Separation of Church and State

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It is common for rudimentary histories of America to declare that other Western Hemisphere colonists mostly came to plunder and exploit; the Protestant colonists however came with families to settle, fleeing religious persecution. That may be a considerable oversimplification of events covering three centuries, but it was true that before the Revolutionary War, eleven of the thirteen American colonies approached the de facto condition of having established religions. Massachusetts and Virginia, the earliest colonies, had by 1776 even reached the point of appreciable rebelliousness against their new religious establishments. The three Quaker colonies were late settlements, in existence less than a century before the Revolution, and therefore still comfortable with the idea they were religious utopias. But however differing in intensity all colonials respected the mottos, habits of thought, and forms of speech natural to utopians residing in a religious environment.

Once Martin Luther had let the Protestant genii out of its religious bottle, however, revisionist logic was pursued into many corners. Ultimately, Protestant questers found themselves confronting -- not religious dogmatism, but its opposite -- the secularism of eighteenth century enlightenment. Comparatively few colonists were willing to acknowledge doubts in public about miracles and divinity, but these doubts were sufficiently prevalent among colonial leaders to engender restlessness about the tyrannies and rigidities of their dominant religions, contempt for the self-serving political struggles observable among their preachers, and alarm about the occasional wars and persecutions over dubious religious doctrines. Arriving rather late in this evolution of thought -- but not too late to experience bloody persecutions themselves -- the Quakers sought to purify their Utopia by eliminating preachers from their worship. Thus, the most central and soon the most prosperous of the colonies made it respectable to denounce religious leaders in general for the many troubles they provoked.

London Yearly Meeting

For Quakers, the most wrenching, disheartening revelation came when they were themselves in unchallenged local control during the French and Indian War. The purest of motives and the most earnest desire to do the right thing provided no guidance for those in charge of government when the French and Indians were scalping their western settlers and burning their homes. Yes, the Scotch-Irish settlers of the frontier had unwisely sold liquor and gunpowder to the Indians, and yes, the Quakers of the Eastern part of the state had sought to buffer their own safety from frontier violence by selling more westerly land to combative Celtic immigrant tribes. Similar strategy had worked well enough with the earlier German settlers, but reproachful history was not likely to pacify the frontier Scottish in the midst of widespread massacre. The Quaker government was expected to do what all governments are expected to do, protect their people. To trace the social contract back to William Penn's personal friend John Locke was too bland for a religion which prided itself on plain speech. Non-violent pacifism could not be reconciled with the duties of a government to protect its citizens. The even more comfortably remote Quakers of the London Yearly Meeting then indulged themselves in the luxury of consistent logic; a letter was dispatched to the bewildered Quaker Colonials. They must withdraw from participation in government. And they obeyed.

Although the frontier Scots were surely relieved to have non-Quakers assume control and do their military duty, the western part of the state has never forgotten nor forgiven. In their eyes, Quakers are not fit to be in charge of anything. Quaker wealth, sophistication and education were irrelevant; only Presbyterians are fit to rule.

The French and Indian War turned out fairly well; most of its victories were located on the other side of the Ocean. But twenty years later the Revolutionary War was one of British conquest of America. If there was to be American victory, American troops must do the fighting. Many prosperous and educated Quakers solved their dilemma by fleeing to Canada, but the ardent Quaker proposal for dealing with the British government was not at all impractical. John Dickinson in particular argued that since the British motives were economic, success was most likely to come from economic pressure, adroitly leveraging three thousand miles of intervening ocean. That was shrewd, and potentially effective. But the Scots-Presbyterian position was simpler and more direct. If you want us to fight your war, you are going to have to fight to win. The Virginia cavaliers were probably more likely to win the war if they were put in charge, but the blunt and almost savage frontiersmen were ideally suited for what has come to be called guerrilla warfare. Washington was a leader, French money was welcome, Ben Franklin a diplomat, but the call to battle was the voice of Patrick Henry.

Congress Hall

In all wars, arts of diplomacy and restraints of religion are set aside as insufficient, if not altogether failures. In the Revolution, some Quakers split from pacifism and became Free Quakers, many more drifted into Episcopalianism, never to return to pacifism. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held in this environment; previous service in the War counted for something, and the great goal was to strengthen the central government -- for more effective regional defense. A great many leaders were Masons, holding that much can be accomplished by secular leadership, independent of religious reasonings. Neither Washington nor Madison revealed much of their religious positions, although Washington the church attender always declined communion; Franklin and probably Jefferson were at heart deists, believing that God may well exist, but wound up the universe like a clock and let it run by itself. The New England Calvinist doctrines have since evolved as Unitarianism, which outsiders would say theologically is not greatly different from deism. Physically surrounding the Philadelphia convention was a predominantly Quaker attitude; preachers get you into trouble entirely too often.

James Madison

When the first Congress finally met under the new constitution, they confronted over a hundred amendments, mostly submitted from the frontier and fomented by Jefferson, demanding a bill of rights. The demand of these amendments was overwhelmingly that the newly-strengthened central government must not intrude into the rights of citizens. Recognizing the power of local community action, states rights must similarly be protected. Just where these rights came from was often couched in divine terms for lack of better proof that they must be innate, or natural. From a modern perspective, these rights in fact often originated in what theologians call Enthusiasm; the belief that if enough people want something passionately enough, it must have a divine source. The newly minted politicians in the first Congress recognized, something had to be done about this uproar. Congress formed a committee to consider matters, and appointed as chairman -- James Madison. Obviously, the chief architect of the Constitution would not be thrilled to see his product twisted out of shape by a hundred amendments, but on the other hand, a man from Piedmont Virginia would be careful to placate the likes of Patrick Henry. The ultimate result was ten amendments called the Bill of Rights, and Madison packed considerably more than ten rights into the package, in order to preserve the cadence of the Ten Commandments. The First Amendment, for example, is really six rights, skillfully shaped together to sound more or less like one idea with illustrative examples. Overall freedom of thought comfortably might include freedom of speech (and the press), along with freedom of religion, and assembly, and the right to petition for grievances. But what it actually says is that Congress shall not establish a national religion. Since eleven states really had approximated establishing a single religion, the clear intent was to prohibit a single national religion while tolerating unifications at the state level. Subsequent Supreme Courts have extended the Constitution to apply to the states, responding among other arguments to a growing recognition that religious states had the potential to get so heated as to war with each other. No matter what their doctrines, it seemed wiser to deprive organized religions of political power as a step in giving the Constitution monopoly power over the process of political selection.

At first however it was pretty clear; one state's brand of religion was not to boss around the religion of another state. Eventually within one state, Virginia for example, the upstate Presbyterian ministers were not to push around the Episcopalian bishops of the Tidewater. Madison and Jefferson saw well enough where political uprisings tended to start in those days, in gathered church meetinghouses. In this way, an Amendment originally promoted to protect religions has evolved into a way to ease them out of political power. The idea of separation of church and state has grown increasingly stronger, to the point where most Americans would agree it defines a viable republic. No doubt, the spectacle of preachers exhorting the faithful in opposite directions during the Civil War, finally settled the argument.

(1756)