by David Barton
The day before the inauguration, the House approved the same resolution;162 and the next day (April 30th) after being sworn-in, George Washington delivered his “Inaugural Address” to a joint session of Congress. In it, Washington declared:
[I]t would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect…. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency…. [W]e ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious [favorable] smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.163
Following his address, the Annals of Congress reported that:
The President, the Vice President, the Senate, and House of Representatives, &c., then proceeded to St. Paul’s Chapel, where Divine service was performed by the chaplain of Congress.164
Several months later, Congress contemplated whether it should request the President to declare a national day of thanksgiving. The Annals of Congress for September 25, 1789, record those discussions:
Mr. [Elias] Boudinot said he could not think of letting the session pass over without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining with one voice in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings He had poured down upon them. With this view, therefore, he would move the following resolution:
Resolved, That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness….
Mr. [Roger] Sherman justified the practice of thanksgiving, on any signal event, not only as a laudable one in itself but as warranted by a number of precedents in Holy Writ: for instance, the solemn thanksgivings and rejoicings which took place in the time of Solomon after the building of the temple was a case in point. This example he thought worthy of Christian imitation on the present occasion; and he would agree with the gentleman who moved the resolution. Mr. Boudinot quoted further precedents from the practice of the late Congress and hoped the motion would meet a ready acquiescence [approval]. The question was now put on the resolution and it was carried in the affirmative.165
(Strikingly, this request from Congress to the President was made the same day that Congress approved the final wording of the First Amendment. This clearly demonstrates that the same body which framed that Amendment did not believe that it was a violation for Congress to call for a national religious time of Thanksgiving.)
The Congressional resolution was delivered to President Washington who heartily concurred with its request. On October 3, 1789, he issued the following proclamation:
Whereas 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…. Now, therefore, I do recommend … that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed…. And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions … to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue.166
During his Presidency, Washington remained just as outspoken about the importance of religion to government as he had been while he was Commander-in-Chief. For example, in October 1789, he declared:
[W]hile just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.167
And on March 11, 1792, he explained:
I am sure there never was a people who had more reason to acknowledge a Divine interposition in their affairs than those of the United States; and I should be pained to believe that they have forgotten that Agency which was so often manifested during our revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that God who is alone able to protect them.168
Washington, in addition to helping America traverse many stressful situations, had personally observed many others throughout the world. For example, the French Revolution, with its proponents of amorality and atheism, had produced a bloodbath and display of horrors in France during his Presidency. In the midst of this embarrassing French spectacle, his “Farewell Address” on September 17, 1796, delivered an articulate warning which summarized what had made the American experiment so successful:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness…. The mere politician … ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert … ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds … reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail, in exclusion of religious principle.169
The visible and firm reliance on religious principles which Washington displayed in the Executive Branch was also just as visible in the practices of the Judicial Branch.
In the original Supreme Court, each Justice was assigned responsibilities over a specific geographic region. Although that practice still continues today, those early Justices, unlike today’s Justices, traveled to the different geographic locations across the country to impanel grand juries to hear cases rather than requiring all parties to travel to the federal capital. Chancellor James Kent (considered one of the two Fathers of American Jurisprudence) observed that this was a practice with Biblical precedent:
The Jewish judges rode the circuits, and Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life, and he went from year to year in circuit, to Bethel and Gilgal and Mizpeh, and judged Israel in all those places [I SAMUEL 7:15-16].170
In preparation for these visits, local officials would correspond with the Supreme Court Justices to ensure that all necessary arrangements had been made prior to their arrival. For example, on February 24, 1790, Richard Law of New London, Connecticut, inquired of Chief Justice John Jay …
… which of the Judges are to ride the eastern circuit … and whether they would wish to give any directions relative to the preparation for their reception in point of parade, accommodations or the like, whether any uniformity particularly formalities of dress [i.e., manner of judicial robe] is expectable, whether they would wish to have a clergyman attend.171
Chief Justice Jay responded:
Judge Cushing is to ride with me the Northern Circuit; Judge Wilson, Judge Blair will take the Middle, and Judge Rutledge and Judge Iredell the Southern…. No particular dress has as yet been assigned for the Judges on the circuits. The custom in New England of a clergyman’s attending, should in my opinion be observed a
nd continued.172
Newspaper accounts of the Justices’ visits from across the country confirm that prayer was a regular part of the Court’s activities. Notice:
Pursuant to law, Court convened with Chief Justice John Jay, Associate Justice William Cushing, and Judge John Sullivan in attendance. After the customary proclamations were made and the Grand Jury sworn – a short, though pertinent charge was given them by his Honor the Chief Justice – when the Throne of Grace was addressed by the Rev. Dr. [Samuel] Haven173 PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE, 1791
Court opened on Saturday, May 12, with Chief Justice John Jay, Associate Justice William Cushing, and Judge John Lowell in attendance. On Monday, May 14, Jay delivered a charge to the Grand Jury…. “replete with his usual perspicuity [wisdom] and elegance.” The prayer was made by the Rev. Dr. [Samuel] Parker. His Excellency the Vice President of the United States [John Adams], was in Court.”174 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, 1792
Last Wednesday the Circuit Court of the United States opened in this town: When the Rev. Mr. Patten addressed the Throne of Grace in prayer – After which the Hon. Judge Wilson delivered to the Grand Jury a charge.175 NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND, 1793
On Monday last the Circuit Court of the United States was opened in this town. The Hon. Judge Paterson presided. After the Jury were impaneled, the Judge delivered a most elegant and appropriate charge…. Religion and morality were pleasingly inculcated and enforced as being necessary to good government, good order, and good laws, for “when the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice [PROVERBS 29:2].” … After the charge was delivered, the Rev. Mr. [Timothy] Alden addressed the Throne of Grace in an excellent, well adapted prayer.176 PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE, 1800
These newspaper accounts are representative of scores of similar articles. If many people today might be surprised by courtroom practices such as these, they probably would be shocked to discover that the practices of the Legislative Branch perhaps demonstrated an even greater direct support for religion than either those of the Executive or the Judicial.
In fact, in 1800 when the seat of federal government moved to Washington, D. C., the Congress authorized the Capitol building to serve also as a church building!177 John Quincy Adams, a member of several Presidential administrations (first serving under George Washington), a U. S. Senator, a U. S. Representative, and himself a U. S. President, attended church in the Capitol building (as did President Thomas Jefferson178). For example, representative of Adams’ diary entries are these:
Attended public service at the Capitol where Mr. Rattoon, an Episcopalian clergyman from Baltimore, preached a sermon.179 OCTOBER 30, 1803
[R]eligious service is usually performed on Sundays at the Treasury office and at the Capitol. I went both forenoon and afternoon to the Treasury.180 OCTOBER 23, 1803
(Weekly church services were held in the U. S. Capitol continually from 1795 until well after the Civil War, and were regularly attended by U. S. Presidents, Senators, and Representatives.181)
The practices of the original Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches all repudiate today’s doctrine of “separation of church and state” which purports that our Founding Fathers disapproved of religious activities in official public settings.
Foreign Observers
America’s rapid rise as a successful nation was a wonder to many foreigners; how could a group of farmers and merchants have defeated what was arguably the world’s greatest military power? Furthermore, how had America established a government which so quickly became envied across the world?
To answer questions such as these, many foreign writers traveled to America first to investigate and then to report their findings to their own countrymen. Consequently, their observations on America and American life are perhaps some of the more objective and informative.
One such visitor was Edward Kendall. He traversed America in 1807 and 1808 and then returned to Great Britain where in 1809 he published his three-volume work, Travels in America. Notice his description of election day in America (from his visit to Connecticut in 1807):
At about eleven o’clock, his excellency [Governor Jonathan Trumbull] entered the statehouse and shortly after took his place at the head of a procession which was made to a meetinghouse or church at something less that half a mile distance. The procession was on foot and was composed of the person of the governor, together with the lieutenant-governor, assistants, high-sheriffs, members of the lower house of assembly, and, unless with accidental exceptions, all the clergy of the State…. The pulpit or, as it is here called, the desk, was filled by three if not four clergymen; a number which, by its form and dimensions, it was able to accommodate. Of these, one opened the service with a prayer; another delivered a sermon; a third made a concluding prayer, and a fourth pronounced a benediction. Several hymns were sung; and, among others, an occasional one [a special one for that occasion]. The total number of singers was between forty and fifty. The sermon, as will be supposed, touched upon matters of government. When all was finished, the procession returned to the statehouse.182
This observer, writing two decades after the Constitution, saw no evidence of the alleged “separation of church and state” which today would likely forbid this celebration from occurring. John Quincy Adams reports similar practices in Massachusetts. He related:
This being the day of general election, at nine in the morning I repaired to the Senate Chamber, conformably to a summons which I received from the Governor [Caleb Strong] …. The Governor then came and administered to us the oaths required by the constitution…. The Governor and Council then came and with both Houses proceeded to the meeting house where a sermon was preached by Mr. Baldwin.183
Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville traveled throughout the nation in the early 1830s and published his findings in 1835 in The Republic of the States of America, and Its Political Institutions, Reviewed and Examined – now called simply, Democracy in America. Notice some of his observations:
Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country.184
Achille Murat, another French observer of America, published his findings in 1833 in A Moral and Political Sketch of the United States. Murat personally disliked religion and found America’s religious nature highly offensive. He exclaimed:
It must be admitted that looking at the physiognomy [discernible character] of the United States, its religion is the only feature which disgusts a foreigner.185
He continued:
[T]here is no country in which the people are so religious as in the United States; to the eyes of a foreigner they even appear to be too much so…. The great number of religious societies existing in the United States is truly surprising: there are some of them for every thing; for instance, societies to distribute the Bible; to distribute tracts; to encourage religious journals; to convert, civilize, educate the savages; to marry the preachers; to take care of their widows and orphans; to preach, extend, purify, preserve, reform the faith; to build chapels, endow congregations, support seminaries; catechize and convert sailors, Negroes, and loose women; to secure the observance of Sunday and prevent blasphemy by prosecuting the violators; to establish Sunday schools where young ladies teach reading and the catechism to little rogues, male and female; to prevent drunkenness, &c.186
Despite his dislike for religion, Murat nonetheless concluded that:
While a death-struggle is waging in Europe… it is curious to observe the tranquillity which prevails in the United States.187
Harriet Martineau of England traversed America from 1834 to 1836 before publishing her findings in 1837 in S
ociety in America. Like Murat, she, too, was extremely harsh in her views toward Christianity, declaring:
There is no evading the conviction that it [Christianity] is to a vast extent a monstrous superstition that is thus embraced by the tyrant, the profligate [immoral], the weakling, the bigot [obstinate, unreasonable], the coward, and the slave.188
Yet despite her own personal hostility toward Christianity, she concluded:
The institutions of America are, as I have said, planted down deep into Christianity. Its spirit must make an effectual pilgrimage through a society of which it may be called a native; and no mistrust of its influences can forever intercept that spirit in its mission of denouncing anomalies, exposing hypocrisy, rebuking faithlessness, raising and communing with the outcast, and driving out sordidness [vileness] from the circuit of this, the most glorious temple of society that has ever yet been reared.189
Summary
The selections in this chapter, taken from both government documents and private writings, from both proponents and opponents of Christianity, all proclaim the same truth. Despite the immense quantity of citations presented here, they still represent only a minuscule portion of that which could be invoked. It was due to the massive amount of available documentation that the 1892 Supreme Court did not hesitate to declare: