—...Heaven has crowned all its other blessings,
—...The foundation of our Empire was not laid in the gloomy age of Ignorance and Superstition, but at an Epocha when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined,
—...and above all, the pure and benign light of Revelation, have had ameliorating influence on mankind and increased the blessings of Society.
—Such is our situation, and such are our prospects: but notwithstanding the cup of blessing is thus reached out to us, notwithstanding happiness is ours, if we have a disposition to seize the occasion and make it our own;
—For, according to the system of Policy the States shall adopt at this moment, they will stand or fall, and by their confirmation or lapse,
—it is yet to be decided, whether the Revolution must ultimately be considered as a blessing or a curse: a blessing or a curse, not to the present age alone, for with our fate will the destiny of unborn Millions be involved.
—... compelled to beg their daily bread from door to door!
—...the Legacy of One, who has ardently wished, on all occasions, to be useful to his Country, and who, even in the shade of Retirement, will not fail to implore the divine benediction upon it.
—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 and 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 and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation.
11 WGW, vol. 34, 12-24-1795. To Doctor James Anderson, “I have no inclination to touch, much less to dilate on politics. For in politics, as in religion my tenets are few and simple: the leading one of which, and indeed that which embraces most others, is to be honest and just ourselves, and to exact it from others; medling as little as possible in their affairs where our own are not involved. If this maxim was generally adopted Wars would cease, and our swords would soon be converted into reap-hooks, and our harvests be more abundant, peaceful, and happy. ‘Tis wonderful it should be otherwise and the earth should be moistened with human gore, instead of the refreshing streams, wch. the shedders of it might become, instruments to lead over its plains, to delight and render profitable our labours. But alas! the millenium will not I fear appear in our days. The restless mind of man can not be at peace; and when there is disorder within, it will appear without, and soon or late will shew itself in acts. So it is with Nations, whose mind is only the aggregate of those of the individuals, where the Government is Representative, and the voice of a Despot, where it is not.”
12 Ibid., vol. 4, 3-6-1776.
13 Ibid., vol. 30, 10-3-1789.
14 Ibid., vol. 12-17-1778.
15 Ibid., vol. 5, 5-31-1776.
16 Ibid., vol. 30, 4-1789.
17 Ibid., vol. 2-7-1788. To Marquis de Lafayette. “You appear to be, as might be expected from a real friend to this Country, anxiously concerned about its present political situation. So far as I am able I shall be happy in gratifying that friendly solicitude. As to my sentiments with respect to the merits of the new Constitution, I will disclose them without reserve, (although by passing through the Post offices they should become known to all the world) for, in truth, I have nothing to conceal on that subject. It appears to me, then, little short of a miracle, that the Delegates from so many different States (which States you know are also different from each other in their manners, circumstances and prejudices) should unite in forming a system of national Government, so little liable to well founded objections. Nor am I yet such an enthusiastic, partial or undiscriminating admirer of it, as not to perceive it is tinctured with some real (though not radical) defects. The limits of a letter would not suffer me to go fully into an examination of them; nor would the discussion be entertaining or profitable, I therefore forbear to touch upon it. With regard to the two great points (the pivots upon which the whole machine must move,) my Creed is simply,
1st. That the general Government is not invested with more Powers than are indispensably necessary to perform the functions of a good Government; and, consequently, that no objection ought to be made against the quantity of Power delegated to it.
2nd. That these Powers (as the appointment of all Rulers will for ever arise from, and, at short stated intervals, recur to the free suffrage of the People) are so distributed among the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches, into which the general Government is arranged, that it can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an Oligarchy, an Aristocracy, or any other despotic or oppressive form, so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the People.
I would not be understood my dear Marquis to speak of consequences which may be produced, in the revolution of ages, by corruption of morals, profligacy of manners, and listlessness for the preservation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; nor of the successful usurpations that may be established at such an unpropitious juncture, upon the ruins of liberty, however providently guarded and secured, as these are contingencies against which no human prudence can effectually provide. It will at least be a recommendation to the proposed Constitution that it is provided with more checks and barriers against the introduction of Tyranny, and those of a nature less liable to be surmounted, than any Government hitherto instituted among mortals, hath possessed. We are not to expect perfection in this world; but mankind, in modern times, have apparently made some progress in the science of government. Should that which is now offered to the People of America, be found on experiment less perfect than it can be made, a Constitutional door is left open for its amelioration.”
18 Ibid., vol. 29, 11-10-1787. To Bushrod Washington. “The warmest friends and the best supporters the Constitution has, do not contend that it is free from imperfections; but they found them unavoidable and are sensible, if evil is likely to arise there from, the remedy must come hereafter; for in the present moment, it is not to be obtained; and, as there is a Constitutional door open for it, I think the People (for it is with them to Judge) can as they will have the advantage of experience on their Side, decide with as much propriety on the alterations and amendments which are necessary [as] ourselves. I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us.
“The power under the Constitution will always be in the People. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to representatives of their own chusing; and whenever it is executed contrary to their Interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their Servants can, and undoubtedly will be, recalled. It is agreed on all hands that no government can be well administered without powers; ... No man is a warmer advocate for proper restraints and wholesome checks in every department of government than I am; but I have never yet been able to discover the propriety of placing it absolutely out of the power of men to render essential Services, because a possibility remains of their doing ill.”
19 Records of the Federal Convention, Saturday, June 30, Yates: Mr. Bedford: That all the states at present are equally sovereign and independent, has been asserted from every quarter of this house. Our deliberations here are a confirmation of the position; and I may add to it, that each of them act from interested, and many from ambitious motives. Look at the votes which have been given on the floor of this house, and it will be found that their numbers, wealth and local views, have actuated their determination; and that the larger states proceed as if our eyes were already perfectly blinded. Impartiality, with them, is already out of the question —- the reported plan is their political creed, and they support it, right or wrong....Pretenses to support ambition are never wanting. Their cry is, where is the danger? And they insist that altho’ the powers of the general government will be increased, yet it will be for the good of the whole; and although the three great states form nearly a majority of the people of America, they never will hurt or injure the lesser states. I do not, gentleman trust you. If you possess the power, the abuse of it could not be checked; and what then would prevent you from exercising it to our destruction?...”
Elliot’s The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution vol. 1 image 500 or 606. http://memory.loc.gov/cgibin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=001/llfr001.db&recNum=529&itemLink=r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr001145))% 230010510&linkText=1
Friday, June 17, Section 8, was again read, and
“The Hon. Mr. SMITH rose. Perhaps there never was a government which, in the course of ten years, did not do something to be repented of. As for Rhode Island, I do not mean to justify her; she deserves to be condemned. If there were in the world but one example of political depravity, it would be hers; and no nation ever merited, or suffered, a more genuine infamy than a wicked administration has attached to her character. Massachusetts also has been guilty of errors, and has lately been distracted by an internal convulsion. Great Britain, notwithstanding her boasted constitution, has been a perpetual scene of revolutions and civil war. Her Parliaments have been abolished; her kings have been banished and murdered. I assert that the majority of the governments in the Union have operated better than any body had reason to expect, and that nothing but experience and habit is wanting to give the state laws all the stability and wisdom necessary to make them respectable, if these things be true, I think we ought not to exchange our condition, with a hazard of losing our state constitutions. We all agree that a general government is necessary; but it ought not to go so far as to destroy the authority of the members. We shall be unwise to make a new experiment, in so important a matter, without some known and sure grounds to go upon. The state constitutions should be the guardians of our domestic rights and interests, and should be both the support and the check of the federal government. Ibid., vol. 2, image 335 of 556.
Records of the Federal Convention, Saturday, July 11.
“Mr. <Madison> was not a little surprised to hear this implicit confidence urged by a member who on all occasions, had inculcated So strongly, the political depravity of men, and the necessity of checking one vice and interest by opposing to them another vice & interest.” Ibid., vol. 5, image 298 of 641.
20 WGW, vol. 29, 4-28-1788. To Lafayette, This I lay out to be a letter of Politics. ...at present, or under our existing form of Confederations, it would be idle to think of making commercial regulations on our part. One State passes a prohibitory law respecting some article, another State opens wide the avenue for its admission. One Assembly makes a system, another Assembly unmakes it. Virginia, in the very last session of her Legislature, was about to have passed some of the most extravagant and preposterous Edicts on the subject of trade, that ever stained the leaves of a Legislative Code. It is in vain to hope for a remedy of these and innumerable other evils, untill a general Government shall be adopted.
“The Conventions of Six States only have as yet accepted the new Constitution. No one has rejected it. It is believed that the Convention of Maryland, which is now in session; and that of South Carolina, which is to assemble on the 12th of May, will certainly adopt it. It is, also, since the elections of Members for the Convention have taken place in this State, more generally believed that it will be adopted here than it was before those elections were made. There will, however, be powerful and eloquent speeches on both sides of the question in the Virginia Convention; but as Pendleton, Wythe, Blair, Madison, Jones, Nicholas, Innis and many other of our first characters will be advocates for its adoption, you may suppose the weight of abilities will rest on that side. Henry and Mason are its great adversaries. The Governor, if he opposes it at all will do it feebly.
“On the general merits of this proposed Constitution, I wrote to you, some time ago, my sentiments pretty freely. That letter had not been received by you, when you addressed to me the last of yours which has come to my hands. I had never supposed that perfection could be the result of accommodation and mutual concession. The opinion of Mr. Jefferson and yourself is certainly a wise one, that the Constitution ought by all means to be accepted by nine States before any attempt should be made to procure amendments. For, if that acceptance shall not previously take place, men’s minds will be so much agitated and soured, that the danger will be greater than ever of our becoming a disunited People. Whereas, on the other hand, with prudence in temper and a spirit of moderation, every essential alteration, may in the process of time, be expected.
“You will doubtless, have seen, that it was owing to this conciliatory and patriotic principle that the Convention of Massachusetts adopted the Constitution in toto; but recommended a number of specific alterations and quieting explanations, as an early, serious and unremitting subject of attention. Now, although it is not to be expected that every individual, in Society, will or can ever be brought to agree upon what is, exactly, the best form of government; yet, there are many things in the Constitution which only need to be explained, in order to prove equally satisfactory to all parties. For example: there was not a member of the convention, I believe, who had the least objection to what is contended for by the Advocates for a Bill of Rights and Tryal by Jury. The first, where the people evidently retained every thing which they did not in express terms give up, was considered nugatory as you will find to have been more fully explained by Mr. Wilson and others: And as to the second, it was only the difficulty of establishing a mode which should not interfere with the fixed modes of any of the States, that induced the Convention to leave it, as a matter of future adjustment.
“There are other points on which opinions would be more likely to vary. As for instance, on the ineligibility of the same person for President, after he should have served a certain course of years. Guarded so effectually as the proposed Constitution is, in respect to the prevention of bribery and undue influence in the choice of President: I confess, I differ widely myself from Mr. Jefferson and you, as to the necessity or expediency of rotation in that appointment. The matter was fairly discussed in the Convention, and to my full convictions; though I cannot have time or room to sum up the argument in this letter. There cannot, in my judgment, be the least danger that the President will by any practicable intrigue ever be able to continue himself one moment in office, much less perpetuate himself in it; but in the last stage of corrupted morals and political depravity: and even then there is as much danger that any other species of domination would prevail. Though, when a people shall have become incapable of governing themselves and fit for a master, it is of little consequence from what quarter he comes. Under an extended view of this part of the subject, I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the services of any man, who on some great emergency shall be deemed universally, most capable of serving the Public.”
21 Ibid., vol. 30, 4-1789. Proposed Address to Congress: “. ...set up my judgment as the standard of perfection? And shall I arrogantly pronounce that whosoever differs from me, must discern the subject through a distorting medium, or be influenced by some nefarious design? The mind is so formed in different persons as to contemplate the same object in different points of view. Hence originates the difference on questions of the greatest import, both human and divine. In all Institutions of the former kind, great allowances are doubtless to be made for the fallibility and imperfection of their authors. Although the agency I had informing this system, and the high opinion I entertained of my Colleagues for their ability and integrity may have tended to warp my judgment in its favour; yet I will not pretend to say that it appears absolutely perfect to me, or that there may not be many faults which have escaped my discernment. ....Whether the Constitutional door that is opened for amendments in ours, be not the wisest and apparently the happiest expedient that has ever been suggested by human prudence I leave to every unprejudiced mind to determine. Under these circumstances I conclude it has been the part of wisdom to ad[vise] it. I pretend to no unusual foresight into futurity, and therefore cannot undertake to decide, with certainty, what may be its ultimate fate. If a promised good should terminate in an unexpected evil, it would not be a solitary example of disappointment in this mutable state of existence. If the blessings of Heaven showered thick around us should be spilled on the ground or converted to curses, through the fault of those for whom they were intended, it would not be the first instance of folly or perverseness in short-sighted mortals. The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances be made subservient to the vilest of purposes. Should, hereafter, those who are intrusted with the management of this government, incited by the lust of power and prompted by the Supineness or venality of their Constituents, overleap the known barriers of this Constitution and violate the unalienable rights of humanity: it will only serve to shew, that no compact among men (however provident in its construction and sacred in its ratification) can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchmt. can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other.”
22 In the New England mind of the day, civil and religious liberty were inseparable, and thus the happiness of life required a full liberty to pursue both. The Declaration of Independence spoke of “inalienable rights” with which Americans had been endowed by “our Creator” which included “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The word “happiness” in the American context included implications for eternal salvation. (See, for example, Noah Webster’s magnum opus, An American Dictionary of the English Language, published in 1834, wherein his definitions of “happy” and “happiness” encompassed the blessedness of the afterlife in Heaven.) America’s spiritual happiness was intimately connected with her political happiness, as seen in the words of the political triumvirate of the New England Adams dynasty:
Samuel Adams, John Adam’s cousin and co-patriot said as he signed the Declaration, “We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and . . . from rising to the setting sun, may His kingdom come.” Samuel Adam’s emphasis upon Christ’s Kingship reflected the spirit of Massachusetts and the other colonies of his day. Statements such as these became commonplace: “No King but King Jesus!” (a slogan emanating from the Committees of Correspondence). A crown appointed governor to the Board of Trade in England wrote, “If you ask an American who is his master? He will tell you he has none, nor any governor but Jesus Christ.” This needs a bit of explanation. The English colonialists were not inherently opposed to monarchy per se. But King George had, in the minds of many colonialists, usurped the rule of Christ in his actions toward New England. The third charge of The Declaration of Independence against the King says, “He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.” Charge XX says, “For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies.” The issue involved in both of these charges is the loss of the British form of government in favor of a French variety and the establishment of the Roman Catholic religion in Quebec. The vast majority of the people in Quebec were Roman Catholic, but the government had been English. By the “Quebec Act” British law was set aside and the Roman Catholic religion established. There were those who believed these concessions to the Canadian Roman Catholics were made so that the British army would have a friendly staging area for an invasion of the colonies, if the struggle with the crown came to blows. The Continental Congress declared, “That the late act of Parliament for establishing the Roman Catholic religion and the French laws in that extensive country now called Quebec, is dangerous in an extreme degree to the Protestant religion and to the civil rights and liberties of all America; and therefore as men and protestant Christians, we are indispensably obliged to take all proper measures for our security.” (Journal of the Proceedings of Congress, Sept. 17, 1774, p. 35.); and again, “establishing an absolute Government and the Roman Catholic Religion throughout those vast regions, that border on the westerly and northerly boundaries of the free, protestant English settlements.” P. 138.
It should not be thought, however, that the American colonies had no room for Roman Catholics in their lands. This was made clear by General Washington’s instructions to Benedict Arnold (not then viewed as a traitor) prior to the American invasion of Canada. Washington said to Arnold, “I also give it in Charge to you to avoid all Disrespect to or Contempt of the Religion of the Country and its Ceremonies. Prudence, Policy, and a true Christian Spirit, will lead us to look with Compassion upon their Errors without insulting them. . .God alone is the Judge of the Hearts of Men, and to him only in the Case, they are answerable.” (WGW, vol. 3, 9-14-1775.) Consider also the Continental Congress’ letter to the Roman Catholic citizens of Quebec. The Continental Congress wrote, “We are too well acquainted with the liberality of sentiment distinguishing your nation, to imagine, that difference of religion will prejudice you against a hearty amity with us. You know, that the transcendent nature of freedom elevates those, who unite in her cause, above all such low minded infirmities. The Swiss Cantons furnish a memorable proof of this truth. Their union is composed of Roman Catholic and Protestant States, living in the utmost concord and peace with one another, and thereby enabled, ever since they bravely vindicated their freedom, to defy and defeat every tyrant that has invaded them.” (Journal of the Proceedings of Congress, p. 129). The Articles of Confederation, the first form of government for the United States before the Constitution, provided for the annexation of Canada! In some measure, the Revolutionary War possessed an element of religious war—the desire to prevent the establishment of a politically coercive religion. Thus the early Americans at first emphasized that they were “protestants,” “ancient free protestant colonies”, “free, protestant, English settlements” (Journal of the Proceedings of Congress, p. 138.) etc. Nevertheless, their hope to have a peaceful co-existence with Roman Catholics ultimately occurred with the arrival of the French forces.
John Adams, cousin of Samuel Adams, was an early patriot and later second President of the United States. On July 3, 1776, in a letter to his wife Abigail Adams, he wrote that the day of the signing the Declaration of Independence “ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forevermore.” (Letters of John Adams—Addressed to His Wife, Charles Francis Adams, ed., (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1841), vol. I, p. 128.)
John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, and also a president of the U. S. said in an “Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport”: Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [on the Fourth of July]? Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?” J. Q. Adams presented this oration at their request on the 61st anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1837.
23 This powerful and illuminating letter in terms of the Christian perspective of Washington’s religion is here quoted in full. The Papers of George Washington, W. W. Abbot, Ed., Dorothy Twohig, Assoc. Ed., Presidential Series (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia), vol. 6, pp. 279-282. This will be abbreviated by PGW, volume number, page number PGW vol. 4:275-277:
