Movie review: The Crossing

Thanks to the wonders of Netflix, awhile back I watched The Crossing, a dramatization of Washington's crossing of the Delaware River and attack on the Hessian troops at Trenton during the early months of the Revolutionary War. Originally produced for television in 1999, The Crossing is a solid production. While certainly not a movie at the same level as, for example, 1993's Gettysburg (Ted Turner's t.v. production about the epic Civil War battle), the movie was nicely paced and had a strong touch of realism to it.

The hand-to-hand combat scenes were intense, so the movie may not be appropriate for children under the age of 13 or so. The overall historical accuracy is very well done. And the portrayal of Washington by the movie's star, Jeff Daniels, was extremely well done. Daniel's portrayal of Washington demonstrated not only the general's remarkable leadership qualities, but his human qualities as well. Daniels showed insecurity at times, defensiveness at times, grumpiness at times, and he portrayed Washington's well-known field humor quite well. The multifaceted character of Washington really shines through.

One point that the movie made plain was how young the leaders of the Revolution were. We often think of the Founders according to their later work at the Constitutional Convention and in the politics of the early Republic, when these men were seasoned politicians and actors upon the national stage. But during the Revolution, most of these men (with the exception of Franklin) were by modern standards young men in their 20's. Washington himself was only 44 years old in 1776 -- something that puts the zap on my head now that I turned 40 this year!

The Crossing isn't a great movie, but it is a very good one, and it is a very accurate retelling on a critical early victory in our country's struggle for liberty. It is well worth watching, and I think it would be an excellent movie to watch for educational purposes. That is, so long at the viewers are at least over the age of 13.

[Cross-posted over at American Creation.]

Divine providence, liberty and equality in the thought of John Adams

An interesting essay on that topic by J.W. Cooke is now posted over at the First Principles blog: The Fragile Balance: John Adams on Liberty and Equality. Adams' view of liberty was grounded in a belief in divine providence, as Cooke points out, a providence that decreed not only the fate of nations but also the fate of individuals. Since providence would place different people in different circumstances, strict equality was not only undesirable, it was impossible. What was possible, Adams believed, was equality of personhood before the law. And as Cooke explains, Adams saw four vehicles by which such equality could be brought about:

Adams looked to four sources for a tolerable solution to this painful dilemma. The first was Christianity. “The only equality of man that is true,” he wrote,“was taught by Jesus: ‘Do as you would be done by.’ The same Jesus taught ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.’’’ A second source of amelioration involved the inculcation of virtue and knowledge. “The way to improve society and reform the world,” he admonished his readers, “is to enlighten men, spread knowledge, and convince the multitude that they have, or may have, sense, knowledge, and virtue.” The latter, in particular, required a negation of selfishness that would do much to mitigate the rapacity of the rich and the misery of the poor. Third, if the poor could be indoctrinated in the virtues of thrift and industry, if they could be taught that their property might be improved by hard work and self-denial, then much envy would be deflected and much social unrest averted. A more mundane key to peace was balanced government. Adams argued that the Constitution had gone as far as man ought in establishing an “equality of rights.” The interests of the poor were balanced against those of the rich in the legislature, while the powers of the executive and those of the legislative and the judicial in turn were matched. The result, Adam hoped, would be an equilibrium of power (a balance of forces) that would prevent a factional or individual despotism.

Cooke's essay is an insightful glimpse into the thought of one of our most philosophical founders. Well worth a read. [Cross-posted over at American Creation.

Did Jefferson support public worship in federal buildings during his administration?

Of all the American founders, the one who is usually thought least friendly to organized religion is Thomas Jefferson.  One interesting topic, though, that casts doubt on Jefferson's public relationship with organized religion regards the extent to which Jefferson supported public Christian worship in federal facilities.  Historian Gordon Wood discusses this point about Jefferson in the latter part of his rest monumental history of the early American republic, Empire of Liberty. Wood points out that Jefferson did in fact support such worship and even went so far as to specifically authorize church use in federal buildings controlled by the executive branch.  As Wood writes:

Jefferson very much wanted to win over to his Republican cause all those ordinary religious people who had voted for his opponent.  To do so he knew he had to offset the Federalist accusations that he was an enemy of Christianity.  Consequently, to the surprise of many Federalists, he had good things to say about religion in his first inaugural address.  He also knew very well that effect he as president would have when in January 1802 he attended a church service held in the chamber of the House of Representatives.  His attendance attracted wide public notice and astonished the Federalists.  Even though other churches were available, Jefferson continued to attend church services in the House chamber and made available executive buildings for church functions.  Sometimes the U.S. Marine Corps Band supplied music for religious services.  As president, however, Jefferson held to his vow never to call for any days of fasting and prayer as his two predecessors had done.  

Empire of Liberty, pgs. 586-87.  Now, as Wood points out, Jefferson did all this because he was trying to woo the mass of voters who were attached, with varying levels of devotion, to Christianity.  And there were limits to how far Jefferson was willing to pander -- he did not, as the end of the quote above indicates, call for national prayer and fasting on notable occasions.  However, Jefferson was quite willing to use federal facilities, and hence federal funds, to support public Christian worship. 

It was also around this time, according to Wood, that Jefferson began to work on his redaction of the Gospels, a work commonly known today as the Jefferson Bible.

As with most things involving Jefferson, he was not incapable of being duplicitous in order to get what he wanted.  Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, after all.

Related item:  don't forget Jefferson's letter to the Ursuline nuns upon taking over the Louisiana country.  He promises those nuns not just the protections of the Constitution, but the "patronage" of the U.S. government.  Here's a copy of the original letter, still treasured by the Ursuline religious community in New Orleans.  On an unrelated note, Jefferson had terrible handwriting...

[Cross-posted at American Creation.]

John Adams on the influence of Judaism in human affairs

From one of our most important founding fathers and the second president of the United States:

I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more to civilize men than any other nation. If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations ... They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their empire were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews. They have given religion to three-quarters of the globe and have influenced the affairs of mankind more and more happily than any other nation, ancient or modern.

- John Adams, Letter to F.A. Van der Kemp, dated Feb. 16, 1808.

[Cross-posted over at American Creation.]

Gordon Wood on Freemasonry and the founding

I slowly worked my way through Gordon Wood's recent book on the post-revolutionary period, Empire of Liberty (Oxford Univ. Press, 2009). The book demands slow reading -- each page is packed with detail and interpretation, and it is simply a joy to mull over Wood's insights. The book is a tome -- 738 pages excluding the biblographic essay -- but almost every page is a winner. Wood has put together a landmark book here, one that builds off of and massive expands his earlier work in Radicalism of the American Revolution.

A while back over at the American Creation blog there was some back and forth on the role that Freemasonry played in the American Founding. Wood addresses the question in the first part of his book, proposing that Masonry played a dual role as a source of unity in America and as a new religion designed to replace Christianity for those skeptical of Christianity's claims. His take on Masonry is set out on page 51 of the book:

Freemasonry was a surrogate religion for enlightened men suspicious of traditional Christianity. It offered ritual, mystery, and communality without the enthusiasm and sectarian bigotry of organized religion. But Masonry was not only an enlightened institution; with the Revolution, it became a republican one as well. As George Washington said, it was "a lodge for the virtues." As Masonic lodges had always been places where men who differed in everyday affairs -- politically, socially, even religiously -- could "all meet amicably, and converse sociably together." There in the lodges, the Masons told themselves, "we discover no estrangement of behavior, nor alienation of affection." Masonry had alway sought unity and harmony in a society increasingly diverse and fragmented. It traditionally had prided itself on being, as one Mason put it, "the Center of Union and the means of conciliating friendship among men that might otherwise have remained at perpetual distance."

As Wood makes clear, Masonry served a religious as well as a civic function. Its importance in the Founding Period was not simply social or political. It stood alongside Christianity as a source of religious values and perspective for many of the Founders.

[Cross-posted at American Creation.]

Catholic liturgical patriotism in the early Republic

One of the important religious developments in the early American Republic involved the rapid embrace of Catholics by many of the Founding Fathers. While many of the Founders remained personally hostile to Roman Catholicism -- John Adams and Thomas Jefferson certainly spring to mind -- in the public square the federal government and most state governments observed an even-handed and tolerant attitude towards the formerly despised religion. Part of this embrace was fueled by French support for Americans during the Revolution, part was fueled by the outstanding efforts of Catholic patriots to support the Cause during the war, and part was fueled by the idea of non-establishment that took root after the ratification of the current Constitution and the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

In addition to this embrace of Catholics, there was an embrace by Catholics of the new Republic. Freed from the legal disabilities and overt persecution that many Catholics had experienced in colonial America, the (then) tiny Catholic Church in America quickly adopted a very positive and patriotic attitude towards the new government. Nowhere can this embrace of robust patriotism be seen better than in the life and work of John Carroll (1735-1815), the first Roman Catholic bishop appointed in the United States. In 1791, while Carroll was Bishop of Baltimore (effectively the bishop of the entire United States as the diocese at that time constituted the entire country), he composed this prayer, which he ordered prayed in all parishes throughout the diocese after each Mass on Sundays:

We pray, Thee O Almighty and Eternal God! Who through Jesus Christ hast revealed Thy glory to all nations, to preserve the works of Thy mercy, that Thy Church, being spread through the whole world, may continue with unchanging faith in the confession of Thy Name.

We pray Thee, who alone art good and holy, to endow with heavenly knowledge, sincere zeal, and sanctity of life, our chief bishop, Pope N., the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the government of his Church; our own bishop, N., all other bishops, prelates, and pastors of the Church; and especially those who are appointed to exercise amongst us the functions of the holy ministry, and conduct Thy people into the ways of salvation.

We pray Thee O God of might, wisdom, and justice! Through whom authority is rightly administered, laws are enacted, and judgment decreed, assist with Thy Holy Spirit of counsel and fortitude the President of these United States, that his administration may be conducted in righteousness, and be eminently useful to Thy people over whom he presides; by encouraging due respect for virtue and religion; by a faithful execution of the laws in justice and mercy; and by restraining vice and immorality. Let the light of Thy divine wisdom direct the deliberations of Congress, and shine forth in all the proceedings and laws framed for our rule and government, so that they may tend to the preservation of peace, the promotion of national happiness, the increase of industry, sobriety, and useful knowledge; and may perpetuate to us the blessing of equal liberty.

We pray for his excellency, the governor of this state, for the members of the assembly, for all judges, magistrates, and other officers who are appointed to guard our political welfare, that they may be enabled, by Thy powerful protection, to discharge the duties of their respective stations with honesty and ability.

We recommend likewise, to Thy unbounded mercy, all our brethren and fellow citizens throughout the United States, that they may be blessed in the knowledge and sanctified in the observance of Thy most holy law; that they may be preserved in union, and in that peace which the world cannot give; and after enjoying the blessings of this life, be admitted to those which are eternal.

Finally, we pray to Thee, O Lord of mercy, to remember the souls of Thy servants departed who are gone before us with the sign of faith and repose in the sleep of peace; the souls of our parents, relatives, and friends; of those who, when living, were members of this congregation, and particularly of such as are lately deceased; of all benefactors who, by their donations or legacies to this Church, witnessed their zeal for the decency of divine worship and proved their claim to our grateful and charitable remembrance. To these, O Lord, and to all that rest in Christ, grant, we beseech Thee, a place of refreshment, light, and everlasting peace, through the same Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior. Amen.

While not technically a formal part of the Catholic liturgy in the United States, its repition by each congregation after Sunday Mass resulted in it being a critical part of the Sunday worship experience of Catholics throughout the country. This prayer helped to both express and reinforce the patriotic feelings of Catholics in the new Republic. This in turn helped to cement a commitment to patriotism within the Catholic Church in America, a strong patriotism that helped to countered slanderous allegations of dual loyalty hurled at Catholics by nativists and other anti-Catholics all the way up to the election of JFK to the presidency.

[Cross-posted at American Creation.]

Thomas Paine's surprising influence on Ronald Reagan

I am just finishing up John Patrick Duggin's biography on President Ronald Reagan. Duggin brings up an interesting point that I hadn't realized, namely that Reagan was strongly influenced in his views by Thomas Paine. Paine is the one founding father that Reagan quoted the most, and much of Paine's ideology -- individual liberty, a suspicion of large institutions, hostility to taxation and government regulation, etc. -- is evident in Reagan's general approach to conservatism.

One particularly interesting point that Duggin makes is the Reagan's brand of conservatism was remarkably untraditional in its rhetoric. In several different contexts, Reagan quoted Paine's stirring line, "We have the power to begin the world anew" -- a very untraditional sentiment. Reagan embraced Paine's idea that human beings can liberate themselves from corrupt and oppressive structures in order to create a new order of liberty and individualism. While Reagan appealed to voters of a more traditionalist perspective, he was no disciple of Russell Kirk and even less a disciple of Edmund Burke. Behind Reagan's conservativism was a streak of radicalism that is underappreciated both by many current conservatives who tend to be overly hagiographic when speaking of the former president, and many modern progressives who ignorantly demonize him.

It is a fascinating twist of history that the most radical founding father -- Thomas Paine -- serves as a primary philosophical influence on the most successful conservative president of the 20th century. Any attempt to understand Ronald Reagan must take into account the influence of Thomas Paine on his work. And any attempt to appreciate Thomas Paine's influence on America must look to the impact his work had on the ideas, rhetoric and program of President Reagan.

[Cross-posted at American Creation.]

Thomas Paine on religious establishment

A fantastic reminder from one of our most overlooked Founders, Thomas Paine, clarifying why the dis-establishment of religion is good for religion, for government and for the civic order & peace of our nation:

All religions are in their nature kind and benign, and united with principles of morality. They could not have made proselytes at first by professing anything that was vicious, cruel, persecuting, or immoral. Like everything else, they had their beginning; and they proceeded by persuasion,exhortation, and example. How is it then that they lose their native mildness, and become morose and intolerant?

It proceeds from the connexion which Mr. Burke recommends. By engendering the church with the state, a sort of mule-animal, capable only of destroying, and not of breeding up, is produced, called The Church established by Law. it is a stranger, even from its birth, to any parent mother on which it is begotten, and whom in time it kicks out and destroys.

The inquisition in Spain does not proceed from the religion originally professed, but from this mule-animal, engendered between the church and the state. The burnings in Smithfield proceeded from the same heterogeneous production; and it was the regeneration of this strange animal in England afterwards, that renewed rancour and irreligion among the inhabitants, and that drove the people called Quakers and Dissenters to America. Persecution is not an original feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion assumes its original benignity. In America, a Catholic Priest is a good citizen, a good character, and a good neighbour; an Episcopalian Minister is of the same description: and this proceeds, independently of the men, for there being no law-establishment in America.

--Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man (1791).

I think it would be a good idea if Christopher Hitchens, a fan of Thomas Paine, read him a little more closely and carefully...

[Cross-posted at American Creation.]

Who gets to be a founding father?

One question that has always interested me is the way historians and the popular culture decide who does or does not qualify as a founding father, or to use the more politically correct term, founder. The pantheon of the "greats" is pretty well established: Washington, followed in train by Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Adams and maybe Hamilton dragging up behind with his fatal stomach wound inflicted by Aaron Burr. Then there's the second tier: Fisher Ames, John Jay, Patrick Henry, James Wilson, Dickenson, Morris, etc. And then there are the really major figures of the period who for some reason just are lost in public consciousness: Witherspoon, Thomas Paine, or most tragically, Samuel Adams, who has been reduced in popular imagination to the level of a beer brand. As my grandmother might have said, es ist Schade.

In recent years, in an attempt to be more inclusive of the contributions of women to our fair Republic, attempts have been made to cast Abigail Adams as a founder -- which isn't all that bad an idea, I think. When I read her letters, I find her a delightful if difficult person, and certainly worthy of a spot in the American imagination. And Thomas Paine is finally starting to get some of the recognition that he is so richly due.

Are there any other neglected figures from the Founding Era who deserve more attention, more consideration as founders? I think so. My thoughts on this point turn to another Adams, one who was just as successful as John, and perhaps more so: John Quincy Adams. President, member of the House of Representatives, abolitionist, diplomat. And it is in the last role that I wonder why he is usually excluded from consideration as a founder. While just a lad during the outbreak of the Revolution, he served as his father's aide in France. He also served diplomatically as secretary to the American delegation to Russia. In other words, he was in important, if secondary, posts of public duty during the Revolution. He served in the Washington Administration in a diplomatic capacity, and served as Secretary of State under Monroe. So, he was alive during the right time period, he was working on behalf of the revolutionary cause, he had appointments in government after the revolution, and -- critically -- he won election to the presidency. So, why isn't he normally thought of as a founding father?

Here's another one for you: John Marshall. Marshall is best known for his tenure as chief justice of the Supreme Court, but he had a career before that. He was an officer in the Continental Army at Valley Forge, and he was a member of the Virginia legislature on several occassions. He was active in the fight to ratify the U.S. Constitution. He was John Adams's secretary of state. Why isn't he considered a founder?

Granted, should either JQA or John Marshall be included in the top-tier pantheon of founders? Probably not -- and even if they should, that is unlikely to happen given popular culture. But they usually don't even show up on the founding fathers radar screen. Why is that?

Any ideas?

[Cross-posted at American Creation.]

Redefining the definition of deism when discussing the Founders

I have finished up reading David Holmes's excellent book Faiths of the Founding Fathers. I appreciate his balance and attention to detail throughout, but I thought that one area of his analysis could have been more precise. He characterizes the major founders as falling into three basic patterns: orthodox Christians, Christian deists, and non-Christian deists. While this might appear at first blushe to be a good way to categorize the religious views of the major Founders, at the end of the day I don't think it is helpful. While the founding era did contain its deists, the folks that Holmes describes are, for the most part, not really what moderns think of as deists when it comes to questions of theology.

Rather, the vast majority of the founders were theists. The vast bulk of them believed, for example, in a God who is active in human affairs, who is to be worshipped and prayed to, who will judge each and every person after death, etc. Even the least religious of the major founders -- Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson -- affirmed such a deity. This isn't a "watchmaker god" or some uninterrested deity a la the Roman philosopher Lucretius.

While there is no question that many of the founders, and most of the major Founders, eschewed orthodox trinitarianism, their conception of God remained essentially theistic rather than deistic. To continue to refer to them as deists risks confusion in the minds of modern folks -- many of whom do not realize that the unitarian theology of many of the founders was far more conservative than the term "deism" would indicate.

[Cross-posted at American Creation.]

The jurisprudence of Alexander Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton has long been overshadowed by many of the the major American founding fathers, largely because he had the misfortune of getting killed by Aaron Burr in a dual before he could become president. Burr's own reputation never really recovered from the dual, and what had been a fairly stellar political career up to that point soon dwindled into weirdness. But that's a topic for another post! This post is dealing with Hamilton, who thanks to the work of folks like Richard Brookhieser, Gordon Wood and Ron Chernow, is finally starting to get some of the attention to which he is due. In this post, I would like to briefly look at Alexander Hamilton's contributions to the world of constitutional law, specifically, his approach to interpreting the Constitution.

Hamilton is well-known for his defense of judicial review and the independence of the judiciary in the Federalist. His arguments in favor of the power of the judiciary are well-known, and I won't take up space here simply repeating what others have already said (hey, this is a blog post, not a law review article!). Instead, I want to look at Hamilton's approach to constitutional interpretation after the Constitution was ratified and during the time when he was in government. As Forest McDonald has noted, Hamilton's legal ideas were remarkably influential at the time, and "at least two of [Chief Justice John] Marshall's opinions were drawn directly from Hamilton's constitutional pronouncements."

Hamilton advocated a flexible approach to constitutional interpretation, one that provided for a generous and expansive reading of federal power. It is no surprise that this kind of view closely paralleled his general political principles. But Hamilton also insisted that this expansive view of government power be limited by the wording of the Constitution itself. Just as much as Jefferson, Hamilton was an enemy of the idea of a "living Constitution." As he commented when discussing the power of the Congress to authorize corporations: "Whatever may have been the intention of the framers of a constitution, or of a law, that intention is to be sought for in the instrument itself, according to the usual & established rules of construction." In addition, when discerning the intent of the Constitution's provisions, recourse outside of the text of the Constitution was to be avoided: "arguments drawn from extrinsic circumstances, regarding the intention of the convention, must be rejected."

Hamilton's approach to constitutional interpretation did not, therefore, reduce constitutional law to politics, nor was it an attempt to read the Constitution as an infinitely maliable text that would allow for the creation or recognition of new or novel rights. Just as much as his nemesis Jefferson, Hamilton believed that the Constitution's text was what was binding. Both were, in effect, proponents of classic original intent jurisprudence, where the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution are sought by examining the actual text of the Constitution, rather than speculating on what the Framers might have meant, or by looking at extrinsic sources to supply the intent of the document.

Hamilton's constitutional jurisprudence diverged from Jefferson's not over the question of original intent, but over the question of the explicit grant of authority to Congress under the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution. Was the clause to be read expansively (as Hamilton and the Federalists advocated), or narrowly (as Jefferson and the early Democratic Republicans wanted). Hamilton was convinced that it should be viewed expansively, in light of the Constitution's grant of enumerated powers to Congress. By the terms of the clause, Congress had the power to do what was "necessary and proper" to carry out its expressed powers.

But in Hamilton's view, even this expansive reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause was still bracketed closely by the text of the Constitution itself. Proof of this is seen in Hamilton's advocacy of the federal government improving the network of internal canals and roads within the United States in order to strengthen the country's domestic military defenses. Hamilton made this suggestion while serving, under President Adams, as the field commander of the federal army during the Quasi-War with France.

An excessively expansive reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause, unhinged from the actual expressed powers of Congress, would see such internal defense improvements as being within Congress's overall military power with a possible connection to Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. But that wasn't Hamilton's argument. Hamilton argued that Congress had the authority to establish the roads he proposed under its power to "establish post offices and post roads." But in order to have the authority to build canals, Hamilton argued, Congress would have to be empowered by a constitutional amendment.

That episode demonstrates the the constrained nature of Hamilton's way of reading of the Constitution. While committed to the idea of a flexible and vigorous federal government, Hamilton was also committed to the Constitution's function as a limitation on that government's power. When the text of the Constitution indicated that Congress had power, Hamilton urged that that power be used to its utmost. But when the text indicated that Congress did not have a given power, Hamilton insisted that the text be followed, even if he thought the text should be changed in order to facilitate better policy. Hamilton's jurisprudence was both active and conservative at the same time.

How cool is that?

[Cross-posted at American Creation.]

Book review: Lion of Liberty: Patrick Henry and the Call to a New Nation by Harlow Giles Unger

Amongst the founding fathers, most of the attention is paid to those who were major players in national politics, and in particular those who attained the presidency.  Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe get the lion's share of the glory in popular historical writing, while other major founders like Hamilton, Jay and Marshall receive significantly less attention by modern writers.  At the bottom of the heap nowadays are those founders who were important for a brief period on the national stage but who spent most of their political careers working at the state or local level.  Names that were revered in the past, like Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry, simply don't get the kind of attention that they deserve given their historic impact on our nation's history.  Harlow Giles Unger, an historian and former visiting fellow at Mount Vernon, has written a delightful biography that tries to rectify the lack of attention paid to Patriot leader and Virginia politician Patrick Henry.  Unger's book hits just the right note -- not to short, not too long -- and provides insightful glimpses into the life and work of one of the most important men who helped to bring about the creation of the American republic.

Unger provides a solid overview of the life of Henry, detailed but not too detailed for the general reader.  While certainly not exhaustive, Unger's book delves into key events in Henry's life, explaining how the episodes discussed helped to shape Henry's work and approach to politics.  Henry's commitment to liberty is explained within the context of Virginia's social and political climate, the prevalence of slavery and aristocracy in the Old Dominion, and the tension that existed between wealthy planters and hardscrabble farmers who were outside of the establishment of their day.  Unger demonstrates how Henry's opposition to what he viewed as oppressive royal government had roots that went back to Henry's earliest days as a backwoods lawyer, long before independence was even being discussed.   In fact, Henry's commitment to liberty is the thread that Unger uses to explain his subject's political career -- his support for the Patriot cause, his opposition to the Constitution of 1789, his support of the Bill of Rights, and his eventual shift from the Republican movement to the Federalist Party at the end of his life.  Henry's friendships and family life are explored as well, with particular attention paid to his legal career and his relationship with George Washington.

One aspect of the book that merits special interest regards the beginning of Henry's public life.  Henry's first major legal case was an argument in defense of a group of farmers who had refused to pay the church tax to support the established Anglican Church of Virginia colony.  Henry's opposition to what he saw as both a violation of religious liberty and the freedom of the people to be secure against oppressive taxation by the distant imperial & colonial governments featured large in how Henry litigated the case.  Unger quotes a part of Henry's closing argument, where the colonial lawyer provided an eloquent condemnation of the desire of the Anglican clergy to feast at the tax trough:

Do they manifest their zeal in the cause of religion and humanity by practicing the mild and benevolent precepts of the Gospel of Jesus?  Do they feed the hungry and clothe the naked?  Oh, no, gentlemen!  Instead of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, these rapacious harpies world, were their powers equal to their will, snatch from the hearth of their honest parishioner his last hoe-cake, form the widow and her orphaned children their last milch cow!  the last bed, nay, the last blanket from the lying-in woman!

Henry's opposition to government support of religious establishment would fade after the American Revolution, but prior to the split with the British, he viewed the Anglican Church as parasitic to the people.  In his closing argument, Henry contended that the royal tax in support of the Anglican Church breached the king's duty to provide for the well-being of his people -- the poor were being dispossessed to aid the affluent clergy.  This charge lead to cries of "treason," against Henry, much as his later calls for American independence would elicit the same cry.  Henry's approach to the question of public funding of religious bodies was part of a much deeper and sophisticated critique of government power.  For Henry, liberty and the common good were intertwined principles, principles which in different contexts might lead to a shift in political positions in order to defend those underlying principles.

It is that view by Henry that also explains his shift, at the end of his life, to the Federalist Party.  Long a dedicated opponent of centralized power and a relentless critic of any step by which the federal government seemed to move beyond a limited scope, Henry was also committed to the notion that the United States was in fact a single nation, not simply a collection of independent if confederated republics.  While an opponent of the ratification of the Constitution of 1789, Henry leaped to the charter's defense during Washington's administration, when local tax revolts were springing up in the frontier areas.  Shocked at the political machinations of Jefferson and Madison, Henry moved to support Washington and the Federalists as the political culture of the 1790's grew increasingly polarized.  In 1799, after pleas from both John Marshall and a retired George Washington, a dying Patrick Henry ran for election to Congress, blasting Jefferson and Madison for their support for efforts to undermine national unity via the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.  While Henry, as Unger explains, had been "a bitter opponent of the Constitution, it was the law of the land, and he was, above all, a law-abiding citizen." 

Unger's book on Henry is well worth its $26.00 price.  A fascinating study of one of the most important public men of the founding era, Unger's work is a fitting reintroduction to the life and work of a pivotal Patriot leader.  Highly recommended.

[Cross-posted at American Creation.]

Quote of the day: on the clergy and the army

"My Friend, the Clergy have been in all ages and Countries as dangerous to Liberty as the Army.  Yet I love the Clergy and the Army.  What can we do without them in this wicked world."

- John Adams (1735-1826), Founding Father and second president of the United States, Letter to Benjamin Rush, September 1, 1809, quoted in The Founders on Religion:  A Book of Quotations, edited by James H. Hutson, (Princeton:  2005), pg. 66.

When the Puritans outlawed Christmas

During this festive time of year, it has become normal (sadly) to hear about various attempts to purge or at least tamp-down the actual word "Christmas" in the public square.  From the pc-friendly greeting "happy holidays" to the effort by some to emphasize the old pagan winter celebrations to the now hip references to the Seinfeld-era faux-holiday Festivus, there seems to always be a level of consternation about using the word Christmas this time of year.  You know, because it has that word in it.  The new forbidden "C" word.  Christ.

Well, there was a time when the ire against Christmas and its celebration here in America had to do with the last syllable of the word, the "mas" -- which is an abbreviated version of the word "Mass," a reference to the Catholic eucharistic liturgy.  The Puritans who settled in New England and the Scottish Presbyterians who followed them in settling the American colonial frontier had a particular aversion to the celebration of Christmas, viewing it as a papist festival that had no place in a properly Reformed understanding of the Christian life.  In addition to its Catholic roots, Christmas was also impermissibly tinged, in the Puritan view, with the earlier pagan holidays that occurred in December, as the Puritan leader Increase Mather noted:

The early Christians who  first observed the Nativity on December 25 did not do so thinking that Christ was born in that Month, but because the Heathens' Saturnalia was at that time kept in Rome, and they were willing to have those Pagan Holidays metamorphosed into Christian ones.

And popery and paganism weren't the only Puritan objections to the Christmas celebration.  Christmas also interfered with the joy of Puritan life:  toil.  One Puritan objection to the celebration of Christmas was that it promoted the playing of games and public idleness.  The blog A Puritan's Mind has a short discussion of Puritan efforts to ban the public celebration of Christmas here:  When Christmas Was Banned. Horror of horrors, many Christmas observers would actually commemorate the day by ... wassailing!

Just how strong was the Puritan aversion to Christmas? So strong that the ACLU has an article posted on its website detailing how these devout Calvinists reviled the Christmas holiday:  Puritans & Christmas.  An interesting read!

Being neither a Puritan nor a member of the ACLU, though, and as a proud member of the Church of Rome, I feel completely at ease wishing all our readers a blessed and merry Christmas.  I plan on celebrating the day by engaging in an overt act of papist devotion, followed by a vigorous bout of wassailing!

Quote of the day: on the structure of our government as a guarantee of liberty

The truth is, after all the declamation we have heard, that the constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS. The several bills of rights, in Great-Britain, form its constitution, and conversely the constitution of each state is its bill of rights. And the proposed constitution, if adopted, will be the bill of rights of the union. Is it one object of a bill of rights to declare and specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government? This is done in the most ample and precise manner in the plan of the convention, comprehending various precautions for the public security, which are not to be found in any of the state constitutions. Is another object of a bill of rights to define certain immunities and modes of proceeding, which are relative to personal and private concerns? This we have seen has also been attended to, in a variety of cases, in the same plan. Adverting therefore to the substantial meaning of a bill of rights, it is absurd to allege that it is not to be found in the work of the convention. It may be said that it does not go far enough, though it will not be easy to make this appear; but it can with no propriety be contended that there is no such thing. It certainly must be immaterial what mode is observed as to the order of declaring the rights of the citizens, if they are to be found in any part of the instrument which establishes the government. And hence it must be apparent that much of what has been said on this subject rests merely on verbal and nominal distinctions, which are entirely foreign from the substance of the thing.

-Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804), American founding father, The Federalist #84 (1788).

Quote of the day: on the theological roots of American religious liberty

"Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the General Authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no mans right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority."

- James Madison (1751-1836), American Founding Father, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments (1785).

Quote of the day: on political reform

"It cannot at this time be too often repeated; line upon line; precept upon precept; until it comes into the currency of a proverb, To innovate is not to reform."

- Edmund Burke (1729-1797), English statesman and member of Parliament, grandfather of modern conservatism, Letter to a Noble Lord (1796).

Subsidiarity being put into practice in the UK

David Cameron's Tory-Liberal coalition government has announced an ambitious plan to devolve power away from the central government in London to local authorities and communities.  Here's the story, courtesy of the London Telegraph online:  A first step in handing power back to the people. 

David Cameron's assertion that this Government would be the first in a generation to leave office wielding less power than it started with was more than a rhetorical flourish. The Localism Bill published yesterday sets out in some detail the mechanisms by which the Coalition intends to divest Whitehall of power and hand it instead to local communities and local government.

Subsidiarity, the idea that problems should be solved by those segments of society closest to them, is a key component of both Catholic social thought and classical liberal democracy.  It is good to see that Great Britain's Conservative & Liberal Democratic parties are moving that country away from centralization and towards the structural devolution of power that is essential to a thriving public square. 

Speaking as an American, wouldn't it be wonderful if we had a president who said that one of his or her top priorities would be for the federal government to have less power by the end of his or her term than at the start?  Alas, given our current political class, I fear we are a long way from that kind of honest, straight-forward and small-c conservative approach to government here in the U.S. 

The positive contributions of the Puritans to the American founding

[Cross-posted over at American Creation.]

One doesn't hear much in the way of praise for the Puritans nowadays, but Peter Augustine Lawler over at First Principles has posted an essay reminding us why the Puritans are important for understanding American culture, and important in a good way:  Praising the Puritans.  Lawler's analysis is particularly insightful, I think, in comparing the moral traditions of liberty that developed separately in New England and in Virginia.  The New England variety, informed by Puritanism, was both more communitarian and egalitarian than the slavocracy that developed in Virginia.  Lawler's analysis is well worth a read.

Providence and the maintenance of the American civic order

"And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing upon this nation and its Government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of His providence."

- John Adams (1735-1826), American Founding Father and second president of the United States, First Inaugural Address (1797).

[Cross-posted over at American Creation.]

Nothing says Christmas like George Washington's eggnog recipe

[Cross-posted over at American Creation.]

Courtesy of the Old Farmer's Almanac online, here is George Washington's very own recipe for eggnog.  Be warned, it is heavy on the spirits in keeping with the tastes and customs of the day, and he doesn't specify how many eggs to use.  Of course, this means you can adjust the eggs to your own taste and still claim complete colonial authenticity to your recreation of Washington's recipe:

One quart cream, one quart milk, one dozen tablespoons sugar, one pint brandy, 1/2 pint rye whiskey, 1/2 pint Jamaica rum, 1/4 pint sherry—mix liquor first, then separate yolks and whites of eggs, add sugar to beaten yolks, mix well. Add milk and cream, slowly beating. Beat whites of eggs until stiff and fold slowly into mixture. Let set in cool place for several days. Taste frequently.

Love that last bit of advice from the Father of Our Country!

Does it even matter if any of the Founders were Christians?

[Cross-posted over at American Creation.]

I sometimes post over at the always interesting American Creation history blog, and my fellow bloggers there and I tend to get into discussions about the faith lives of the Founders.  Were they Christians?  What kind of Christians?  Devout?  Lax?  Orthodox?  Unitarian?  How can anyone even coherently describe whatever Thomas Jefferson happened to believe at any given moment?  This kind of questioning also shows up quite a bit in constitutional law scholarship discussing the First Amendment's religion clauses and the role of faith in public life.

Over at The American Conservative online, writer Paul Gottfried argues that that whole line of questioning is mistaken:   Was George Washington a Christian?  According to Gottfried's approach the relevant question isn't what did Washington believe? rather it is what kind of social and political order did Washington intend to create?  Gottfried has some thoughts on both questions, and his ideas are well worth pondering.  I particularly am struck by his framing of the debate about religion and the Founding.

Is Randy Barnett's Repeal Amendment un-conservative?

Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit has a round-up of links addressing Randy Barnett's Repeal Amendment, something that I wrote about recently over at the American Creation blog. As Reynolds notes, one of the prime objections to Barnett's proposal has some from some of the left-side of the blogosphere who are proposing that there is something un-conservative about amending the Constitution.  While it there is no question that a conservative approach to amending the Constitution would stress a prudential restraint in changing our fundamental charter for light reasons, the simple fact is that the Founders themselves thought that the document should be open to amendment -- that's why they put the Amendment Clause in the Constitution to begin with. Article V of the Constitution reads as follows:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

And not only did the Founders think that the Constitution should be open to Amendment theoretically, they thought that it should be amended in actuality.  Let's take a took at statements from the two American Founders most commonly revered on the American Right currently, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

George Washington, writing to anti-federalist Patrick Henry after the Constitution had been proposed, argued that the Constitution was imperfect and that the Amendment Clause should be viewed as the imperfect document's saving grace, meriting its adoption:

I wish the Constitution which is offered, had been made more perfect, but I sincerely believe it is the best that could be obtained at this time.  And, as a constitutional door is opened for amendment hereafter, the adoption of it, under the present circumstances of the Union, is in my opinion desirable.

George Washington, Letter to Patrick Henry, September 24, 1787, quoted in The Essential Wisdom of the Founding Fathers, edited by Carol Kelly-Gangi (Fall River Press:  2009), pg. 33.

Washington's statement clearly asserts that the Constitution could be improved upon, and that the Amendment Clause was included to provide a mechanism for correcting its less than perfect elements.  And, critically, that the Amendment Clause is what made the imperfect Constitution worthy of adoption.  The nation would not be stuck with an imperfect charter, but could, over time, correct its errors.

Thomas Jefferson voiced a strong concern that the Constitution as originally drafted lacked fundamental protections against intrusive federal power.  As he wrote to his protege James Madison in 1787, Jefferson objected to the Constitution's lack of critical protections, most notably the following:

[O]mission of a bill of rights, providing clearly, and without the aid of sophism, for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction of monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury, in all matters of fact triable by the law of the land, and not by the laws of nations.  

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, 1787, quoted in The Essential Wisdom of the Founding Fathers, edited by Carol Kelly-Gangi (Fall River Press:  2009), pg. 47.

Jefferson's remedy for these omissions was a Bill of Rights:

I have a right to nothing which another has a right to take away.  And Congress will have a right to take away trial by jury in all civil cases.  Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government one earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse or rest on inference.

Indeed, Jefferson's belief in the malleability of the Constitution via amendment was one of the lodestars of his constitutional philosophy.  While strongly opposed to open-ended judicial construction of the Constitution, Jefferson derided those who thought that the Constitution should not be amended.  As he wrote to Samuel Kercheval in 1816,

Some men look to Constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the Ark of the Covenant -- to sacred to be touched.

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816, quoted in The Essential Wisdom of the Founding Fathers, edited by Carol Kelly-Gangi (Fall River Press:  2009), pg. 47.

I think that a good case can be made for skepticism regarding Barnett's Repeal Amendment, but the idea that conservatives should oppose it because of some mythical conservative belief in the sacred and hallowed nature of the Constitution is just silly.  The Constitution itself contains a mechanism for its Amendment, and the Founders most currently looked to by conservatives explicitly endorsed the idea that the Constitution not only could be amended, it should be amended.

[Cross-posted at American Creation.]

Two pictures of an inlet in Lake Coeur d'Alene

I had some business over in northern Idaho this afternoon and I managed to take a little detour and snap two pictures of one of my favorite spots in the Pacific Northwest.  I just had my little cell phone camera to work with, so the resolution isn't great, but the scenes are still, I think, stunningly beautiful.  Enjoy!

A little bit of blue sky!  Haven't seen that in a while...Made me think of my favorite song from the Allman Brothers Band: