Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an: Islam and the Founders

by Denise A. Spellberg

  Iredell asserted that the exclusion of Muslim rights, if countenanced, would become emblematic of religious persecution, with the possible result that “the best men” of the country were kept from office while the truly unscrupulous, including “the worst part of the excluded sects,” would affirm religious conviction they did not possess and find their way to power.97

  Being a consummate politician, Iredell also found a way to appease his Anti-Federalist opponents by qualifying his principled calls for Muslim inclusion. “But it is never to be supposed,” he assured his listeners, “that the people of America will trust their rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own.”98 Most would have been ready to believe as much, rendering Iredell’s plea for Muslims more a matter of high principle than practical politics.

  Those on his own side would have seen it that way: Federalists may have supported political equality for all religions, but they too adhered to the limits of the Protestant status quo. And so it was perfectly plausible that Iredell should advocate equal rights for Muslims only to wave away Muslim equality in America as illusory. He could plausibly claim to be offering them no realistic place in the American polity, even as he seemed to include them within a new definition of American political equality.

  Not unlike Jefferson, Iredell believed that religion was a private matter, one in which the federal government should not interfere. And like Locke, he saw no justification in divine authority for religious compulsion or persecution:

  It would be happy for mankind if religion was permitted to take its own course, and maintain itself by its own doctrines. The divine Author of our religion never wished for its support by worldly authority.99

  Acceptance that Jesus’s kingdom is not of this world, Iredell thought, was the best way to promote a bright future for Protestant Christianity in the United States—one without government interference.

  ANTI-FEDERALIST FEARS OF THE POPE AS PRESIDENT DEBUNKED BY IREDELL

  As Iredell began to observe, mention of Muslims also evoked similar fears of Catholics among the Anti-Federalists. In fact, Catholics were deemed the most menacing non-Protestant part of the population, their numbers estimated at twenty-five thousand, with most situated in Maryland.100 Memories of “anti-Protestant plots,” as well as England’s conflicts with Catholic France and Spain, had fed anti-Catholic sentiment in America from the beginning, so that “by the 1700s every governor sent out to royal colonies … received instructions to allow Catholics no liberty of conscience, which literally meant that they were forbidden to express themselves as Catholics in those provinces.”101

  Later, even the one state founded by Catholics, Maryland, would order them disarmed “when war threatened[,] and denied them entry into the militia.”102 The question of potential Catholic access to political power, long denied them by pervasive religious oaths, provoked Protestant delegates in predictable ways in the North Carolina ratification debate. What those with pronounced anti-Catholic prejudice among the delegates could not predict was that James Iredell would find a novel and hilarious method to attack what he believed to be their groundless anxieties.

  In defending the abolition of a religious test, Iredell had to address these sentiments toward an actual segment of the population, and he did so by means of an absurdist critique, ridiculing talk of a “Popish plot” to capture the office of president of the United States. Iredell described a pamphlet he claimed he had read that very morning “in which the author states, as a very serious danger, that the pope of Rome might be elected President.”103 At first he seemed in earnest: “I confess this never struck me before; and if the author had read all the qualifications of a President, perhaps his fears might have been quieted.”104 The Constitution’s ablest defender then launched into a recital of the steps necessary for an American to assume the mantle of both pope and president:

  No man but a native, or one who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President. I know not all the qualifications for pope, but I believe he must be taken from the college of cardinals; and probably there are many previous steps necessary before he arrives at this dignity. A native of America must have very singular good fortune, who, after residing fourteen years in his own country should go to Europe, enter into Romish orders, obtain the promotion of cardinal, afterwards that of pope, and at length be so much in the confidence of his own country as to be elected President.105

  Then he delivered the coup de grâce. “It would be still more extraordinary if he should give up his popedom for our presidency,” he mused, before finally allowing that “it is impossible to treat such idle fears with any degree of gravity.” The danger of a pope as president was no more imminent than the election of “one of the kings of Europe.”106

  Earlier in debate with Abbot, Iredell had been obliged to rebut claims that were Catholics to become government officials they could make treaties with Catholic powers, resulting in the establishment of that religion. A little later he offered what would be the day’s only favorable mention of Catholicism, observing, with respect to the growth of tolerance in Europe, “In the Roman Catholic countries, principles of moderation are adopted which would have been spurned at a century or two ago.”107 His words did not prevent other Anti-Federalist delegates from wishing that “the Constitution excluded Popish priests from offices.”108 Ultimately, Iredell could not dispel the single most horrific prospect, that of an eventual Catholic president.109

  In Iredell’s view, the real danger for the new Republic was not in the ascent of non-Protestants but in the rise of the sort of oppression the nation was founded to escape; for this reason, the omission of a religious test in the Constitution was “calculated to secure universal religious liberty, by putting all sects on a level—the only way to prevent persecution.” It was of a piece with the other founding principles: “This country,” Iredell argued, “has already had the honor of setting an example of civil freedom, and I trust it will likewise have the honor of teaching the rest of the world the way to religious freedom also.” The lawyer and believer then pronounced his benediction: “God grant both may be perpetuated to the end of time!”110

  Iredell went on to address other practical limitations of oaths based on religion, particularly in the case of Jews. They seemed less threatening to the Anti-Federalists, having, unlike Catholics and Muslims, no perceived claim on the help of a foreign power. And they were far fewer than Catholics, the Jewish population being estimated at no more than two thousand in 1776,111 with most concentrated in the coastal towns of Charleston, South Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; New York City; Philadelphia; and Newport, Rhode Island.112 But with religious oaths typically sworn on the New Testament, Jews were excluded from holding office. It was certainly so in Iredell’s own state, though he chose not to emphasize that. Instead he noted that the practice had already presented a problem in British courts when it came to swearing in not only Jews but others he termed “heathens.” In the case of the former, at least, a practical accommodation was made:

  It was long held that no oath could be administered but upon the New Testament, except to a Jew, who was allowed to swear upon the Old. According to this notion, none but Jews and Christians could take an oath; and heathens were altogether excluded.113

  What was important to consider was the “form of an oath,” which “according to the modern definition” was “a solemn appeal to the Supreme Being, for the truth of what is said.” The essence of the oath’s value was not merely the oath taker’s belief in God, but also his expectation of “a future state of rewards and punishments,” designed “according to that form which will bind the conscience most.” Warning against the consequences of “narrow notions,” Iredell pled for those “many virtuous men in the world” who were neither Jews nor Christians, having “had not an opportunity of being instructed either in the Old or New Testament, who yet very sincerely believed in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments.” To whom might
such a definition have referred? Muslims, at least theoretically, although he did not name them, instead merely reminding his listeners that “there are few people so grossly ignorant or barbarous as to have no religion at all. And if none but Christians or Jews could be examined upon oath, many innocent persons might suffer for want of the testimony of others. In regard to this form of an oath, that ought to be governed by the religious person taking it.”114

  The lawyer’s strategy bears remarking: The oaths of non-Protestants were often necessary to do justice in the law courts. If admissible there, how could they reasonably be excluded for other official purposes? They could not, and so having defended the rights of Muslims, Catholics, and Jews, Iredell went on to include the “heathen” among those capable of being sworn; the lawyer adduced a chancery court case from “forty years ago” involving “an East Indian,” or Hindu, whose “answer upon oath to a bill filed against him was absolutely necessary”:115

  Not believing either in the Old or New Testament, he could not be sworn in the accustomed manner, but was sworn, according to the form of the Gentoo [Hindu] religion, which he professed by touching the foot of a priest. It appeared that, according to the tenets of his religion, its members believed in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments. It was accordingly held by the judges, upon great consideration, that the oath ought to be received; they considering that it was probable those of that religion were equally bound in conscience by an oath according to their form of swearing, as they themselves were by one of theirs; and that it would be a reproach to the justice of the country, if a man, merely because he was of a different religion from their own, should be denied redress to an injury he had sustained.116

  According to the Laws of Manu, the ancient code of law for Hindus still relevant under British rule, touching the foot was a common gesture in India, not in court cases but as a show of deference to elders, teachers, and those of higher castes.117

  Iredell argued that since “this great case” involving a Hindu, “it has been universally considered that, in administering an oath, it is only necessary to inquire if the person who is to take it, believes in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments.” And so his proposed reliance on whatever “will bind his conscience most” had a legal precedent. He argued that there was no need for elected and appointed officials of the U.S. government to swear by whatever they believed about any one deity—or the next life—but only to uphold the Constitution.118 The issues of religious belief and a future state of rewards or punishments were thus simultaneously stricken as incentives to tell the truth by government officials.

  THE FEDERALIST SAMUEL JOHNSTON: HIS SUPPORT FOR IREDELL—AND MUSLIMS

  Iredell’s staunchest ally was also his brother-in-law, Samuel Johnston. An Anglican like Iredell, he had been elected governor in 1787, having moved to North Carolina from Scotland with his family when a relative of his had been appointed governor.119 He studied at Yale, but left without earning a degree, returning to settle in Edenton, North Carolina, in 1753. An early subscriber of the Revolutionary cause, Johnston would help draft a state constitution in 1776.120 Probably the richest man at the convention, he owned over eight thousand acres and ninety-six slaves.121

  The Federalist Johnston was held in such high esteem in North Carolina that he was unanimously elected to be president of the state convention to ratify the Constitution, despite an overwhelming majority of Anti-Federalist delegates.122 Johnston took up Iredell’s arguments regarding Muslims, Catholics, and Jews. A less forceful orator than his brother-in-law, he concentrated on refining the limits of both tolerance and political equality. Like Iredell, Johnston attempted to remind his audience that “it would have been dangerous, if Congress could intermeddle with the subject of religion.” He described “true religion” as “derived from a much higher source than human laws,” a plea not unlike that made by Thomas Jefferson as well as Iredell for the separation of matters divine and political. Johnston warned, “When any attempt is made, by any government, to restrain men’s consciences, no good consequence can possibly follow.”123

  Johnston extended the range of absurd presidential contenders proposed by Iredell beyond just the pope and European crowned heads: “It might as well be said that … the Grand Turk, could be chosen to that office. It would have been as good an argument.”124 Johnston’s dismissive twinning of the pope and the sultan harkened to nightmares of the Reformation precisely in order to expose them as ludicrous and thereby dispel them, together with the tyrannical associations of Islam. He also sought to sunder the old associations of both Jews and Muslims with pagans. The first two, he implicitly acknowledged, might be eligible for elective office. At any rate, he wished to stress their common plight as scorned religious groups, and a certain parallelism in their woes that ought to be remedied in tandem: If Jews gained the right to elected office, then so should Muslims.

  Under the new Constitution, the office of the presidency would indeed be open to Muslims in theory, but Federalists implied that they would be excluded in practice. Thus, while admitting the possibility of Jews and Muslims as officials—“It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans, pagans &c., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States”—Johnston nevertheless took pains to assure the opposition that the presidency was safe from non-Christians: “Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President, or other high office, but in one of two cases.”125 These possible scenarios were far-fetched enough to comfort his listeners:

  First, if the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves. Another case is, if any persons of such descriptions should, notwithstanding their religion, acquire the confidence and esteem of the people of America by their good conduct and practice of virtue, they may be chosen.126

  It may seem quite plausible to us that civic virtue, “notwithstanding religion,” could make a man electable. But no delegate at the time, Johnston included, could have imagined a single factor of individual qualification more compelling than religion. Their world of difference and inclusion could not be defined without it, and therefore nor could practical access to political power, whatever the Constitution might say. Legal status in European and American societies had always been predicated upon a faith-based hierarchy. Johnston’s delineation of these two implausible exceptions to Protestant majority rule was intended to show precisely the status quo as immutable: “I leave it to gentlemen’s candor to judge what probability there is of the people’s choosing men of different sentiments from themselves.”127 And so a principle of inclusion would spare America the woes of Europe, but the normative impulse to exclude would safeguard the nation from untoward consequences.

  Thus Johnston indicated how America could seem simultaneously both politically inclusive and exclusive, with respect to both Muslims and Jews. His brother-in-law’s brave words, “if you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened,” were only words after all, a flight of idealism alongside a more practical defense of toleration: “it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own.”128 Thus both Federalists championed the value of principles whose full practical application they would never have supported in practice. Ultimately, the rhetoric of these Federalists was fairly aligned with the prejudices of their opponents, like David Caldwell, who feared that Jews, most particularly, and others from “the eastern hemisphere” might migrate and overwhelm the electoral process of the United States. The Federalists’ backsliding from stated ideals was calculated to advance the one goal they truly wished to realize: to win enough votes for a Constitution opposed by the majority of North Carolina delegates.

  THE ANTI-FEDERALIST DAVID CALDWELL EXPL
AINS WHY JEWS ARE A THREAT

  Although Jews represented the tiniest minority of non-Protestants in 1788, the Presbyterian minister David Caldwell (d. 1824) worried about the immigration of more of them to the United States. The Pennsylvania native had begun as a carpenter, before proposing to his three younger brothers that he would forgo his share in their parents’ farm if they would help send him to college. Caldwell attended the College of New Jersey, now Princeton, graduating in 1761. Two years later he would be ordained, finally to begin his ministry in Guilford, North Carolina, in 1765.129 He became pastor in 1768 of Alamance and Buffalo Church, a position he held for the next sixty years, living to nearly a hundred.130

  Caldwell also established the “Log College,” a school for the classical and theological education of young men, in 1767. He taught fifty to sixty students per year, among them future governors of several states, members of Congress, lawyers, physicians, and ministers. Ordering medical books from Philadelphia, he also became a self-taught physician.131 As he could not raise his eight sons and one daughter on his minister’s pay of two hundred dollars a year, he eventually relied on his 791 acres tended by eight slaves.132

  Caldwell had been the delegate who insisted on a religious test to exclude both Jews and Catholics (and by extension, Muslims) from the North Carolina state constitution in 1776. The same determination would move him twelve years later to oppose the omission of a religious test in the Constitution. Holding forth on the threat of Jews to the nation, he was adamant that Christianity was essential to a virtuous citizenry:

  In the first place, he [Caldwell] said, there was an invitation for Jews and pagans of every kind to come among us. At some future period, said he, this might endanger the character of the United States. Moreover, even those who do not regard religion, acknowledge that the Christian religion is best calculated, of all religions, to make good members of society, on account of its morality. I think, then, added he, that, in a political view, those gentlemen who formed this Constitution should not have given this invitation to Jews and heathens.133