9) “General Orders, 2 May 1778, George Washington, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-15-02-0016, accessed March 7, 2023
10) “The Writings of George Washington, Volume V”, Jared Sparks, Russell, Odiorne and Metcalf & Hilliard, Gray and Company, Boston, 1834, https://books.google.com/books?id=UatV3YPhGVAC&pg=PA276&lpg=PA276&dq, accessed April 2, 2023
11) “Jefferson, Thomas and Religion”, “Encyclopedia Virginia EMA, Virginia Humanities”, https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/jefferson-thomas-and-religion/, accessed April 4, 2023
12) “Thomas Jefferson to Thomas B. Parker, 15 May 1819”, “National Archives Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-14-02-0292, accessed April 4, 2023
13) “The Complete Works of Thomas Jefferson, the Third US President”, Thomas Jefferson, edited by Henry Augustine Washington, DigiCat, 2022, https://books.google.com/books?id=MS-cEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT2921&lpg=PT2921&dq=%22Religion,+as+well+as+reason,+confirms+the+soundness+of+those+principles+on+which+our+government+has+been+founded+and+its+rights+asserted.%22&source=bl&ots=jvCeLSmjCd&sig=ACfU3U1-4FsCJ2Gwx8s2xkAUHIojqOIvSA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwii0PWm2JD-AhXgmWoFHYOFCs0Q6AF6BAgnEAM#v=onepage&q=%22Religion%2C%20as%20well%20as%20reason%2C%20confirms%20the%20soundness%20of%20those%20principles%20on%20which%20our%20government%20has%20been%20founded%20and%20its%20rights%20asserted.%22&f=false, accessed April 4, 2023
14) “Resolution of the House of Burgesses Designating a Day of Fasting and Prayer, 24 May 1774”, “National Archives, Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-01-02-0082, accessed April 4, 2023
15) “Thomas Jefferson and John Walker to the Inhabitants of the Parish of St. Anne, [before 23 July 1774]”, “National Archives, Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-01-02-0087, accessed April 4, 2023
16) “John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 28 June 1813”, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0208, accessed February 13, 2023
17) Ibid
18) “Great Awakening”, https://www.history.com/topics/european-history/great-awakening, accessed April 5, 2023
19) “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel02.html, accessed April 5, 2023
20) “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p40
21) “Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People”, Jon Butler, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MS, London, England, 1990, p188
22) “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p35
23) Ibid, p91
24) “Collections of the New York Historical Society for the Year 1886”, https://books.google.com/books?id=81UOAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=quakers%20shed%20tears&f=false, accessed March 30, 2023
25) “A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875”, “The Library of Congress”, https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem_21kM::#N0277-01, accessed April 10, 2023
26) “Boston Tea Party”, “History”, https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/boston-tea-party, accessed February 10, 2023
27) “The Fighting Parson of the American Revolution: A Biography of General Peter Muhlenberg” Edward Hocker, Lawrence Knorr, Sunbury Press, Inc. Mechanicsburg, PA, 1936, 2019, p38, Kindle
28) “Resolution of the House of Burgesses Designating a Day of Fasting and Prayer, 24 May 1774”, “National Archives, Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-01-02-0082, accessed May 13, 2023
29) “Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion: A Tory View”, Internet Archive, https://archive.org/stream/originandprogres011156mbp/originandprogres011156mbp_djvu.txt, accessed April 12, 2023
30) “Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion: A Tory View”, Internet Archive, https://archive.org/stream/originandprogres011156mbp/originandprogres011156mbp_djvu.txt, accessed April 12, 2023
31) “William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham”, Wikiquote, https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_Pitt,_1st_Earl_of_Chatham, accessed March 13, 2023
32) “Full Text of ‘The Spirit of Seventy-Six Two Volumes in One”, “Internet Archive”, https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.234145/2015.234145.The-Spirit_djvu.txt, accessed March 13, 2023
33) “General Orders, 2 May 1778, George Washington, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-15-02-0016, accessed March 9, 2023
34) To view a list of all sixteen proclamations encouraging a day of fasting and prayer issued by Congress during the Revolutionary War featuring images of the text as preserved in the Library of Congress, head out to http://www.americandevotionalseries.com/the-revolutionary-war/march-20-1781/
35) “Divine Right of Kings”, Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/divine-right-of-kings, accessed January 22, 2023
36) “The Project Gutenberg eBook of Second Treatise of Government, by John Locke”, Gutenberg.org, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm, accessed January 22, 2023
37) (n.d.). Declaration of Independence: A Transcription. National Archives. Retrieved January 14, 2023, from https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
38) “From George Washington to the States, 8 June 1783”, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-11404, accessed February 10, 2023
39) “Principles and Acts of the Revolution in America”, Hezekiah Niles, Baltimore, MD, 1822, https://books.google.com/books?id=YpjJdFJRY9MC&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=An+authentic+account+of+Fridays+debate+on+the+second+reading+of+the+bill+for+regulating+the+civil+government+of+Massachusetts+Bay&source=bl&ots=N95tXiET_K&sig=ACfU3U0kS-93dWTCHDTAusZ0GWY0ouhhnA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjm5qHUm-L_AhXXk2oFHbtNBx0Q6AF6BAgPEAM#v=onepage&q=An%20authentic%20account%20of%20Fridays%20debate%20on%20the%20second%20reading%20of%20the%20bill%20for%20regulating%20the%20civil%20government%20of%20Massachusetts%20Bay&f=false “, accessed June 26, 2023
40) “The Writings of Samuel Adams, Volume II, 1770-1773,” collected and edited by Harry Alonso Cushing, Public Domain, p278, Kindle
41) Ibid
42) “Questions Concerning the Law of Nature”, John Locke, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1990, p101
43) Ibid, p119
44) In the opening comments of his “Questions Concerning the Law of Nature,” Locke says: “Since God shows himself everywhere present to us and, as it were, forces himself upon men’s eyes, as much now in the constant course of nature as in the once frequent testimony of miracles, I believe there will be no one, who recognizes that whether some rational account of our life is necessary or that there exists something deserving the name of either virtue or vice, who will not conclude for himself that God exists. Once it has been granted that some divine power presides over the world – something it would be impious to doubt, for He has commanded the heavens to turn in their perpetual revolution, the earth to abide in its place, the stars to shine, has fixed limits to the unruly sea itself, has prescribed for every kind of plant the manner and season of its germination and growth; and all creatures in their obedience to His will have their own proper laws governing their birth and their life…” It’s obvious that Locke sees God as the Great Creator of all life including the heart and mind of mankind. (Ibid p95)
45) “The Writings of Samuel Adams, Volume II, 1770-1773,” collected and edited by Harry Alonso Cushing, Public Domain, p280, Kindle
46) Ibid, p281
47) “Cicero, On the Republic – Book 3”, Attalus, http://www.attalus.org/cicero/republic3.html, accessed May 16, 2023
48) “Calvin’s Case 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377”, “United Settlement”, https://www.uniset.ca/naty/maternity/77ER377.htm, accessed May 16, 2023
49) “Natural Law Proceedings Vol. 1 | The Natural Law Philosophy of Founding Fathers”, “University of Notre Dame, The Law School”, Clarence E. Manion, https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=5&article=1001&context=naturallaw_proceedings&type=additional, accessed May 16, 2023
50) “First Continental Congress”, “Washington Library”, https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/first-continental-congress/, accessed May 21, 2023
51) “Patrick Henry”, https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/patrick-henry, accessed May 21, 2023
52) “Patrick Henry – Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death”, “Yale Law School – Lillian Goldman Law Library”, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/patrick.asp, accessed May 21, 2023
53) “The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America From the Organization of the Government in 1789 to March 3, 1845…Volume VI”, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, MA, 1853, https://books.google.com/books?id=Opt0L-PDdPAC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=%22that+the+duties+arising+and+due+to+the+United+States+upon+certain+stereotype+plates%22&source=bl&ots=p2xVUkIfub&sig=ACfU3U3N9AeyAcd_E0QqZfiXJlHQXbKGTA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjq8oSY0__9AhV6mWoFHduzBy0Q6AF6BAgDEAM#v=onepage&q=%22that%20the%20duties%20arising%20and%20due%20to%20the%20United%20States%20upon%20certain%20stereotype%20plates%22&f=false, accessed June 26, 2023
54) “Journals of the Continental Congress – Tuesday March 20, 1781, p284-286, https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(jc01973)):, accessed June 26, 2023
55) “The Public and General Statutes Passed by the Congress of the United States of America from 1789 – 1827”, https://books.google.com/books?id=1GZZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA411&lpg=PA411&dq=%22That+there+shall+be+allowed+to+each+Chaplain+of+Congress,+at+the+rate+of+five+hundred+dollars+per+annum%22&source=bl&ots=sIYC6Raqr8&sig=ACfU3U24sHHzsUISOw0yUC1rip34FLBwIA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2ypCbyIH-AhVZlWoFHfZgArcQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=%22That%20there%20shall%20be%20allowed%20to%20each%20Chaplain%20of%20Congress%2C%20at%20the%20rate%20of%20five%20hundred%20dollars%20per%20annum%22&f=false, accessed March 29, 2023
56) “Lynch v. Donnelly”, “UMKC School of Law”, http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lynch.html, accessed March 28, 2023
57) Ibid
58) Ibid
59) “Of the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic”, Benjamin Rush, “Evans Early American Imprint Collection”, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N25938.0001.001/1:5.2?rgn=div2;view=fulltext, accessed June 29, 2023
60) “Journals of the American Congress – Thursday, September 12, 1782”, “A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875”, https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem_TJtd::, accessed June 29, 2023
61) Ibid
62) “The Annual Register”, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Annual_Register, accessed June 4, 2023
63) “Annual Register”, Proquest, https://about.proquest.com/en/products-services/ann_reg/, accessed June 4, 2023
64) “The New Annual Register or General Repository of History, Politics, and Literature, for the Year 1781”, G. Robinson, London, England, 1782, p169 (https://books.google.com/books?id=txALAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=deportment&f=false)
65) “George Washington Papers, Subseries 3G, Varick Transcripts, Letterbook 6 | General Orders”, https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/mss/mgw/mgw3g/006/006.pdf, accessed June 4, 2023
66) Referring to the Presbyterian clergy that assisted the Continental Army both spiritually and tactically, “It is not strange that their course was regarded as specially obnoxious by the British troops. Their houses were plundered, their churches often burned and their books and manuscripts committed to the flames…The church edifices were often taken possession of by an insolent soldiery and turned into hospitals or prisons, or perverted to still baser uses as stables or riding schools. The church at Newton had its steeple sawed off, and was used as a prison or guard-horse till it was torn down and its siding used for the soldiers’ huts. The church at Crumpond was burned to save its being occupied by the enemy…More than fifty places of worship through the land were utterly destroyed by the enemy during the period of the war. The larger number of these were burned, others were leveled to the ground, while others still were so defaced or injured as to be utterly unfit for use. This was the case in several of the principal cities – at Philadelphia and Charleston as well as New York. ” (“Presbyterians and the Revolution” Rev W.P. Breed, D.D., Presbyterian Board of Publication, Philadelphia, PA, 1876, p103-106 [https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/public/gdcmassbookdig/presbyteriansrev01bree/presbyteriansrev01bree.pdf])
British forces raided the town of Elizabeth on January 25, 1780 and burned the church, the home of Reverend James Caldwell, the courthouse and the Presbyterian School. (“Revolutionary War New Jersey”, https://www.revolutionarywarnewjersey.com/new_jersey_revolutionary_war_sites/towns/caldwell_nj_revolutionary_war_sites.htm, accessed June 4, 2023)
Saint Philip’s Church in Brunswick County, North Carolina was burned to the ground when the British invaded in 1776. Construction lasted 14 years, but it took only one day for it to be destroyed. Before it’s demise, it was considered to be one of the finest religious structures in North Carolina. (St. Philip’s Church, Brunswick Town”, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Philip%27s_Church,_Brunswick_Town, accessed June 4, 2023)
Biggins Church in Charleston, South Carolina was confiscated by the British Army and used as a depot. As they retreated, they burned the church. (“Biggin Church Ruins”, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biggin_Church_Ruins, accessed June 4, 2023)
67) “Banastre Tarelton”, National Park Service, https://www.nps.gov/people/banastre-tarleton.htm, accessed June 4, 2023
68) “Prisoners of War”, “George Washington’s Mount Vernon”, https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/prisoners-of-war/, accessed June 4, 2023
