No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
In recent years American historians have seriously challenged the early twentieth-century liberal interpretation of the American Revolution. It now seems probable that the revolution was “an elitist movement with only a modest amount of explicit striving among either the people at large or any of the dominant political factions for a wider diffusion of political power.” One of the persistent themes of the liberal view has been that of the striving for and winning of religious liberty. This topic easily lent itself to the epic of the “common man” combining against the aristocracy to force substantial social and political changes.Even the terms “dissenters” and “establishment” carried the emotional impact inherent in the interpretation and made the whole process seem self-evident. Just as the reexamination of the American Revolution as a whole has made possible a more plausible understanding of the events in America after the revolution, a reassessment of the events leading to disestablishment and the legal adoption of a policy of religious liberty could lead to a fresh understanding of the role of religion in American national life.
1. Greene, Jack P., “The Reappraisal of the American Revolution in Recent Historical Literature,” The Reinterpretation of the American Revolution, 1783–1790, ed. Greene, Jack P. (New York: Harper and Row, 1968), 53Google Scholar. For an earlier essay pointing to the same general tendency see Morgan, Edmund S., The American Revolution: A Review of Changing Interpretations (Washington, D. C.: Service Center for Teachers of History, 1958).Google Scholar
2. See especially Fischer, David Hackett, The Revolution of American Conservatism: The Federalist Party in the Era of Jeffersonian Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1965).Google Scholar
3. Eckenrode, Hamilton James, Separation of Church and State in Virginia: A Study in the Development of the Revolution (Richmond: Davis Bottom, 1910), 116.Google Scholar
4. Mead, Sidney E., The Lively Experiment (New York: Harper and Row, 1963), 38.Google Scholar
5. Ibid., 63.
6. Ibid., 38.
7. Ibid., 53. Professor Mead informs me that while my interpretation of his position is correct, he has since changed his mind and has suggested an interpretation in an unpublished lecture similar to the one that I have spelled out. Sidney E. Mead to Fred Hood, January 8, 1970.
8. Witherspoon, John, Lectures on Moral Philosophy, ed. Collins, Varnum Lansing (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1912), 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Ibid., 110–12.
10. Ibid., 111–13.
11. Witherspoon has been considered by liberal historians as a strong supporter of religious liberty who greatly influenced James Madison, his student at the College of New Jersey. According to Morison, Samuel Eliot and Commager, Henry Steele, Growth of the American Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1942), I, 241Google Scholar, Witherspoon “was forever preaching that mere toleration was not enough, for that implied superiority and condescension; the only proper principle for a republic was complete liberty to worship how one chose or not at all, and every church should be supported by its own members or funds without help from the taxing power of the state. Witherspoon's pupils, among whom James Madison was conspicuous, were always to be found on the side of religious liberty.” This view was quoted and accepted by Anson Phelps Stokes in his massive Church and State in the United States (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), I, 301–02Google Scholar. The same statement, without quotation marks, appears in the revised edition by Stokes and Leo Pfeffer (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), 41, although Stokes quoted some significant passages from Witherspoon's writings which made the interpretation questionable. A better treatment is that of Nichols, James Hastings, “John Witherspoon on Church and State,” Journal of Presbyterian History, 42 (09, 1964), 166–174.Google Scholar
12. Reese, Thomas, An Essay on the Influence of Religion in Civil Society (Charleston, 1783).Google Scholar
13. Ibid., 5, 22–23, 72–73.
14. Ibid., 73–74.
15. Ibid., 74–79.
16. Ibid., 79–84.
17. Ibid., 84.
18. The memorial is cited in full in Foote, William Henry, Sketches of Virginia, Historical and Biographical, 2nd ed. (Richmond: H. J. Dudley, 1966), 323–324Google Scholar. This work was originally published in 1850.
19. Ibid.
20. The memorial is cited in full in Ibid., 326–27.
21. Quoted in Eckenrode, , Separation of Church and State in Virginia, 51.Google Scholar
22. Sellers, Charles Grier, “John Blair Smith,” Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society, 34 (12, 1956), 212–14.Google Scholar
23. Quoted in Eckenrode, , Church and State in Virginia, 91.Google Scholar
24. Quoted in Ibid., 64.
25. The bill is cited in full in Ibid., 58–61.
26. Quoted in Foote, , Sketches of Virginia, 332.Google Scholar
27. The memorial is cited in full in Ibid., 333–34.
28. Ibid.,
29. Ibid., 338.
30. The memorial is quoted in full in Ibid., 336–38.
31. Ibid.
32. This has recently been published in a limited edition: Hoge, John Blair, Sketch of the Life and Character of the Rev. Moses Hoge (Richmond: Library of Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, 1964), 38–40.Google Scholar
33. Foote, , Sketches of Virginia, 338.Google Scholar
34. Maxwell, William, A Memoir of the Rev. John H. Rice (Philadelphia, 1835), 372–74.Google Scholar
35. Rice, John Holt, Historical and Philosophical Considerations on Religion, ed. Converse, A. (Richmond, 1832)Google Scholar. This volume is the best single exposition of the Presbyterian concept of religious liberty.
36. Recently several scholars have done independent research in this area. Sellers,“John Blair Smith;” Ketcham, Ralph L., “James Madison and Religion—a New Hypothesis,” Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society, 38 (06, 1960)Google Scholar; and Singleton, Marvin K., “Colonial Virginia as First Amendment Matrix: Henry, Madison and Assessment Establishment,” A Journal of Church and State, 8 (Autumn, 1966)Google Scholar all seem to be in basic agreement with the direction taken in this paper. Ketcham and Singleton do not speak directly to the issue but assume that the Presbyterian clergy supported assessment. Sellers' brief treatment agrees substantially with my own reconstruction of the events.
37. See the Manuscript Memoirs of William Graham in the library of Princeton Theological Seminary.
38. The memorial is quoted in full in Foote, , Sketches of Virginia, 107Google Scholar. Sellers states that such a proposal was actually made by Samuel Stanhope Smith and supported by his brother, John Blair. See “John Blair Smith,” 211.
39. Smith had at one time favored the assessment. Graham on the other hand was at least one Presbyterian minister who had consistently opposed the assessment. Graham was of western Pennsylvania and a radical democrat who wrote the constitution for the state of Franklin. See Sellers, “John Blair Smith,” 212–14 and the Memoirs of William Graham.
40. Quoted in Eckenrode, , Separation of Church and State in Virginia., 107Google Scholar. Sellers states that such a proposal was actually made by Samuel Stanhope Smith and supported by his brother, John Blair. See “John Blair Smith,” 211.
41. Rice, John Holt, The Power of Truth and Love (Boston, 1828), 12–13.Google Scholar