America’s National Origin Myth

John Adams:

Imagine that we were to pose the question to the Founders: In which ways did you base your case for democracy on Judeo-Christian doctrine?  Ben Franklin, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison would have been bewildered by such a question.  Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson would have been utterly flabbergasted by it.  Even John Adams, a New England Congregationalist (i.e. proto-Unitarian), would have found this query rather peculiar. It makes sense, then, to continue our survey with the most religious of the major Founders: John Adams.

Adams was a professed liberal Unitarian, but he, too, in his private correspondences, seems more deist than Christian.  “Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!”  Speaking ex cathedra, as a relic of the Founding generation, Franklin expressed his admiration for the Roman system whereby every man could worship whom, what, and how he pleased.  When his young listeners objected that this was paganism, Adams replied that it was indeed, and laughed.

Adams opined that if they were not restrained by legal measures, Puritans—the fundamentalists of their day—would ‘whip and crop, and pillory and roast.’  The word of the Creator, they believed, could best be read in Nature.  Pressed by Jefferson to define his personal creed, Adams replied that it was contained in four short words: Be just and good.

In May of 1797, John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli, which stated that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” (Article 11).  Here is a statement that could not possibly have been more straight-forward.  President George Washington, who was an avowed Deist, approved the wording of the document; and for good reason.  He concurred with what it said.  It is very telling that Adams–arguably the most religious of the major Founders–endorsed the statement without reservation.

It is difficult to imagine a more unequivocal statement than that “the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”…written by the man who was arguably the most Christian of the Founders.  What could possibly explain this?  Adams was able to separate his own convictions from the jurisdiction of the State.  Whatever beliefs he may have harbored, he recognized something quite simple: Such a personal matter had no bearing on matters of public policy; and should play no role in governance.  Religiosity was no more a prerequisite for deliberative democracy than was, well, ANY form of dogmatism.

The Treaty of Tripoli was approved by both the first and the second Presidents of the United States (Washington and Adams)–reflecting a view that was propounded by the other major Founders–notably: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison (all Deists).  The Senate approved the wording of the treaty UNANIMOUSLY.  In other words, all Senators present (23 of the 32 were in session) ratified the declaration without so much as questioning this bold statement.

The key statement, adamantly repudiating the notion of a Christian basis for the new Republic, did not even raise eyebrows.  Why not?  It was patently obvious to all statesmen at the time.

And so it went: The entire Senate agreed with the proclamation that the United States was not founded IN ANY WAY as a Christian nation; and saw fit to announce this fact to the world.  In his signing statement, John Adams then took care to make explicit that he viewed every point made in the document as having set an important precedent; and so was to be honored by all citizens of the United States thereafter.

The thinking behind this position is well-documented.  In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, Adams pointed out that “the general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity.”  This meant that there was a correlation between such GENERAL PRINCIPLES (i.e. moral messages that could be gleaned from scripture, as was often the case in Christendom) and the guiding principles of civil society.  He was not referring to the theology; he was referring to the didactic utility of religious parable.

With this in mind, Adams stated that “the principles of nature and eternal reason [are] the principles on which the whole government over us now stands.”  Again: He was not referring to Christian doctrine in particular…or even to Mosaic law.  “Principles of nature” and “eternal reason” are clearly not referring to revelation.  Scripture was useful for didactic purposes, insofar as it conveyed certain moral messages; not for theological purposes.  (Thomas Jefferson’s redaction of the Gospels illustrates this fact.)

Having been raised in a Christian milieu, Adams was fond of coupling “religion and morality”.  This was a classic pairing—like macaroni and cheese.  The two are distinct things that exist independently of one another. Moreover, one can exist without the other.

The locution “religion and morality” was commonplace at the time. {12} Adams once said that “the principles upon which freedom can securely stand” are established by “religion and morality”.  This locution was en vogue amongst 18th-century Americans–Deist and otherwise.  It was simply a reference to good character; which is to say that it had nothing to do with lore that was explicitly Christian.  Nor was it a veiled attempt at proselytization.  And it was certainly not a prescription for theocratic governance.

Touting “religion and morality” was not a clarion call for dogmatism; it was simply a way of lauding those who upheld traditional virtues (like, say, honesty and charity) and eschewed vice (like, say, deception and avarice).  By using such phrasing, these men were not calling for fealty to a specific doctrine.  Adams was especially fond of the “religion and morality” locution–a coupling that surely seemed as natural as peanut-butter and jelly.   He once averred: “We have no government armed with the power which is capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.  Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”  In other words, the democracy would only work well assuming a morally upright citizenry.  Clearly, this was not implying that the only way to be moral was to be religious; or that religiosity qua doctrinal fealty was the key factor.  (As we well know, being doctrinaire is hardly a prerequisite for civic-mindedness.)  What Adams may have added was that those who most flaunt their piety are often the most reprobate members of society.  Over the ages, civic virtue has been conceptualized in various ways.

Adams’ observation–articulated in the idiom of a bygone era–is a far cry from the Christian Dominionists of today, who use religion as a carious surrogate for morality; or–at best–as a putrescent moral prosthetic.  Adams clearly had in mind the “traditional” values that are associated–to the present day–with probity.

What did Adams mean by “religion” anyway?  It was, after all, more a colloquialism than a formally-defined term.  Indeed, what did he even mean by “Christianity”?  Not what we might tend to think today.  Adams referred to the notion of an incarnate god suffering on a cross “BAFFLING”; and—get this—a doctrine that was “destructive” to Christianity.  (!)  In other words: The Passion—which is understood by devout Christians to be the ENTIRE POINT of their Faith—was for Adams antithetical to it.

Theocratic governance was the LAST thing John Adams–or any of the other Founders–would have envisioned for the new Republic.  Nothing in Adam’s seminal work, “Thoughts On Government” indicates that he supposed the foundation of the federal government rested explicitly on Judeo-Christian tenets. {2}

While a professed Christian, it is important to bear in mind that Adams was assiduously anti-dogmatic, and had few sympathies for many of the institutionalized (that is: dogmatic) versions of the Faith.  He openly rebuked doctrinaire treatments of the creed.  In another letter to Jefferson, Adams wrote: “The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.  Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.”  Thus he noted the disconnect between the moral lessons found in the Gospels and the institutions that operated under the auspices of “Christianity”.  In any case, it is obvious that Adams garnered his insights on democracy—and civil society generally—from places other than holy books.  Civil society was no more predicated on sacred doctrines than astronomy was predicated on astrological charts. As we’ll see, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin agreed on this point.

So what of “Christianity” then? For Adams—as for most of his fellow Founders—being a “good Christian” was simply another way of saying “being a good person” in Christendom.  Was this a declaration that a specific doctrine was required for someone to be “moral”.  Of course not.  Recall that Adams once quipped that “it would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religions in it.”  And also recall that it was Adams who signed the statement—in the Treaty of Tripoli—that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”