Sep C&S History Lessons #37
WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 1788
NORTH CAROLINA RATIFYING CONVENTION
Mr. HENRY ABBOT, after a short exordium, which was not distinctly
heard, proceeded thus: Some are afraid, Mr. Chairman, that, should the
Constitution be received, they would be deprived of the privilege of
worshipping God according to their consciences, which would be taking
from them a benefit they enjoy under the present constitution. They
wish to know if their religious and civil liberties be secured under
this system, or whether the general government may not make laws
infringing their religious liberties The worthy member from Edenton
mentioned sundry political reasons why treaties should be the supreme
law of the land. It is feared, by some people, that, by the power of
making treaties they might make a treaty engaging with foreign powers
to adopt the Roman Catholic religion in the United States, which would
prevent the people from worshipping God according to their own
consciences. The worthy member from Halifax has in some measure
satisfied my mind on this subject. But others may be dissatisfied.
Many wish to know what religion shall be established. I believe a
majority of the community are Presbyterians. I am, for my part,
against any exclusive establishment; but if there were any, I would
prefer the Episcopal. The exclusion of religious tests is by many
thought dangerous and impolitic. They suppose that if there be no
religious test required pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain
offices among us, and that the senators and representatives might all
be pagans. Every person employed by the general and state governments
is to take an oath to support the former. Some are desirous to know
how and by whom they are to swear, since no religious tests are
required --whether they are to swear by Jupiter, Juno, Minerva,
Proserpine, or Pluto. We ought to be suspicious of our liberties. We
have felt the effects of oppressive measures, and know the happy
consequences of being jealous of our rights. I would be glad some
gentleman would endeavor to obviate these objections in order to
satisfy the religious part of the: society. Could I be convinced that
the objections were well founded, I would then declare my opinion
against the Constitution,
[Mr. Abbot added several other observations, but spoke too low to be.
heard.]
Mr. IREDELL. Mr. Chairman, nothing is more desirable than to remove
the scruples of any gentleman on this interesting subject. Those
concerning religion are entitled to particular respect. I did not
expect any objection to this particular regulation, which, in my
opinion, is calculated to
prevent evils of the most pernicious consequences to society. Every
person in the least conversant in the history of mankind, knows what
dreadful mischiefs have been committed by religious persecutions.
Under the color of religions tests, the utmost cruelties have been
exercised. Those in power have generally considered all wisdom
centered in themselves; that they alone bad a right to dictate to the
rest of mankind; and that all opposition to their tenets was profane
and impious. The consequence of this intolerant spirit had been, that
each church has in turn set itself up against every other; and
persecutions and wars of the most implacable and bloody nature have
taken place in every part of. the world. America has set an example to
mankind to think more modestly and
reasonably -- that a man may be of different religious sentiments from
our own, without being a bad member of society. The principles of
toleration, to the honor of this age, are doing away those errors and
prejudices which have so long prevailed, even in the most intolerant
countries. In the Roman Catholic countries, principles of moderation
are adopted which would have been spurned at a century or two ago. I
should be sorry to find, when examples of toleration are set even by
arbitrary governments, that this country, so impressed with the
highest sense of liberty, should adopt principles on this subject that
were narrow and illiberal.
I consider the clause under consideration as one of the strongest
proofs that could he adduced, that it was the intention of those who
formed this system to establish a general religious liberty 'in
America. Were we to judge from the examples of religions tests in
other countries, we should he
persuaded that they do not answer the purpose for which they are
intended. What is the consequence of such in England? In that country
no man can be a member in the House of Commons, or hold any office
under the crown, without taking the sacrament according to the rites
of the Church. This, in the first instance, must degrade and profane a
rite which never ought to he taken hut from a sincere principle of
devotion. To a man of base principles, it is made a mere instrument of
civil policy. The intention was, to exclude all persons from offices
but the, members of the Church of England. Yet it is notorious that
dissenters qualify themselves for offices in this manner, though they
never conform to the Church on any other occasion; and men of no
religion at all have no scruple to make use of this qualification It
never was Known that a man who had no principles of religion hesitated
to perform any rite when it was convenient for his private interest.
No test can bind such a one. I am therefore clearly of opinion that
such a discrimination would neither be effectual for its own purposes,
nor, if it could, ought it by any means to be made. Upon
tile principles I have stated, I confess the restrictions on the power
of Congress, in this particular, has my hearty approbation. They
certainly have no authority to interfere in the establishment of any
religion whatsoever; and I am astonished that any gentleman should
conceive they have. Is
there any power given to Congress in matters of' religion? Can they
pass a single act to impair our religious liberties If they could, it
would be a just cause of alarm If they could, sir, no man would have
more horror against it than myself. Happily, no sect here is superior
to another. As
long as this is the case, we shall be free from those persecutions
and distractions with which other countries have been torn If any
future Congress should pass an act concerning the religion of the
country, it would be an act which they are not authorized to pass, by
the Constitution, and which
the people would not obey. Every one would ask " Who authorized the
government to Pass such an act? It is not warranted by the
Constitution, and is barefaced usurpation." The power to make
treaties can never be supposed to include a right to establish a
foreign religion among ourselves,
though it might authorize a toleration of others.
But it is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose
representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and
Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to
exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of
religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for? This is
the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of
the world. The people in power were always right, and every body else
wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is
opened. Nor would it answer the purpose, for the worst part of' the
excluded sects would comply with the test, and the best men only be
kept out of our counsels. But ii is never to be supposed that the
people of
America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no
religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own.
It would be happy for mankind if religion was permitted to take its
own course, and maintain itself by the excellence of its own
doctrines. The divine Author of our religion never wished for its
support by worldly authority.
Has he not said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it? It made much great progress for itself, than when supported by
the greatest authority upon earth. It has been asked by the
respectable gentleman (Mr Abbot) what is the meaning of that part,
where it is said that the United States shall guaranty to every state
in the Union a republican form of government, and why a guaranty of
religious freedom was not included. The meaning of the guaranty
provided was this: There being thirteen governments confederated upon
a republican principle, it was essential to the existence and harmony
of the confederacy that each should be a republican government, and
that no state should have a right to establish an aristocracy or
monarchy. That clause was therefore inserted to prevent any state from
establishing any government but a republican one. Every one must be
convinced of the mischief that would ensue, if any state had a right
to change its government to a monarchy. If a monarchy was established
in any one state, it would endeavor to subvert the freedom of the
others, and would, probably, by degrees succeed in it. This must
strike the mind of every person here, who recollects the history of
Greece, when she had confederated governments. The king of Macedon, by
his arts and intrigues, got himself admitted a member of the
Amphictyonic council, which was the superintending government of the
Grecian republics; and in a short time he became master of them all.
It is, then, necessary that the members of a confederacy should have
similar governments. But consistently with this restriction, the
states may make what change in their own governments they think
proper. Had Congress undertaken to guaranty religious freedom or any
particular species of it, they would then have had a pretence to
interfere in a subject they have nothing to do with. Each state, so
far as the clause in question does not interfere, must be left to the
operation of its own principles.
There is a degree of jealousy which it is impossible to satisfy.
Jealousv in a free government ought to be respected; but it may be
carried to too great an extent. It is impracticable to guard against
all possible danger of people's choosing their officers indiscreetly.
If they have a right to choose, they may make a bad choice.
I met, by accident, with a pamphlet, this morning, in which the
author states, as a very serious danger, that the pope of Rorne might
be elected President. I confess this never struck me before; and if
the author had read all the qualifications of a President, perhaps his
fears might have been quieted. No man but a native, or who has resided
fourteen years in America, can be chosen President. I know not al the
qualifications for pope, but I believe hie must be taken from the
college of cardinals; and probably there are many previous steps
necessary before he arrives at this dignity. A native of America must
have very singular good fortune, who, after residing fourteen years in
his own country, should go to Europe, enter into Romish orders, obtain the
promotion of cardinal, afterwards that of pope, and at length be so
much in the confidence of his own country as to be elected President.
It would be still more extraordinary if he should give up his popedom
for our presidency. Sir, it is impossible to treat such idle fears
with any degree of gravity. Why is it not objected, that there is no
provision in the Constitution against electing one of the kings of
Europe President It would be a clause equally rational and judicious.
I hope that I have in some degree satisfied the doubts or the
gentleman. This article is calculated to secure universal religious
liberty, By putting all sects on a level -- the only way to Prevent
persecution. I thought nobody would have objected to this clause,
which deserves, in my opinion, the
highest approbation. This country has already had the honor of setting
an example of civil freedom, and 1 trust it will likewise have the
honor of teaching the rest of the world
the way to religious freedom also. God grant both may be perpetuated
to the end of time !
Mr. ABBOT. after expressing his obligations For the explanation which
had been given, observed that no answer had been given to the question
he put concerning the form of an oath
Mr. IREDELL. Mr. Chairman, I beg pardon for having omitted to take
notice of that part which the worthy gentleman has mentioned. It was
by no means from design, but from its having escaped my memory, as I
have not the conveniency of taking notes. I shall now satisfy him in that
particular in the best manner in my power.
According to the modern definition of an oath, it is considered a
"solemn appeal to the Supreme Being, for the truth of what is said, by
a person who believes in the existence of a Supreme Being and in a
future state of rewards and punishments,, according to that form
which will bind his conscience most." It was long held that no oath
could be administered but upon the New Testament, except to Jew, who
was allowed to swear upon the Old. According to this
notion, none but Jews and Christians could take an oath; and heathens
were altogether excluded. At length, by the operation of principles of
toleration, these narrow notions were: done away. Men at length
considered that there were many virtuous men in the world who had not
had an opportunity of being instructed either in the Old or New
Testament, who yet very sincerely believed in a Supreme Being, and in
a future state of rewards and punishments. It is well known that many
nations entertain this belief who do not believe either in the Jewish
or Christian religion. Indeed, there are few people so grossly
ignorant or barbarous as to have no religion at all. And if none but
Christians or Jews could be examined upon oath, many innocent persons
might suffer for want of the testimony of others. In regard to the
form of an oath, that ought to be governed by the religion of the
person taking it. I remember to have read an instance which happened
in England, I believe in the time of Charles II. A man who was a
material witness in a cause, refused to swear upon the. book, and was
admitted to swear with his uplifted hand. The jury had a difficulty in
crediting him; but the chief justice told them, he had, in his
opinion, taken
as strong an oath as any of the other witnesses, though, had he been
to swear himself, he should have kissed the book. A very remarkable
instance also happened in England, about forty years ago, of a person
who was admitted to take an oath according to the rites of his own
country, though he was a heathen. He was an East Indian, who had a
great suit in chancery, and his answer upon oath t.o a bill filed
against him was absolutely necessary. Not believing either in the
Old or New Testament, he could not he sworn in the accustomed manner
but was sworn according to the form of the Gentoo religion, which he
professed, by touching the foot of a Priest. It appeared that,
according to the. tenets of this religion, its members believed in a
Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments. It
was accordingly held by the judges, upon great consideration, that the
oath ought to be received; they considering that it was
probable those of that religion were equally bound in con science by
an oath according to their form of swearing, as they themselves were
by one of theirs; and that it would be a reproach to the justice of
the: country, if a man, merely because he was of a different religion
from their own, should be denied redress of an injury he had
sustained. Ever since this great case, it has been universally
considered that, in administering an oath, it is only necessary to
inquire if the
person who is to take it, believes in a Supreme Being, and iri a
future state of rewards and punishments. If he does, the: oath is to
be administered according to that form which it is supposed will bind
his conscience most. It is, however, necessary that such a belief
should be entertained, because otherwise there would be nothing to
bind his conscience that could he relied on; since there are many
cases where the terror of punishment in this world for perjury could
not be dreaded. I have endeavored to satisfy the committee. We may, I
think, very safely leave religion to itself; and as to the form of the
oath, I think this may well be trusted to
the general government, to be applied on the principles 1 have mentioned.
Gov. JOHNSTON expressed great astonishment that the people were
alarmed on the subject of religion. This, he said, must have arisen
from the great pains which had been taken to prejudice men's minds
against the Constitution. He begged leave to add the following few
observations to
what had been so ably said by the gentleman last up.
I read the Constitution over and over, but could not see one cause
of apprehension or jealousy on this subject. When I heard there were
apprehensions that the pope of Rome could be the President of the
United States, I was greatly astonished. It might as well be said that
the king
of England or France, or the Grand Turk, could be chosen to that
office.. It would have been as good an argument. It appears to me that
it would have been dangerous, if Congress could intermeddle with the
subject of religion. True religion is derived from a much higher
source than human laws. When any attempt is made, by any government,
to restrain men's consciences, no good consequence call possibly
follow. It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans,
pagans. &c., may he elected to hold offices under the government of
the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not
professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the
office of President:, or other high office, but in one of two cases.
First, if the people of America lay aside the Christian religion
altogether. It may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the
people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.
Another case is, if any persons of such descriptions should,
notwithstanding their religion, acquire the confidence and esteem of
the people of America by their good conduct and
practice of virtue, they may be chosen. I leave it to gentlemen's
candor to judge what probability there is of the people's choosing
men of different sentiments from themselves. But great apprehensions
have been raised as to the influence of the Eastern States. When you
attend to circumstances, this will have no weight. I know but two or
three states where there is the least chance of establishing any
particular religion. The people of Massachusetts and Connecticut are
mostly Presbyterians. In every other state, the people are divided
into a great number of sects. In Rhode Island, the tenets of the
Baptists, I believe, prevail. In New York, they are divided very
much: the most numerous are the Episcopalians and the Baptists. In
New Jersey, they are as much divided as we are. In Pennsylvania, if
any sect prevails more than others, it is that of the Quakers. In
Maryland, the Episcopalians are most numerous though there are other
sects. In Virginia ,there are many sects; you all know what their
religious sentiments are. So in all
the Southern States they differ; as also in New Hampshire. I hope,
therefore, that gentlemen will see there is no cause of feat that any
one religion shall be exclusively established.
Mr. CALDWELL thought that some danger might arise. He imagined it
might be objected to in a political as well as in a religious view. In
the first place, he said, there was an invitation for Jews and
pagans of every kind to come among us. At some future period, said
he, this might endanger the character of the United States.
Moreover, even those who do not regard religion, acknowledge that the
Christian religion is best calculated, of all religions, to make good
members of society, on account of its morality. I think, then, added
he, that, in a political view, those gentlemen who formed this
Constitution should not have given this invitation to Jews and
heathens. All those who have any religion. are against the emigration
of those people from the
eastern hemisphere
Mr SPENCER was an advocate for securing every unalienable right, and
that of worshipping God according to the dictates of conscience in
particular. He therefore thought that no one particular religion
should he established. Religious tests, said he, have been the
foundation of persecutions in all countries. Persons who are
conscientious will not take the oath required by religious tests, and
will therefore. be excluded from offices, though equally capable of
discharging
them as any member of the society. It is feared, contnued he, that
persons of bad principles, deists, atheists, &c., may come. into this
country; and there is nothing to restrain them from being eligible to
offices. He asked if it was reasonable to suppose that the people
would choose, men without regarding their characters. Mr. Spencer
then continued thus: Gentlemen urge that the want of a test admits the
most vicious characters to offices. I desire to know what test
could bind them. If they were of such principles, it would not keep
them from enjoying those offices. On the other hand, it would exclude
from offices conscientious and truly religious people, though equally
capable as others. Conscientious persons would not take such an oath,
and would be therefore excluded. This would be a great cause of
objection to a religious test. But in this case, as there is not a
religious test required, it leaves religion on the solid foundation of
its own inherent validity, without any connection with temporal
authority; and no kind of oppression can take place. I confess it
strikes me so. I am sorry to differ from
the worthy gentleman. I cannot object to this Part of the
Constitution. I wish every other part was as good and proper.
Gov. JOHNSTON approved of the worthy member's 'candor. He admitted a
possibility of Jews, pagans, &c., emigrating to the United States;
yet, he said, they could not be: in proportion to the emigration of
Christians who should come from other countries; that, in all probability,
the children even of such people would be Christians; and that this,
with the rapid population of the United States, thier zeal for
religion, and love of liberty, would, he trusted, add to the progress
of the Christian religion among us.
MR. SPRAIGHT. As to the subject of religion, I thought what had
been said would fully satisfy that gentleman and every other. No power
is given to the general government to interfere with it at all. Any
act of Congress on this subject would be a usurpation.
No sect is preferred to another. Every man has a right to worship the
Supreme Being in the manner he thinks proper. No test is required. All
men of equal capacity and integrity, are equally eligible to offices.
Temporal violence might make mankind wicked, but never religious. A
test would enable the prevailing sect to persecute the rest. I do not
suppose an infidel, or any such person, will ever be chosen to any
office, unless the people themselves be of the same opinion. He says
that Congress may establish ecclesiastical courts. I do not know what
part of the Constitution warrants that assertion. It is impossible. No
such power is given them. The gentleman advises such amendments as
would satisfy him, and proposes a mode of amending before ratifying.
If we do not adopt first we are no more a part of the Union than any
foreign power. It will be also throwing away the influence of our
stale to propose amendments as the condition of our ratification. If
we adopt first, our representatives will have a proportionable weight
in bringing about amendments, which will not be the case if we do not
adopt. It is adopted by ten states; already. The question, then, is,
not whether the Constitution be good, but whether we will or will not
confederate with the other states. The gentleman supposes that the
liberty of the press is not secured. The Constitution does not take it
away.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Wed. July 30, 1788. North Carolina State
Constitutional Ratifying Convention debates--THE DEBATES IN THE
SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS
ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AS RECOMMENDED BY THE
GENERAL CONVENTION AT PHILADELPHIA IN 1787, VOL IV, by Jonathan Elliot
J. B. Lippincott Company 1888. Pages 191-200)
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
