by David Barton
• Assuring a Christian school in the newly purchased Louisiana Territory that it would enjoy “the patronage of the government” (1804)109
• Renegotiating and deleting from a lengthy clause in the 1797 United States treaty with Tripoli110 the portion that had stated “the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion” (1805)111
• Passing “An Act for Establishing the Government of the Armies” in which:
It is earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers diligently to attend Divine service; and all officers who shall behave indecently or irreverently at any place of Divine worship shall, if commissioned officers, be brought before a general court martial, there to be publicly and severely reprimanded by the President [Jefferson]; if non-commissioned officers or soldiers, every person so offending shall [be fined]112 (1806) (emphasis added)
• Declaring that religion is “deemed in other countries incompatible with good government, and yet proved by our experience to be its best support”113 (1807)
• Closing presidential documents with the appellation, “In the year of our Lord Christ”114 (1801–1809; see inset)
There are many additional examples, and they all clearly demonstrate that Jefferson has no record of attempting to secularize the public square. Furthermore, all of his religious activities at the federal level occurred after the First Amendment had been adopted, showing that he saw no violation of the First Amendment in any of his actions. In fact, no one did—not even his enemies. No one ever raised a voice of dissent against Jefferson’s federal religious practices; no one claimed that they were improper or that they violated the Constitution.
The only voice of objection ever raised was to complain that President Jefferson, unlike his predecessors George Washington and John Adams, did not issue any national prayer proclamations. This absence of a national prayer proclamation by Jefferson is cited by critics today as definitive proof of Jefferson’s public secularism.
For example, Supreme Court Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall noted in Marsh v. Chambers that:
Thomas Jefferson . . . during [his] respective terms as President, refused on Establishment Clause [First Amendment] grounds to declare national days of thanksgiving or fasting.115
Justice Anthony Kennedy similarly noted in Allegheny v. ACLU:
In keeping with his strict views of the degree of separation mandated by the Establishment Clause, Thomas Jefferson declined to follow this tradition [of issuing national proclamations].116
Yet these justices are completely wrong. Jefferson himself pointedly stated that his refusal to issue national prayer proclamations was not because of any First Amendment scruples about religion but rather because of his specific views of Federalism—that the Constitution specifically limited the federal government but not the states or other government entities. He explained:
I consider the government of the United States [the federal government] as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that “no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion” [the First Amendment], but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States [the Tenth Amendment]. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the general [federal] government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority. But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe [require] a day of fasting and prayer. . . . I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted. But I have ever believed that the example of state executives [governors issuing prayer proclamations] led to the assumption of that authority by the general government [the president issuing prayer proclamations] without due examination, which would have discovered that what might be a right in a state government was a violation of that right when assumed by another.117
Jefferson made very clear that his refusal to issue federal prayer proclamations did not spring from any concerns over religious expressions in general but rather only from his view of federalism and which was the proper governmental jurisdiction. He believed that there was a limitation on the federal government’s ability to direct the states in which religious activities they could or should participate in, but he saw no such limitations on state or local governments. Actively encouraging public religious activities for citizens was well within their jurisdiction and completely appropriate and constitutional.
Because of his understanding of federalism, Jefferson refused to issue a presidential call for prayer, but he had certainly done so as a state leader. In addition to his 1774 Virginia legislative call for prayer,118 he called his fellow Virginians to a time of prayer and thanksgiving while serving as governor in 1779, asking the people to give thanks “that He hath diffused the glorious light of the Gospel, whereby through the merits of our gracious Redeemer we may become the heirs of the eternal glory.”119
He also asked Virginians to pray “that He would grant to His church the plentiful effusions of Divine grace and pour out his Holy Spirit on all ministers on the Gospel; that He would bless and prosper the means of education and spread the light of Christian knowledge through the remotest corners of the earth.”120
And Jefferson had personally penned the state bill “Appointing Days of Public Fasting and Thanksgiving.” He clearly was not opposed to official prayer proclamations, but he believed that this function was within the jurisdiction of governors, not presidents. Certainly, presidents before and after Jefferson did not agree with this view and regularly issued federal prayer proclamations, but the evidence shows that Jefferson’s refusal to do so was not because of any notion of secularism on his part but rather because of his view of federalism.
Jefferson’s record of including, advocating, and promoting religious activities and expressions in public is strong, clear, and consistent. He did not support a secular public square. The institutional separation of Church and State so highly praised by today’s civil libertarians did not originate from Jefferson or even from secularists—nor did it have societal secularization as its object. To the contrary, it was the product of Bible teachings and Christian ministers. Its object was the protection of religious activities and expressions whether in public or private.
Jefferson’s words and actions unequivocally demonstrate that he was not “a secular humanist,”121 nor did he in any manner seek to secularize the public square. This is simply another of the many modern Jefferson lies that has no basis in history.
LIE # 6
Thomas Jefferson Detested the Clergy
Some claim that Jefferson had a dislike of Christian clergy and that this dislike was yet one more manifestation of his overall hostility to religion. They say:
[H]e detested the entire clergy, regarding them as a worthless class living like parasites upon the labors of others.1
Thomas Jefferson, in fact, was fiercely anti-cleric.2
“The clergy” were one of his enemies who were trying to keep him from being elected President. Surely they would have wanted a devout, God-fearing Christian to be elected! So this is one more proof of Jefferson’s religious beliefs.3
Some of the Framers of the Constitution were anti-clerical—Thomas Jefferson, for example.4
By now, we have covered enough original source material from Jefferson to make these claims laughably, obviously incorrect. But let us proceed to put the final nails in the coffin of this lie and lay it permanently to rest. Of course, as noted in the last chapter, with the fact that Jefferson was not a framer of the Constitution despite what writers such as Austin Cline, the author of the latter quote and a leader in prominent secularist groups, continue wrongly to assert. But notwithstanding that glaring historical inaccuracy, was Jefferson indeed anticlerical?
To unequivocally put this question to bed, it is important to place Jefferson with
in his own time rather than that of today, avoiding the mistakes that occur when Modernism is applied to historical inquiry.
Throughout the Colonial, Revolutionary, and early Federal periods, organized political parties were nonexistent. The people were divided as Whigs and Tories, Patriots and Loyalists, Monarchists and Republicans, but there was no political party affiliation. This changed during the administration of President George Washington. Widely differing viewpoints on the scope and power of the federal government emerged among his leadership. Individuals such as Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton and Vice President John Adams sought for increased federal power, while others, such as Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and Attorney General Edmund Jennings Randolph, sought for limited federal power.
Those led by Adams and Hamilton coalesced into what became known as the Federalist Party; those led by Jefferson coalesced into the Anti-Federalist Party. Anti-Federalists were also known as Republicans and then as Democratic-Republicans; by the time of Andrew Jackson, they had become the Democrats. The Northern colonies and New England provided the strongest base of support for the Federalists while the strength of the Anti-Federalists was from Pennsylvania southward. The Federalists tended to be stronger in populous areas already accustomed to more government at numerous levels. The Anti-Federalists were generally stronger in rural areas where people were more lightly governed.
Jefferson observed that those in the Northern regions had many good traits; they were “cool, sober, laborious, persevering . . . jealous of their own liberties and just to those of others” while those in the south had many negative traits, including being “voluptuary, indolent, unsteady, . . . zealous for their own liberties but trampling on those of others.”5 But Jefferson saw the religious characteristics of the two regions as generally reversed: “[I]n the north they are . . . chicaning, superstitious, and hypocritical in their religion” while “in the south they are . . . candid, without attachment or pretentions to any religion but that of the heart.”6 Religion was definitely important in all regions of early America, but as Jefferson noted, there was indeed a clear difference in the way it was practiced in Federalist and Anti-Federalist regions.
In the more populated North, churches abounded and participation was convenient; citizens were therefore frequent and regular in their attendance. John Adams, like so many others in New England, described himself as a “church-going animal.”7 The pastors of New England had frequent contact with their parishioners throughout the week and held much influence in the community.
With sparser population southward, churches were fewer and more distant from each other. Participation often required deliberate effort. For George Washington to attend church each Sunday, as was his habit, was a full day commitment. It was typically a two- to three-hour ride on horseback or carriage to his church ten miles from Mt. Vernon. A two-hour service was common, and the return ride home took another few hours, thus consuming the entire day. Ministers in the South were just as important as in the North, but they had fewer opportunities to influence their parishioners.
The presidential election of 1800 was America’s first real partisan political contest, pitting Jefferson the Anti-Federalist against Adams the Federalist. New Englanders were fiercely loyal to their Federalist hero, John Adams; those southward strongly supported their Anti-Federalist champion, Thomas Jefferson. The campaign was vicious—probably the most venomous in American history with the Federalists taking a much nastier approach in their attacks against Jefferson than the Anti-Federalists did against Adams.
For example, Jefferson was accused by Federalist critics not only of being anti-Christian but also of being a murderer, an atheist, a thief, and a cohort of foreign convicts. It was reported that he was secretly plotting the destruction and overthrow of the Constitution. He was accused of defrauding a widow and her children. The nation was alerted that he planned to abolish the navy and starve the farmers, and citizens were warned that if Jefferson were elected, he would confiscate and burn every Bible in America.8 This latter charge was so widely disseminated that in New England Bibles were actually buried upon Jefferson’s election so that he could not find and burn them.9
Since one of the quickest ways to vilify and ostracize a person in New England was to claim that he was antireligious or lacked morals, Federalist ministers regularly accused Jefferson of both. Some of the most vicious attacks against him actually came from such ministers who preached notable sermons about him—sermons often containing blatant lies, gross distortions, and vile misrepresentations.
But John Adams was not exempted from similarly ill-intentioned attacks; he also was maligned and misrepresented by his Anti-Federalist opponents. Years later he recounted the maltreatment he had suffered to his close friend and fellow signer of the Declaration, Benjamin Rush:
If I am to judge by the newspapers and pamphlets that have been printed in America for twenty years past, I should think that both parties believed me the meanest villain in the world.10
But however fierce the attacks on Adams, those on Jefferson were much more despicable. Regardless of what Jefferson said or did concerning religion, no matter how innocent or honest his actions or words might be, they were spun negatively and used against him by his enemies, especially by Federalist clergymen.
The Reverend Cotton Mather Smith of Connecticut provides an excellent example. Smith had served as a military chaplain during the American Revolution and delivered over four thousand sermons and messages in his lengthy career.11 On one occasion he was visited by a friend of Jefferson, who subsequently reported:
I called on and dined with the Revered Cotton Mather Smith of Sharon. . . . I found him an engaged federal politician; he soon found that my political feelings were not in unison with his and asked whether my good wishes would really extend Mr. Jefferson to the Presidential Chair [in the election of 1800]. I answered in the affirmative—on which, accompanied with much other malicious invective [vicious attack] and in presence of five men and two women, he said that you, Sir, “had obtained your property by fraud and robbery, and that in one instance you had defrauded and robbed a widow and fatherless children of an estate to which you were executor.” . . . I told him with some warmth that I did not believe it. He said that “it was true” and that “it could be proved.” . . . I thought it my duty, Sir, to communicate the assertion.12
Upon learning of that accusation, Jefferson replied to his friend:
Every tittle of it is fable [i.e., a lie]. . . . I never was executor but in two instances. . . . In one of the cases only were there a widow and children: she was my sister. She retained and managed the estate in her own hands, and no part of it was ever in mine. . . . If Mr. Smith, therefore, thinks the precepts of the Gospel [are] intended for those who preach them as well as for others, he will doubtless someday feel the duties of repentance and of acknowledgment in such forms as to correct the wrong he has done.13
Despite Smith’s blatant lie that Jefferson obtained his belongings by defrauding widows and orphans, the charge nevertheless roared across New England.
Similarly false charges were made by the Reverend William Linn of New York who pastored several churches, served as a military chaplain during the Revolution, became the first chaplain of the House of Representatives, and then a university president. Linn was also a staunch Federalist and close friend of Alexander Hamilton and thus a mortal political enemy of Jefferson.
Linn penned Serious Considerations on the Election of a President in which he warned that if Jefferson won the 1800 election, “[t]he effects would be to destroy religion, introduce immorality, and loosen all the bonds of society.”14
The Reverend Linn concluded his pamphlet by telling the country that “Jefferson’s opponent,” John Adams, was “irreproachable.” He then bluntly warned Americans that “it would be more acceptable to God and beneficial to the interests of our country to throw away your votes” than to vote for Jefferson.15
The Reverend John Mason was another New
York Federalist pastor who detested Jefferson. He, too, was a close friend of Alexander Hamilton and actually attended Hamilton at his death after he was shot down in the famous duel with Aaron Burr. Mason authored The Voice of Warning to Christians on the Ensuing Election to warn Americans that Jefferson was a “confirmed” and “a hardened infidel” and one “who writes against the truth of God’s Word; who makes not even a profession of Christianity; who is without Sabbaths, without the sanctuary, without so much as a decent external respect for the faith and worship of Christians.”16 Of course, as has already been shown, Jefferson had done exactly the opposite of what Mason claimed in each of these charges, including having written the law in Virginia that punished violators of the Sabbath. Nevertheless, Mason then solemnly warned voters:
If therefore an infidel [Jefferson] presides over our country, it will be your fault, Christians, and YOUR act—and YOU shall answer it! And for aiding and abetting such a design, I charge upon your consciences the SIN of striking hands in a covenant of friendship with the enemies of your Master’s glory.17
The Reverend Nathanael Emmons of Massachusetts also raised a strident voice against Jefferson. Emmons had been an ardent patriot during the Revolution. He later established several missionary and theological societies and two hundred of his sermons were published and publicly distributed.
Emmons, a devoted Federalist, worked actively against Jefferson, but despite his best efforts, Jefferson was elected. In a famous sermon preached after Jefferson won, Emmons asserted that Jefferson was the American Jeroboam.
In the Bible, Jeroboam was the wicked leader who divided Israel following the death of Solomon. Taking ten tribes, Jeroboam became their king and led them away from God, ordaining pagan priests and pagan places of worship throughout the land, thus causing the ten tribes to eventually be conquered and destroyed.
