Jasen777
Donor
Unfinished, half-edited, fake essay/report...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious Establishment and the Collapse of the First American Republic
In modern, secular times the role of religion in the history of our countries is often overlooked. The role of religion during the period of the First Republic in particular is scarcely noted. However, there seems little doubt that the religious differences played a role in the failure of the First Republic to maintain its unity. This is not to say however that had their been no religious differences (which were quite remarked over the establishment issues), or had the people of the First Republic been able to come to mutual understandings of these differences, that the First Republic would have been able to avoid collapse. The heated debates over the scope of federal power, the fate of the western territories, and economic policies would have remained. It is certain however, that at the least, the religious disputes did not help maintain the unity of the First Republic.
It is widely acknowledged that the Articles of Confederation did not provide sufficient power to the national government to ensure the long term unity and survival of the First Republic. The government at the federal level was seen as the creation of the several states, and therefore in most ways inferior to them. The Federal government could not raise taxes on its own power, but had to rely on requesting funds from the states. This, combined with the fact that a single state could veto any federal action, and it would begin to appear that it was something of a minor miracle that the First Republic manged to last until 1791. Many founders of the First Republic were aware of these difficulties, and attempts were made to reform the Articles, however all such attempts failed. The issue of religious establishment was one reason for the failure.
Though it must be acknowledged that the primary reason for the weakness of the federal government under the Articles of Confederation was to ensure the sovereignty of the states, it should be pointed out that one of reasons why the states were so invested in their sovereignty was so they could maintain their various religious establishments or lack thereof. To attempt to understand why this was so it is instructive to examine each state's history of religious establishments from the Colonial Period.
The states in their colonial history had experienced a diverse range of practices regarding the relationship between religion and the government. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire had always had strong official Congregationalist establishments. These establishments remained quite strong even in the face of the development of some pluralism after the First Great Awakening, (Baptists in particular increased in numbers), and the mandating of some toleration by the English crown. They could, for instance, no longer hang annoying Quakers. These three states did however tax citizens for the support of the Congregationalist churches, even those people who were not Congregationalist. Although in theory it was possible for Baptists and other dissenting groups to obtain exemption from religious taxation, in practice this exemption was virtually impossible to obtain, and even if obtained the applicant had to pay a fee for the permit that was roughly equal to the tax, making the whole exercise rather pointless. The Congregationalist establishments were deeply entrenched in those states, and they would stay so through the Revolution and First Republic as well as afterwards in the founding of the Congregationalist States of America.
The lone exception to Congregationalist establishment in New England was Rhode Island. Originally founded by Roger Williams, who had been exiled from Massachusetts for his religious views, including the view of state-church separation, Rhode Island had always had a practice of non-establishment of any denomination, or even of religion in general.
In the Middle Colonies, Pennsylvania and Delaware were founded by William Penn for the expressed purpose of the practice of religious freedom for many different groups. This was a truer type of religious freedom than the practice by the Puritans in New England, for who religious freedom meant their free practice (which at some times did not exist for them in England) and the exclusion of others. There was never any possibility of religious establishments in either the Pennsylvania and Delaware colonies, nor was there later when they became states.
Perhaps the most interesting cases are those colonies that had official Anglican establishments. Anglican establishment had always been lightly felt in the American colonies, in fact, the practice of the Anglican Church towards the American colonies could be termed a religious version of salutary neglect. The colonies lacked so much as even a single Anglican bishop, which made the establishments lightly felt indeed. Since a Bishop was needed to consecrate new priests, the lack of an American bishop meant that all new priests had to be sent over from England, which was a prospect most priest did not want, and as a result the American colonies often received the worst qualified of priests. For these reasons, even the Anglicans in the American colonies practiced religious “do it yourself-ism” than their European counterparts.
In the Middle Colonies, the Anglican establishments were often mere fiction. New York and New Jersey for example had such diversity of religion in their settlement both before and during English rule that a true Anglican establishment was impossible. The Anglican establishment in Maryland was likewise light, due to its complicated history which included its founding by Catholics and later conflict, sometime armed, between various religious groups.
After the Declaration of Independence, written in 1776 (primarily by Roger Sherman on behalf of the Continental Congress), Anglican establishment, no matter how light, was unthinkable, since it was the Church of England and headed by the King of England. New Jersey quickly voted to disestablish the Anglican Church and adopted the example of no religious establishment from Pennsylvania, Delaware and Rhode Island. Maryland and New York also quickly voted to disestablish the Anglican Church, however their legislatures were unable to agree on what to do next on the issue throughout the American Revolution. Rhode Island eventually adopted the principal of no religious establishment, perhaps under political expediency during the formation of the Second Republic, in 1792. New York would eventually follow a different example, one coming from the Southern states.
The Southern Colonies, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia, also had lightly felt Anglican establishments, though they were a slightly bit more effective than the mere fictional one in New York. Nevertheless, the idea that religion needed and deserved government support seemed more prevalent in the Southern (and New England for that matter) Colonies than the Middle Colonies. It is important to note that although some people forget it in the modern secular environment, the idea of church state separation was originally in large part a religious idea that was meant to enable the practice of true religion. The idea was that any entanglement with the state inherently damaged the purity of religion. The reciprocal idea, that religious influence damaged the purity of the state, was a slightly later view, but one that was popular in some educated circles by the time of the Revolution.
Since the First Great Awakening a large number of colonists had become Baptist, Methodists, or Presbyterians in the southern colonies. Although normally not that harsh, for example, never matching the hangings of quakers by Congregationalist Massachusetts in the Seventeenth Century, these groups often faced discrimination and even persecution, such as the imprisonment of fifty Baptists by Virginia in 1774 for unlicensed preaching.
Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina all quickly disestablished the Anglican Church after the Declaration of Independence. Georgia would fail to do so until 1793 (the Anglican Church having rebranded itself as the Episcopal Church, as it had in other states) during the founding of the Alliance of Southern States. What to do after disestablishment became a matter of great debate in those states.
Some Virginian legislators sought to have a non-establishment on the model of Pennsylvania and similar states. Others pushed for an establishment of the Episcopal Church. Both of these movements were defeated with much debate and vicious political maneuvering. With none less a personage than Patrick Henry describing it as “the toughest political fight of my career.”
In South Carolina, a different route was taken. Under the leadership of William Tennent, the idea of establishing Protestant Christianity was proposed and then implemented in 1778. What this meant was the the government would promote Protestant Christianity in general and would support, via taxation, all Protestant Churches, in theory, without bias between them. This example would prove to be decisive in the Southern States, and similar establishments were adopted by North Carolina in 1783 and by Virginia in 1785, finally ending the heated debated in that state. Added to the other problems faced by the country under the Articles of Confederation, this may have been the tipping point for the inevitable collapse of the First Republic.
At the federal level, the Continental Congress preferred to leave all issues of religious establishments to the states. This was not necessarily because the majority felt a separation of church and state on the federal level was the ideal (although it may have been the case that a a majority did think so), but rather it was a pragmatic acknowledgement that no other decision would be possible given the varying arrangement of the states and the variety of denominations in existence. Besides, Congress had far more pressing issues to address, such as trying to win the Revolutionary War. Anything that threated the unity of the states had to be dealt with carefully, if at all.
This approach was seen quite early. In October of 1774, when the Revolution had scarcely begun, the Warren Association, a delegation of New England Baptists, lead by Issac Backus arrived in Philadelphia with the intent to appeal to Congress for relief from the establishment taxation faced by Baptists in those Congregationalists States. At the advice of some of Philadelphia's leading Quakers, they decided to not seek a public hearing with Congress, but rather managed to form a private meeting with the delegates from Massachusetts. Although a few of the delegates seemed sympathetic to the Baptists' cause they offered no help and sought to downplay the strength of the religious establishment. One delegate, Robert Paine, accused the Baptists of conspiring with the Quakers to damage colonial unity, a libel that would reemerge at various times during the Revolution. Other delegates simply stated that the Continental Congress had no power to assist them and advised Backus to readdress his efforts back to the state level. Backus was, in fact, forced to do this as he never received a hearing from congress. John Adams, who was later the first President of the C.S.A, appeared to be somewhat sympathetic but gave his opinion that, “it would be easier to effect a change in the solar system than to alter the church-state structure in Massachusetts.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious Establishment and the Collapse of the First American Republic
In modern, secular times the role of religion in the history of our countries is often overlooked. The role of religion during the period of the First Republic in particular is scarcely noted. However, there seems little doubt that the religious differences played a role in the failure of the First Republic to maintain its unity. This is not to say however that had their been no religious differences (which were quite remarked over the establishment issues), or had the people of the First Republic been able to come to mutual understandings of these differences, that the First Republic would have been able to avoid collapse. The heated debates over the scope of federal power, the fate of the western territories, and economic policies would have remained. It is certain however, that at the least, the religious disputes did not help maintain the unity of the First Republic.
It is widely acknowledged that the Articles of Confederation did not provide sufficient power to the national government to ensure the long term unity and survival of the First Republic. The government at the federal level was seen as the creation of the several states, and therefore in most ways inferior to them. The Federal government could not raise taxes on its own power, but had to rely on requesting funds from the states. This, combined with the fact that a single state could veto any federal action, and it would begin to appear that it was something of a minor miracle that the First Republic manged to last until 1791. Many founders of the First Republic were aware of these difficulties, and attempts were made to reform the Articles, however all such attempts failed. The issue of religious establishment was one reason for the failure.
Though it must be acknowledged that the primary reason for the weakness of the federal government under the Articles of Confederation was to ensure the sovereignty of the states, it should be pointed out that one of reasons why the states were so invested in their sovereignty was so they could maintain their various religious establishments or lack thereof. To attempt to understand why this was so it is instructive to examine each state's history of religious establishments from the Colonial Period.
The states in their colonial history had experienced a diverse range of practices regarding the relationship between religion and the government. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire had always had strong official Congregationalist establishments. These establishments remained quite strong even in the face of the development of some pluralism after the First Great Awakening, (Baptists in particular increased in numbers), and the mandating of some toleration by the English crown. They could, for instance, no longer hang annoying Quakers. These three states did however tax citizens for the support of the Congregationalist churches, even those people who were not Congregationalist. Although in theory it was possible for Baptists and other dissenting groups to obtain exemption from religious taxation, in practice this exemption was virtually impossible to obtain, and even if obtained the applicant had to pay a fee for the permit that was roughly equal to the tax, making the whole exercise rather pointless. The Congregationalist establishments were deeply entrenched in those states, and they would stay so through the Revolution and First Republic as well as afterwards in the founding of the Congregationalist States of America.
The lone exception to Congregationalist establishment in New England was Rhode Island. Originally founded by Roger Williams, who had been exiled from Massachusetts for his religious views, including the view of state-church separation, Rhode Island had always had a practice of non-establishment of any denomination, or even of religion in general.
In the Middle Colonies, Pennsylvania and Delaware were founded by William Penn for the expressed purpose of the practice of religious freedom for many different groups. This was a truer type of religious freedom than the practice by the Puritans in New England, for who religious freedom meant their free practice (which at some times did not exist for them in England) and the exclusion of others. There was never any possibility of religious establishments in either the Pennsylvania and Delaware colonies, nor was there later when they became states.
Perhaps the most interesting cases are those colonies that had official Anglican establishments. Anglican establishment had always been lightly felt in the American colonies, in fact, the practice of the Anglican Church towards the American colonies could be termed a religious version of salutary neglect. The colonies lacked so much as even a single Anglican bishop, which made the establishments lightly felt indeed. Since a Bishop was needed to consecrate new priests, the lack of an American bishop meant that all new priests had to be sent over from England, which was a prospect most priest did not want, and as a result the American colonies often received the worst qualified of priests. For these reasons, even the Anglicans in the American colonies practiced religious “do it yourself-ism” than their European counterparts.
In the Middle Colonies, the Anglican establishments were often mere fiction. New York and New Jersey for example had such diversity of religion in their settlement both before and during English rule that a true Anglican establishment was impossible. The Anglican establishment in Maryland was likewise light, due to its complicated history which included its founding by Catholics and later conflict, sometime armed, between various religious groups.
After the Declaration of Independence, written in 1776 (primarily by Roger Sherman on behalf of the Continental Congress), Anglican establishment, no matter how light, was unthinkable, since it was the Church of England and headed by the King of England. New Jersey quickly voted to disestablish the Anglican Church and adopted the example of no religious establishment from Pennsylvania, Delaware and Rhode Island. Maryland and New York also quickly voted to disestablish the Anglican Church, however their legislatures were unable to agree on what to do next on the issue throughout the American Revolution. Rhode Island eventually adopted the principal of no religious establishment, perhaps under political expediency during the formation of the Second Republic, in 1792. New York would eventually follow a different example, one coming from the Southern states.
The Southern Colonies, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia, also had lightly felt Anglican establishments, though they were a slightly bit more effective than the mere fictional one in New York. Nevertheless, the idea that religion needed and deserved government support seemed more prevalent in the Southern (and New England for that matter) Colonies than the Middle Colonies. It is important to note that although some people forget it in the modern secular environment, the idea of church state separation was originally in large part a religious idea that was meant to enable the practice of true religion. The idea was that any entanglement with the state inherently damaged the purity of religion. The reciprocal idea, that religious influence damaged the purity of the state, was a slightly later view, but one that was popular in some educated circles by the time of the Revolution.
Since the First Great Awakening a large number of colonists had become Baptist, Methodists, or Presbyterians in the southern colonies. Although normally not that harsh, for example, never matching the hangings of quakers by Congregationalist Massachusetts in the Seventeenth Century, these groups often faced discrimination and even persecution, such as the imprisonment of fifty Baptists by Virginia in 1774 for unlicensed preaching.
Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina all quickly disestablished the Anglican Church after the Declaration of Independence. Georgia would fail to do so until 1793 (the Anglican Church having rebranded itself as the Episcopal Church, as it had in other states) during the founding of the Alliance of Southern States. What to do after disestablishment became a matter of great debate in those states.
Some Virginian legislators sought to have a non-establishment on the model of Pennsylvania and similar states. Others pushed for an establishment of the Episcopal Church. Both of these movements were defeated with much debate and vicious political maneuvering. With none less a personage than Patrick Henry describing it as “the toughest political fight of my career.”
In South Carolina, a different route was taken. Under the leadership of William Tennent, the idea of establishing Protestant Christianity was proposed and then implemented in 1778. What this meant was the the government would promote Protestant Christianity in general and would support, via taxation, all Protestant Churches, in theory, without bias between them. This example would prove to be decisive in the Southern States, and similar establishments were adopted by North Carolina in 1783 and by Virginia in 1785, finally ending the heated debated in that state. Added to the other problems faced by the country under the Articles of Confederation, this may have been the tipping point for the inevitable collapse of the First Republic.
At the federal level, the Continental Congress preferred to leave all issues of religious establishments to the states. This was not necessarily because the majority felt a separation of church and state on the federal level was the ideal (although it may have been the case that a a majority did think so), but rather it was a pragmatic acknowledgement that no other decision would be possible given the varying arrangement of the states and the variety of denominations in existence. Besides, Congress had far more pressing issues to address, such as trying to win the Revolutionary War. Anything that threated the unity of the states had to be dealt with carefully, if at all.
This approach was seen quite early. In October of 1774, when the Revolution had scarcely begun, the Warren Association, a delegation of New England Baptists, lead by Issac Backus arrived in Philadelphia with the intent to appeal to Congress for relief from the establishment taxation faced by Baptists in those Congregationalists States. At the advice of some of Philadelphia's leading Quakers, they decided to not seek a public hearing with Congress, but rather managed to form a private meeting with the delegates from Massachusetts. Although a few of the delegates seemed sympathetic to the Baptists' cause they offered no help and sought to downplay the strength of the religious establishment. One delegate, Robert Paine, accused the Baptists of conspiring with the Quakers to damage colonial unity, a libel that would reemerge at various times during the Revolution. Other delegates simply stated that the Continental Congress had no power to assist them and advised Backus to readdress his efforts back to the state level. Backus was, in fact, forced to do this as he never received a hearing from congress. John Adams, who was later the first President of the C.S.A, appeared to be somewhat sympathetic but gave his opinion that, “it would be easier to effect a change in the solar system than to alter the church-state structure in Massachusetts.”