America’s National Origin Myth

Footnotes:

{1 This requires distinguishing between a second-order belief (BELIEVING IN believing X) and a first-order belief (actually believing X).  Second-order beliefs (esp. with respect to deities) are often misconstrued as first-order beliefs.  To wit: Most people who profess to be theists are, in reality, pseudo-theists; even though they (generally) do not intend to be disingenuous.  It’s not that they LITERALLY believe that the Abrahamic deity exists as delineated in scripture; they BELIEVE IN the belief that the Abrahamic deity exists as such; and so proceed accordingly.  We know this is the case because the reasons they give for their (second-order) belief are based almost entirely on pragmatism (e.g. “Believing it gives my life meaning, etc.”)  Likewise, believing in the Judeo-Christian origins of the U.S. serves a certain (ideological) purpose.  The key is that second-order belief is a PROFESSION OF belief.  In that vain, it is used to signal fealty to a certain ideology (and/or loyalty to a tribe).  First-order belief is revealed more in actions than in words.  In terms of profession, there are no atheists in foxholes.  In terms of taking action, there are no theists in foxholes.}

{2 We might even take this further: What founding principle was only ground-ABLE on the Abrahamic creed?  That is: Which tenet (integral to the Framers’ vision) depended for its very cogency on there having been such a creed?  The answer is, of course, none.  This fact belies any claim that democratic principles are somehow predicated on a Judeo-Christian legacy; or that such principles would be inaccessible BUT FOR proponents having espoused certain religious dogmas.  It is no thanks to either Judaism or Christianity that we have an objective basis for deeming that deception, betrayal, theft, and murder are iniquitous. {3}  We might inquire further: What ELSE are we to suppose we would have no solid grounds for (had Judaism / Christianity never existed)?  Civil rights?  Freedom of conscience?  Freedom of speech?  No such things are upheld in Abrahamic lore.  (Meanwhile, patriarchy, the stoning of insolent children, genocide, and slavery ARE upheld.  Gadzooks!)  Even when Abrahamic doctrine gets some elementary points correct, it is superfluous; and thus un-necessary.  The suggestion that our moral intuitions would be unable to inform us that lying, cheating, stealing, and killing are wrong but for the existence of Mosaic law is nothing short of preposterous.}

{3 The best explication of an objective basis for morality (which does not depend on institutionalized dogmatism) is Immanuel Kant’s “Groundwork For The Metaphysic of Morals”.  Also see Kai Nielsen’s “Ethics Without God”.}

{4 The use of “Creator” as a rhetorical flourish was quite commonplace thereafter.  In the first five editions of his “On The Origin Of Species”, Charles Darwin offered a peroration to natural selection in his closing remarks: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been–and are being–evolved.”  Then, 23 years after the famous work was first published (i.e. the year the author died), Darwin’s estate opted to insert “by the Creator” after “breathed” (in the 6th edition; 1882).  Why was this done?  It was a gesture to placate religionists who had been vexed by the publication.  So now we might inquire: By inserting the loaded term “Creator” into the passage at the end of the book, did the editors change Darwin’s theory?  Of course not.  Clearly, the locution was used idiomatically.  The amended phrasing was a transparent effort to mitigate the acrimony the theory of evolution had stirred amongst Reactionaries.  In other words: It was a sop to those who assailed Darwin for sacrilege.  Saying “breathed by the Creator” was no more tantamount to putting the Abrahamic deity at the center of the theory than was Einstein’s quip, “God doesn’t play dice” was tantamount to putting the deity at the center of the theory of relativity.  To insist that the use of the phrase “endowed by our Creator” in Jefferson’s letter to King George III (the “Declaration of Independence”) rendered the exalted document god-centric is analogous to contending Darwin endorsed “intelligent design” because he used the words “breathed by the Creator” in his magnum opus.}

{5 Note that the Enlightenment sense of “happiness” (used by the likes of Jefferson, and later by John Stuart Mill) involved what the Greeks dubbed “eudaemonia”.  This conception of “happiness” did not pertain to cheap satisfaction or to idle pleasure; it pertained to the fulfillment derived from a cultivation of virtue.  This does NOT correspond to what was dubbed “simcha” in the Hebrew Bible: the gratification one derives from living in accordance with god’s will.  Hence “simcha” is more consonant with Calvinism than with Mill’s Utilitarianism; as it is a function of piety more than of probity.  This disparity (viz. happiness) illustrates how ideations in Abrahamic lore do not always correspond to those with which we are now familiar…EVEN WHEN TRANSLATED INTO THE SAME WORD.}

{6 This was in a letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia; May, 1789.}

{7 In the 19th century, American icon, Sarah Josepha Hale averred that “the spirit which seeks to do good to all and evil to none is the only true Christian philanthropy.”  She was clearly not invoking institutionalized dogmatism to convey this message.  The key to understanding idiomatic expression of a bygone era is recognizing how they were used in everyday speech by the communities that ACTUALLY USED them…AT THAT TIME.  Today, it is plain to see that proclaiming one “swears to god” is merely a rhetorical flourish, not the invocation of a higher power.  Asking “What in heaven’s name is going on here?” is the same as simply asking: “What is going on here?”  And if I ask you, “What in god’s name are you doing?”, I have not made an inquiry into your doctrinal fidelity…let alone proclaimed my own.  This is made clear by the fact that I could just as well ask you: “What the hell are you doing?”  When it comes to demotic language, we must always be careful not to read too much into the locutions that have been employed.}

{8 Hamilton considered himself an informal member of the Anglican (i.e. Episcopal) church–hardly the archetype for contemporary American Christianity.  Are we to suppose that it is a predominantly Anglican heritage to which Christian ideologues now refer?  This would seem odd considering the absence of references to the Archbishop of Canterbury in the ramblings of American Dominionists (and other millenarian re-constructionists).  There is no indication AT ALL that Hamilton grounded any part of his political philosophy on religious dogmas.  Not once did he invoke church doctrine in making the case for his ideas.}

{9 Jefferson–an alumnus of William & Mary–founded what was the modern world’s first categorically secular university: the University of Virginia.  He wanted to ensure that there existed public education that was unhindered by clerical oversight, and unburdened by religious dogmatism.}

{10 As with Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson championed individual (Kantian) autonomy, exalting our capacity for critical thinking above all else.  (See footnote 3 above.)  This entailed constantly questioning “received wisdom” (esp. religious dogmas, sanctified or not).  Jefferson saw this charge as critical to responsible citizenship.  While in Paris (the summer of 1787), in a letter to his friend, Peter Carr, Jefferson counseled: “Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion.  Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”  He even employed the idiom of the time, exhorting: “your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven.”  This was the Enlightenment spirit endemic to Deism.}

{11 Which creed one opts to follow is a personal affair, and does not fall within the purview of the State.  This view remained throughout the 19th century.  (See footnote 4 above.)  In his “On Liberty”, John Stuart Mill noted: “The great writers to whom the world owes what religious liberty it possesses have mostly asserted freedom of conscience as an indefeasible right, and denied absolutely that a human being is accountable to others for his religious belief.”  If one would have gone to London in 1859 and asked John Stuart Mill how much he had based the insights articulated in his landmark work, “On Liberty” on Judeo-Christian doctrine, he would have surely responded, without hesitation: “Not at all.”  Two years later, when he published “Considerations On Representative Government”, had he been asked the question, he surely would have given the same response.}

{12 In the “Northwest Ordinance” of 1789 (which served as a template for the charter of some of the new states), the author opines that “religion, morality, and knowledge” are key elements of good governance and human happiness; and so are things that should be encouraged.  George Washington signed this ordinance.  This is unsurprising, as Washington himself sometimes used the locution “religion and morality”–holding that it was something germane to good citizenship. This pairing would have come naturally at the time–like cookies and cream or peanut butter and jelly.}

{13 A popular gambit is to embark on a cherry-picking expedition–in which one harvests every parcel of text that happens to make use of these religiously-tinged buzz-terms.  Christian Revisionists then present such extracts as evidence that the Founders were pushing a Christianized vision for the new Republic; thereby justifying a quasi-theocratic agenda in the present.  This would be like extracting every instance in which “Marx” was mentioned in the ramblings of Kim Il-Sung to show that Juche is somehow based on Karl Marx’s ACTUAL ideals.  I discuss Marx in Appendix 4 of my essay on “The Universality Of Morality.}

{14  What happened in that pivotal confrontation?  Pursuant to the siege of Yorktown, British General Charles O’Hara surrendered to French Naval Marshal Jean-Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur (the Count of Rochambeau) on behalf of British Major General Charles Cornwallis (possibly with American General Benjamin Lincoln present).  Technically, fighting continued for a 2-3 more weeks, but the outcome of the war was–by then–a foregone conclusion.  Ultimately, Cornwallis personally surrendered (on October 19, 1781) jointly to French Admiral Jacques-Melchior Saint-Laurent (the Count of Barras), French General Gilbert du Motier (the Marquis of Lafayette), and American Major General George Washington (American Commander in Chief on who’s behalf the French Generals conducted themselves) at Yorktown.  Washington had to be there, above all, for symbolic reasons.  This episode made the conclusion official.  King George III of England eventually signed the “Definitive Treaty of Peace” in Paris, France, with a delegation of French and U.S. leaders, almost two years later–on September 3, 1783.  That marked the official day of U.S. independence.  If not for the French navy (lead by Louis-Marie of Noailles, in the aforesaid engagement) neutralizing the British army at Yorktown (effectively blockading the Chesapeake Bay), there is no way the American colonies could have triumphed over the (far superior) British land forces.  Thanks, France.}

{15  Note that by the time the American colonies achieved independence, Spain (1542), Russia (1723), China (1725), and Portugal (1761) had already abolished slavery.  Scandinavia (1790-92), Canada (1793), and France (1794) would follow soon thereafter.  I explore how little religion had to do with the mitigation of slavery in my essay, “The Universality Of Morality”.}

{16  Abercrombie was a member of the American Philosophical Society, and the minister of the church Washington most attended: St. Paul’s in Philadelphia.  In a now-infamous letter, he took umbrage with the fact that Washington would routinely depart “immediately after the desk and pulpit services” (that is, after the sermon, before the sacraments were performed).  Washington was not considered a “communicant” by either himself or others; and stated that participating in sacraments would have been hypocritical.  White was the Senate chaplain.  He stated: “I do not believe that any degree of recollection will bring to my mind any fact which would prove that General Washington to have been a believer in the Christian revelation [beyond] his attendance [of services] in connection with the general reserve of his character.”  Green was a member of the American Philosophical Society, the President of Princeton University, one of the founders of the Pennsylvania Bible Society, and the chaplain for the U.S. Congress.  He made clear that Washington “was not a believer in the Bible as a revelation from heaven” and that “while he was very deferential to religion and its ceremonies, like nearly all the Founders of the Republic, he was not a Christian but a Deist.”  In an article about Green in the Chicago Tribune (in the late 19th century, by B.F. Underwood), it was said that “from his long and intimate acquaintance with Washington, [Green] knew it to be the case that while he respectfully conformed to the religious customs of society by generally going to church on Sundays, he had no belief at all in the divine origin of the Bible, nor the Jewish-Christian religion” (see “Six Historic Americans” by John E Remsburg; p. 115-137).}

{17  By the end of 1776, a free African American soldier serving in the Continental Army (Lemuel Haynes) had drafted an essay entitled “Liberty Further Extended”.  He opened it by quoting Thomas Jefferson’s statement “that all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”  By highlighting these claims, Haynes began the process of shifting the focus and meaning of the Declaration of Independence from the ordinance of secession to a universal declaration of human rights.  That effort was later carried forward by other abolitionists.  The Declaration was seen as a “promissory note” that had yet to be fulfilled for African Americans—as Frederick Douglas put it in his famous oration in 1852: “What, To The Slave, Is The Fourth Of July?”}

{18  There is an oft-touted quote of dubious provenance.  In a letter to Colonel William F. Elkins (dated November 21, 1864), Lincoln purportedly wrote: “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.  As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned; and an era of corruption in high places will follow.  The money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed.  I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of [the Civil War].”  Even if Lincoln had not penned these exact words, it is not unreasonable to suppose they accurately captured his—and others’—sentiment on the matter.}

{19  Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut on New Year’s Day 1802 stated that “religion is a matter that lies solely between man and his god” and that a man “owes account to none other for his Faith or his worship.”  Here’s the upshot:  “The legitimate powers of government [pertain to] actions only, not [to] opinions.”  He noted that the Framers—himself including—composed the establishment clause of the Constitution’s first Amendment “thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”  The Supreme Court validated this principle in 1868 by citing the 14th Amendment—specifically with regard to state-level jurisdiction.  It did so AGAIN in 1947 with Everson v. Board of Education—where it stipulated that the government could not aid one religion over any other.  Ergo the maxim: “on your own time, on your own dime.”  For more on this, see the Appendix.}

{20  We might also consider the Neo-con / war-hawk support for militarism—to wit: how it does not comport with the original vision of the U.S.  George Washington was very clear about being wary of foreign entanglements.  When we think of the U.S. support for humanitarian atrocities perpetrated by fascistic regimes (Israel and Saudi Arabia being the most obvious examples at present), we might consider his warning against “passionate attachments” that expose the U.S. to “the insidious wiles of foreign influence”.  This goes for AIPAC as well as for the oil deals made with the House of Saud…and even the tacit agreements made with China to maintain access to cheap labor (for production) and gigantic markets (for sales).  Passionate attachment to fascists was NOT part of the Founders’ vision.}

{21  There have been many books that I have found helpful in understanding the founding of the American Republic.  They include Forrest McDonald’s “Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins Of The Constitution”, Jack Rakove’s “Original Meanings”, Bernard Bailyn’s “The Ideological Origins Of The American Revolution” and “To Begin The World Anew”, Pauline Maier’s “Ratification”, and Robert Middlekauf’s “The Glorious Cause”.  Also indispensable are the major works of Gordon S. Wood—notably: “Empire Of Liberty”, “The Creation of the American Republic”, “Power And Liberty: Constitutionalism In The American Revolution”, “The Radicalism Of The American Revolution”, and “The Idea Of America: Reflections On The Birth Of The United States”.  To procure an in-depth understanding of democracy-in-general, I would recommend John Stuart Mill’s landmark essay, “On Representative Government” as well as ANYTHING by Thomas Paine.  When it comes to secularism in the U.S., Susan Jacoby’s “Freethinkers” is a must-read.  And last but not least: Tony Judt’s “Ill Fares The Land” is a potent lament regarding the mis-apprehensions currently plaguing the American agora.}

{22  In his “Notes on the State of Virginia” (1787), Jefferson addressed the matter of government getting involved in religious affairs by promoting SOME tenets whilst suppressing OTHERS, using Pennsylvania and New York as exemplars: “Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion?  To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth. … Our sister states of Pennsylvania and New York, however, have long subsisted without any establishment at all. The experiment was new and doubtful when they made it. It has answered beyond conception. They flourish infinitely. … Their harmony is unparalleled, and can be ascribed to nothing but their unbounded tolerance, because there is no other circumstance in which they differ from every nation on earth. They have made the happy discovery, that the way to silence religious disputes is to take no notice of them. Let us too give this experiment fair play, and get rid, while we may, of those tyrannical laws.”}

{23  To fail to recognize this leads to absurdities—as when gun-fetishists today read the 2nd Amendment (pertaining to civilian militias being sufficiently equipped to fulfill their charge, at the pleasure of the State) and insist that it is now a license for one to stockpile armaments at one’s own discretion (see my essay on “The Obsolescence Of The Second Amendment”).  For more on this point, see Laurence Tribe’s “The Invisible Constitution” and Stephen Breyer’s “Active Liberty”.}

{24 For more on this point, see my Appendix to “Robin’s Zugzwang”, where I discuss the debunking of the “1619 Project”. There, I discuss the fact that democracy is a process, not a destination. Put another way: It is an ideal, and thus an aspiration. The Framers saw what they did as a POINT OF DEPARTURE, recognizing that there would be further work to be done going forward.}