informis/textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/politics/INGERSOLL/presid1.d

2796 lines
141 KiB
D
Raw Normal View History

Initial commit
2021-04-15 13:31:59 -05:00
43 page printout
NOTE: This work is not the complete book, the parts done are
complete in themselves.
Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.
This disk, its printout, or copies of either
are to be copied and given away, but NOT sold.
Bank of Wisdom, Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
**** ****
The Religious Beliefs
of Our Presidents
An account of the religious beliefs, and lack of such beliefs,
of our chief executives, and a chronicle of the more important
religious events and controversies of their administrations.
BY FRANKLIN STEINER
"When the crisis came, Jefferson, Paine, John Adams,
Washington, Franklin, Madison, and many lesser lights were to be
reckoned among either the Unitarians or the Deists. it was not
Cotton Mather's God to whom the author of the Declaration of
Independence appealed, it was to 'Nature's God.' From whatever
source derived, the effect of both Unitarianism and Deism was to
hasten the retirement of historic theology from its empire over the
intellect of American leaders, and to clear the atmosphere for
secular interests" -- The Rise of American Civilization," by
Charles A. and Mary R. Beard. (Vol. I., p. 449.)
HALDEMAN-JULIUS PUBLICATIONS
GIRARD KANSAS
**** ****
CONTENTS
PREFACE 3
INTRODUCTION 5
I. GEORGE WASHINGTON, THE VESTRYMAN WHO
WAS NOT A COMMUNICANT 11
II. PRESIDENTS WHO WERE PRESBYTERIANS 44
ANDREW JACKSON
JAMES KNOX POLK
JAMES BUCHANAN
GROVER CLEVELAND
BENJAMIN HARRISON
WOODROW WILSON
III. PRESIDENTS WHO WERE UNITARIANS 53
JOHN ADAMS
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS
MILLARD FILLMORE
WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
1
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
IV. PRESIDENTS WHO WERE EPISCOPALIANS 65
FRANKLIN PIERCE
FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT
V. PRESIDENTS WHO WERE NOT MEMBERS OF ANY
CHURCH 68
WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON
ANDREW JOHNSON
ULYSSES SIMPSON GRANT
RUTHERFORD BIRCHARD HAYES
VI. PRESIDENTS WHOSE RELIGIOUS VIEWS ARE
DOUBTFUL 84
JAMES MADISON
JAMES MONROE
MARTIN VAN BUREN
JOHN TYLER
ZACHARY TAYLOR
CHESTER ALAN ARTHUR
VII. THOMAS JEFFERSON, FREETHINKER 99
VIII. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, DEIST AND ADMIRER OF
THOMAS PAINE 110
IX. JAMES ABRAM GARFIELD, THE PREACHER
PRESIDENT 146
X. WILLIAM McKINLEY, THE METHODIST PRESIDENT 150
XI. THEODORE ROOSEVELT, DUTCH REFORMED BUT
NOT VERY RELIGIOUS 152
XII. THE BELIEFS OF OUR "PROSPERITY"
PRESIDENTS 157
WARREN GAMALIEL HARDING. BAPTIST
CALVIN COOLIDGE, CONGREGATIONALIST
HERBERT CLARK HOOVER, QUAKER
RESUME 158
APPENDIX I. Washington's Last Sickness and Death 160
APPENDIX II. Religious Opinions and Habits of
Washington 165
APPENDIX III. Dr. Holland and the "Bateman
Interview" 173
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
2
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
APPENDIX IV. Testimony of W.H. Herndon, Lincoln's
Law Partner for 22 years, Concerning His
Religious Belief 175
APPENDIX V. Thanksgiving Proclamations 185
BIBLIOGRAPHY 187
**** ****
PUBLISHER'S PREFACE
Much has been written concerning the religious beliefs of our
Presidents, but, until now, no one has gone into the subject
thoroughly. A number of books have appeared, all of which, instead
of giving facts, are merely religious propagandistic documents.
Mr. Franklin Steiner, the author of the present work, was
engaged for over two years in writing it. He has been a student of
the subject for over 40 years. This book is thoroughly documented,
and is a straight-forward, trustworthy account of "the religious
beliefs of our Presidents.
THE HALDEMAN-JULIUS COMPANY
**** ****
PREFACE
For a number of years I have promised my friends that I would
produce this book. For a while other duties postponed the
fulfillment of that promise. It was finished when the worst of the
world-wide financial depression was upon us. This affected the book
trade equally with other lines of business, which caused me to
further delay publication. This, in a way, was not a disadvantage,
as it enabled me to correct, revise, and make valuable additions to
the book. Now, after long waiting, I take pleasure in presenting it
to the public, hoping it will be an addition to reliable history
and biography.
First, I wish to thank my friend Mr. Rupert Hughes, historian
and dramatist, for his kindness in reading the manuscript and
offering his criticisms and suggestions. This was a valuable aid,
which I appreciate and am pleased to acknowledge. To Mrs. S.C.
Yoemans, a surviving sister, to Mrs. Edith Roosevelt, widow of
Theodore Roosevelt, to Mrs. Edith Bolling-Wilson, widow of Woodrow
Wilson, thanks are due for the facts about the church membership of
Presidents, Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt and Wilson. To Mr. Louis
M.H. Howe, his private secretary, I owe my thanks for the facts of
the religious belief of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. To
Professor Roy F. Nichols, of the Department of History, University
of Pennsylvania, I am indebted for knowledge of the religous views
of President Franklin Pierce. Among others whose help and advice
must be acknowledged are Mr. Richard J. Cooney, Chicago, Ill., Mr.
George E. Macdonald, the veteran editor of New York City, Mr. Otis
G. Hammond, of the Historical Department of the State of New
Hampshire, Edward Tuck, Esq., Paris, France, Mr. William Morrow, of
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
3
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
the publishing firm of Wm. Morrow & Co., New York City; to Dr.
Charles A. Beard, of Columbia University, for permission to use on
the title page a quotation from his invaluable history, and other
friends throughout the United States too numerous to mention. To
the attendants of the Milwaukee, Wis., public library, one of the
best in the United States (in which city most of this book was
written), who not only placed before me the treasures of its
shelves, but treated me with the highest consideration and took an
interest in the progress of the work, I am deeply grateful.
Among all others, I must acknowledge the great aid I received
from an old friend who died years ago, John Eleazer Remsburg (born
1848, died 1919), author, editor, lecturer, educator. For years Mr.
Ramsburg collected information regarding the religious views of
Abraham Lincoln. He searched every book where reliable facts could
be obtained. Many A persons were then living, in sound health and
memory, who had personally known Lincoln. Mr. Remsburg visited some
of these, and wrote down their depositions. With others he
corresponded. He presents the evidence of private citizens, as well
as of public men who knew the great President and were familiar
with his religious views. In 1893 he published the result of his
investigations in a book entitled, Abraham Lincoln: Was He a
Christian? It is a work of 360 pares, and contains more information
upon both sides of the controversy than can be found in any other
book. In 1906 Mr. Remsburg incorporated this into a larger one,
entitled, Six Historic Americans, to which he added the facts of
the religious opinions of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine
and Grant. This book is still in print, and, so far as I know, no
one has ever called into question any of the statements it
contains. Its opponents have cautiously ignored it.
I first met Mr. Remsburg when I was a youth in high school, in
1889. I knew him until his death in 1919, knew his irreproachable
integrity, and invariable accuracy, yet I have not followed him
blindly. I have, when practicable, gone to the original sources and
verified his quotations. Then I have added the result of my own
investigations, giving evidence of which Mr. Ramsburg was unaware.
In one way I have followed his plan of giving the statements of
both sides, of those who claimed that Lincoln was an orthodox
believer, and of those who denied it; though I have been obliged to
resort to condensation, giving only the testimony of the most
important witnesses on both sides of the controversy.
In an appendix I have given the evidence of Lincoln's law-
partner of 22 years, Mr. William H. Herndon, who, all agree, knew
the real Lincoln better than anyone else. In another appendix I
have dealt with the famous "Bateman Interview" of Dr. Holland, the
cause of the bitter dispute which I have described. Concerning
Washington, I have added, in an appendix, the conflicting
statement's of his private secretary, Tobias Lear, and of the Rev.
Mason L. Weems, as to his deathbed scene; as well as an appendix
from Sparks's 'Life of Washington,' with my own comments. In the
bibliography I have given an alphabetical index of the standard
histories and biographies I have consulted in the general
preparation of this work.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
4
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
Some may say, as I have heard others say, "Well, even if all
that is here said be true, it should not be published. We should be
permitted to hold intact our traditions and ideals of these men."
With this view I cannot agree. History and biography, if written at
all, should be written truthfully.
FRANKLIN STEINER.
Milwaukee, Wis., July 30, 1936.
**** ****
INTRODUCTION
A certain popular publication in a table giving information
concerning the Presidents of the United States has classified them
religiously as follows:
Friends (Quakers). Hoover.
Episcopalians. Washington, Madison, Monroe,
General W, H. Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, Pierce, Arthur.
Presbyterians. Jackson, Polk, Buchanan, Cleveland,
Benjamin Harrison, Wilson.
Methodists. Johnson, Grant, Hayes, McKinley.
Unitarians. John Adams, John Quincy Adams,
Fillmore, Taft.
Reformed Dutch. Van Buren, Roosevelt.
Disciples. Garfield.
Baptists. Harding.
Congregationalists. Coolidge.
A foot-note says: "Jefferson and Lincoln did not claim
membership in any Church."
While this is more accurate than most of the other tables
seen, it contains a number of errors. If a member of the Episcopal
Church is supposed to be a communicant, Washington and William
Henry Harrison were not Episcopalians; and there is no evidence
Madison, Monroe, Taylor, Tyler and Arthur were. The lumping
together of so many Presidents as Episcopalians is due to the fact
that St. John's Church of that denomination, in Washington, is now
located, as it was a hundred years ago, only 3,00 yards from the
Whit House, on Lafayette Square. St. John's has always been an
aristocratic exclusive church, and required certificates of social
standing from those who applied for membership. Once a young man
approached President Lincoln for an office. He brought
recommendations from the "bests people" in Washington and
elsewhere. After giving him the appointment, the President handed
his references back. The young man, surprised, remarked, "Mr.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
5
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
President, I thought you kept recommendation and put them on file."
"We generally do," said Lincoln, "but I though yours might be of
value to you in case you ever want to join St. John' Church." This
church, being so near the White House, was attended by, a number of
Presidents, regardless of their own Church affiliations or lack of
them, which is the reason some writers have classified them a
Episcopalians. For instance, President Van Buren attended here,
though at home, in Kinderhook, N.Y., he worshiped in the Dutch
Reform Church, the one in which he had been reared. Webster, Clay
and other great statesmen of the first half of the 19th Century
attended here because it was the fashionable church; though Clay
was not baptist until three years before he died, and Webster while
he lived in New Hampshire was a Congregationalist, and in Boston,
a Unitarian.
Jackson, Polk and Buchanan all joined the Presbyterian Church
after their terms in the White House had expired, as did Pierce the
Episcopal Church, although none of these three Presidents had
previously been members of any Church. Grant, Johnson and Hays were
not Methodists, though their wives were, which has been the excuse
for counting them as members of that Church.
The religious beliefs and Church preferences of our Presidents
have always been a topic of public interest. Yet no writer, as far
as I know, has ever investigated the subject thoroughly and given
accurate information. [NOTE: One writer, John E. Remsburg, in his
Six Historic Americans, has given the religious views of four
Presidents, Washington, Grant, Lincoln and Jefferson, which is the
only attempt I know of to do justice to the subject.] They have all
taken certain affiliations and beliefs for granted and have given
too much attention to rumor. Prejudice and self-interest have, with
many writers, taken the place of facts. Nearly 40 years ago I
became interested in the subject, and this work is the result of
what I can at least claim to be a conscientious investigation.
Two broad principles have guided me in seeking information
about the religious opinions of public men. First, when such a man
has in fact been religious, he has almost always made it known,
either by joining some Church representing his views or by
expressing them in other ways. When he has done neither, and his
biographer has had little or nothing to say of his religion, it can
be safely assumed that he had none that was strong or pronounced,
A man with religious convictions, particularly if they are of
the orthodox, popular type, has no hesitancy in proclaiming them;
in fact, such public profession is often to his advantage. If he
has none, or holds some that are unpopular, it is good policy to
say nothing about them. Both conditions have prevailed among public
men in the past and present.
My second rule leads me to conclude that where a noted man has
in fact been of a certain belief or a member of a certain Church,
the fact has never been disputed. For instance, no one has ever
denied that Gladstone was a communicant in the Church of England,
McKinley of the Methodist Church, Benjamin Harrison, Cleveland and
Wilson, of the Presbyterian Church. But in other cases, as those of
Washington and Lincoln, where there have been controversies, the
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
6
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
mass of evidence tends to prove the negative. In such cases, I
intend to give the evidence, pro and con (allowing the reader to
decide for himself), expressing no opinion, except where there
could be no other reasonable view. That the reader may have all the
information obtainable regarding the religious views of Washington,
I have placed in an appendix the account of his last sickness and
death, as minutely described by his secretary, Tobias Lear, who was
constantly present. In the same section I have given the view of
his biographer, Jared Sparks, who argues that Washington was an
orthodox believer. Regarding Lincoln, I have given the statements
of the friends who knew him intimately in Illinois, and who certify
that while he lived in that State he was a Freethinker of the type
of Thomas Paine, adding the assertions of ministers and others who
claim he was converted to orthodoxy in Washington.
In speaking of these two, the greatest of our Presidents, I am
aware that I shall make statements which will arouse criticism in
some quarters and hostility in others. This must be expected by any
writer unless he writes to be read only by a certain class of
people or to sustain set popular opinions. No writer of the present
day, if, he professes to write truthfully, can afford to ignore the
mythology that has entwined itself around the careers of great men.
In fact, some of them are better known by what they were not than
by what they were. Yet when a writer does paint them in their true
colors in history, he runs Counter to public prejudice. His
consolation and his vindication lie in the great number of the
myths of history which have been thoroughly exposed and are now
considered fable instead of fact. William Tell, Barhara Frietchie,
General Lee surrendering his sword to General Grant, John Brown
kissing the Negro child while on his way to the scaffold,
Washington praying in the snow, Lincoln and his cabinet on their
knees in prayer, are well-known instances of "The Myths of
History." As in all other departments of knowledge, the scientific
historical method must take the place of all those old traditions
which have not met the test of truth.
Many men, and particularly public men, are assigned to
membership in certain Churches because they sometimes accompany
their wives to divine services. Then others, whether they attend
church or not, are considered as believers and members because at
the proper time they write their checks for the church budget.
Every minister of standing will admit that neither of these acts is
evidence of religious belief, though some ministers will claim such
men as Christians as a means, of advertising their Churches, if
they are distinguished citizens of good, repute. It must also be
remembered that many men of prominence, politically, socially and
commercially, give a conventional adherence to the Church for fear
they might be suspected of "infidelity," which many of them regard
as a most dire accusation.
I do not evaluate the church preferences of the Presidents by
any of these criterions; but before I have called one of them a
Methodist, a Presbyterian, an Episcopalian, or a member of any
other Church, I have tried to satisfy myself by asking these
questions: Was he a believer in the creed of the particular Church?
Did he make a public profession? Did he observe the sacraments of
the Church and conform to its rules? These methods are observed in
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
7
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
judging the affiliations of other people, and why should it be
unfair to apply them to a consideration of the religious beliefs of
our Presidents?
At election time, the religious beliefs of the candidates
considered, perhaps more so today than in the past. In the election
of 1928 they were the chief issue. Yet in the face of this, it is
a strange fact that prior to the election of Benjamin Harrison, in
1888, there had not been one President who was unquestionably a
member of an orthodox Church at the time of his election. Those who
are familiar with Ben. Perley Poor's 'Reminiscences of 60 Years in
the National Metropolis,' published in 1886, will he impressed by
the fact that our statesmen of a century ago, including our
Presidents, gave more attention to the punch bowl than to the
communion cup. Under the Volstead regime the chief effort of our
Congressmen was to compel the people to keep sober, in which work
they were backed by the ministers, who, a hundred years ago, were
so busy seeking the salvation of souls from perdition that they had
no time to frame political platforms or select candidates for
office, to say nothing of keeping a card index telling of the
opinions and doings of Congressmen. Now all is changed. The Church
of today is in politics, sometimes more so than it is in religion.
It is said that 90 percent of our present Congressmen are church
members. It would be interesting, if it were possible, to know what
the writers a century hence will say of the Congressmen of our day.
It is to be hope they will tell how we took great strides in all
the other virtues, as well as in piety and sobriety; and that they
will point with pride to our Websters, Clays, Calhouns and Bentons,
as quite as great men as were those of the 1830's, but chastened by
grace, while those of old were not.
Since this work was finished, but before its publication, a
book was published in Boston which enables us to call attention to
the methods of some writers who in the past have written upon this
subject. It is entitled, 'The Religious Background of the White
House.' It is obviously more a book of religious propaganda than a
work of biography and history. It magnificently camouflages the
Presidents by stories of the Piety of their wives, fathers,
mothers, brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts. To say nothing of its
minor inaccuracies, it abounds in many statements now known to be
untrue, besides in many instances not giving well-known facts that
would place the Presidents in an entirely different light.
Speaking of Washington and Lincoln, this writer says (p. 330):
"Our first President was an habitual church attendant from his
earliest Years. He heads the list of Presidential communicants." Of
Lincoln (p. 346): "Abraham Lincoln, long regarded by many as an
Atheist [and who ever said that he was an Atheist? This writer
holds the very crude notion that every one who does not believe in
Christianity is an Atheist] and always cataloged with the
Presidents who never united with the church, appears from evidence
I herewith submit to have united with the Presbyterian Church three
months before his assassination."
It is needless to say that no writer of today who places
historic truth before zealotry in defense of an opinion will
maintain either of these contentions.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
8
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
As further proof that this writer is superficial in his
knowledge of the subject, and careless in his presentation, I refer
to certain statements regarding Presidents Monroe and Tyler. Of
President Monroe, he says (p. 212): "The Liberalism of Paine
religiously did not finally affect Monroe, however, for he
continued to worship according to the Episcopal ritual. That he
left the Paris mission to return to the United States may be
attributed as a reason why the Paine doctrines did not 'take'." And
again (p. 213): "Monroe's messages and state papers do not reflect
the deep religious fervor which has actuated many of our chief
executives. He has far fewer allusions to dependence on the divine
creator than other executives whom we are disposed to consider less
religious, and his correspondence fails to show any great religious
experience."
This writer is unfortunate in his dearth of knowledge both of
Paine and Monroe, and such ignorance is lamentable in one who
assumes to instruct the public. It is well known that Monroe left
Paris because he was recalled, and that neither the Liberalism of
Paine nor of anyone else had anything to do with it. The
Supposition is that he was recalled because of his too great
sympathy with the principles of the French Revolution, in which
case we can scarcely say that the Liberalism did not "take."
Of two other important facts the writer seems to be unaware,
and if he is aware of them he is guilty of the "sin of omission."
He does not state that as soon as possible after arriving in Paris,
Monroe had Paine released from the Luxembourg prison, and that the
former United States minister, Gouverneur Morris, refused to use
his influence to effect Paine's release. Then he does not tell, as
an impartial historian should, that after Paine's release from
prison Monroe took him to his own house, where he gave him a home
for a year. One of the brightest chapters in the career of James
Monroe was his courage in coming to the rescue of this greatly
hated and persecuted man, hated and persecuted because he had dared
to defy aristocracy and priestcraft.
Further, the writer of 'The Religious Background of the White
House' seems to be ignorant of another important fact, that Monroe
was returned to France 10 years later by President Jefferson, when,
in cooperation with Robert R. Livingston, he negotiated the treaty
that made the Louisiana Purchase possible.
The latter part of the writer's statement, that Monroe has
"fewer allusions to dependence on the divine creator than other
executives," and that "his correspondence fails to show any great
religious experience," seems to nullify his first assertion, for
which there is no evidence, that Monroe continued to worship
according to the Episcopal ritual.
In speaking of President Van Buren, the writer says (p. 360,):
"Martin Van Buren has always been classed as an attendant upon the
services of the Dutch Reformed denomination, and such was the case
most of his life. No biographer has claimed for him membership in
that body or in any other. He is always included in the group of
Presidents who never joined the church. The writer of this,
however, browsing throughout the records and data of Columbia
County, New York, has discovered evidence of Van Buren's church
membership."
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
9
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
I have searched every book I could find that might give
evidence of President Van Buren's church membership, including his
Autobiography, published by authority of the United States
government, a biography by Mr. Edward M. Shepard, and a more recent
biography by Denis Tilden Lynch. I have found no such evidence. If
the writer of 'The Religious Background of the White House' was so
fortunate as to discover it, "in the records and historical, data
of Columbia County, New York," he would have done searchers after
truth a great service had he told them in what "document," or
volume and page he found it. This he has failed to do. He admits
that President Van Buren did not join any church in Washington, or
in his home town of Kinderhook, N.Y., but would have us believe,
without giving his authority, that he did join a church in Hudson,
N.Y.
This reminds us of his other assertion, that Lincoln did not
join the New York Avenue Presbyterian church, which he attended
when he attended any church, and whose pastor, Rev. Dr. Gurley, was
a friend of his family; but did join another Presbyterian church in
Washington "three months before his assassination." It is extremely
improbable that Lincoln, "three months before his assassination,"
amidst the pressing cares of state, at a time when the war
situation was most acute, would find time to wander among the
different Washington churches to find one that he cared to join. No
one has the right to ask us to believe this without the best of
evidence. It is on a par with the silly yarns that Lincoln traveled
in disguise to Brooklyn during the war to consult Henry Ward
Beecher, for whom he had no use, and in the same manner was
smuggled into Washington for the inauguration. It is like another
story our writer tells of Washington begging the communion of a
Presbyterian minister, when he never took it in the Episcopal
churches he was in the habit of attending -- which yarn he tells
without the slightest thought that when an investigation was made
no one would be able to find a word of evidence that it ever
occurred.
But the evidence given by our writer for Lincoln joining a
church "three months before his assassination," which would make it
happen in January, 1865, is so curious that my readers may be
pleased to inspect it, as a matter of amusement. An utterly unknown
man, one Reiper, appears to have written ex-President James
Buchanan that Lincoln had "joined the church." Mr. Buchanan replied
in a brief letter, on February 24, 1865, in which he said he was
glad to hear it and hoped be had done so in sincerity. This letter
is to be found in the 'Life and Letters of James Buchanan' (vol.
xi, p. 380).
We need ask but three questions and this story annihilates
itself. What were Mr. Reaper's means of knowing this to be a fact?
If he had learned it from reliable sources, why did he impart the
information solely to Mr. Buchanan? How does it happen that he knew
of it, and no one else was ever informed of its occurrence? It
seems to have been the secret of one man. When Calvin Coolidge, a
much lesser man than Abraham Lincoln, joined a church in
Washington, we were told which church it was, and the newspapers
telegraphed the fact throughout the country. Who has the temerity
to assert that Abraham Lincoln joined a church in the capital to
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
10
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
the knowledge of but one man, and he, so far as is known, told of
it to but one other man? With these comments we can dismiss the
story.
Of Julia Gardner Tyler, the second wife of President Tyler,
and his widow, the writer of 'The Religious Background of the White
House' says (p. 296): "Julia Gardner Tyler died in the Exchange
Hotel, Richmond, July 10, 1889, in her, 70th year, in a home-like
room which was opposite that in which her distinguished husband
died more than 17 years before." The writer did not appear to know
that President Tyler died in the Exchange Hotel, more than 27 years
before, on January 18, 1862.
This work was not written for the purpose of upholding any
Church or any religion, nor is it intended to promote irreligion.
It merely endeavors to tell the truth, so far as it is to be found,
regarding the views held of time and eternity, by the 31 men who,
from the foundation of our government, have sat in its executive
chair. It will be seen that in some cases their opinions widely
differed, which is a noble tribute to the American principles of
religious liberty and separation of Church and state.
CHAPTER I.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, THE VESTRYMAN WHO WAS NOT
A COMMUNICANT
Born, February 22, 1732. Died, December 14, 1799,
President, April 30, 1779 -- March 4, 1797.
FOREWORD.
That much myth and legend is to be found in most of the past
biographies of George Washington is admitted by practically all
conscientious and discriminating writer's of today. That the
"Father of His Country" has been delineated more in the character
of a god or a superman than as a real human being is a fact now
known to all who think as well as read. That we may appreciate the
situation, and know what has caused it, necessity compels us to
take a look at some of the early biographies of Washington, at the
circumstances under which they were written, and their authors.
The,first 'Life of Washington,' and the one that has had the
largest circulation, was written by the Rev. Mason L. Weems, and
first published in 1800. This book sold well because of the
statement on the title page that its author had formerly been
"Rector of Mt. Vernon Parish." It passed through 80 editions, and
more people have known Washington and known him exclusively by
means of it, than through any other book. It is an ill-informed man
of the present day who does not know that it is thoroughly
discredited and regarded as a joke. Houoghton, Mifflin &,Co., the
Boston publishers, have issued 'The literature of American
History,' a practical anthology upon the subject. This states that
if the "f" had been left out of the "life," making the title of
Weems' book, 'The Lie of Washington,' its real character would be
aptly described. From it we have inherited most of the ridiculous
stories, one of which is that of the cherry tree, told of
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
11
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
Washington's youth and manhood. In 1927, a new edition was
published as a literary curiosity. The editor, Mark Van Doren,
speaks of its merits as follows:
"Parson Weems' celebration of George Washington first
appeared in 1800, and ran through as many as 70 editions
before it died a natural and deserved death. It died because
it had done its work with complete effectiveness. Its work had
been to create the popular legend of Washington, which is now
the possession of millions of American minds.
"Weems was neither a 'Parson,' nor 'formerly rector of
Mt. Vernon parish,' but a professional writer of tracts and
biographies. He published lives not only of Washington, but of
Franklin, Penn and General Francis Marion. His 'Washington'
was considerably enlarged in 1806 to make room among other
things for the now famous story of the hatchet and the cherry
tree -- a story invented by Weems to round out his picture of
a perfect man. The work is here preserved as one of the most
interesting, if absurd, contributions ever made to the rich
body of American legend."
Albert J. Beveridge, in his 'Life of John Marshall' (vol. 3,
pp. 231 - 232), describes the Rev. Mr. Weems in these words:
"Mason Locke Weems, part Whitefield, part Villain, a
delightful mingling of evangelist and vagabond, lecturer and
Politician, writer and musician.
"Weems, 'Life of Washington' still enjoys a good sale. It
has been one of the most widely purchased and read books in
our history, and has Profoundly influenced the American
conception of Washington. To it we owe the grotesque and
wholly imaginary stories of the cherry tree, the planting of
the lettuce by his father to prove to the boy the designs of
providence and the anecdotes that make the intensely human
founder of the American nation an impossible and intolerable
prig."
Bishop Meade, in 'Old Churches, Ministers and Families of
Virginia' (vol. 2, p. 234), says of Weems: "If some may by
comparison be called 'nature's noblemen,' he might surely have been
pronounced one of 'nature's oddities!' ... To suppose him to have
been a kind of private chaplain to such a man as Washington, as has
been the impression of some, is the greatest of incongruities."
Bishop Meade admits that he was eccentric and unreliable.
Among the earliest biographies of Washington was one written
by John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United
States, with the approbation of Judge Bushrod Washington, a nephew
of Washington and also a Judge of the Supreme Court. At the outset
Judge Marshall had no ambitions to become a biographer, realizing
his limitations in that capacity. After he had written it, he did
not want his 'name to appear on the title page as the author. The
book was a ponderous literary monstrosity. It tells little of the
private or personal life of Washington, mentions his name but twice
in the first volume, but combines with his biography a history of
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
12
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
the United States. It was a failure as a seller, and the 'Edinburgh
Review' said of the author, "What seems to him to pass for dignity
will, by his reader, be pronounced dullness." [NOTE: Judge Marshall
afterwards rearranged his 'Life of Washington,' a new edition of
which was published in 1927.] (See Beveridge's Life of Marshall
(vol. 3, PP. 223273).
The first writer who really devoted much attention to material
for a biography of Washington was Jared Sparks, at one time
President of Harvard College, who not only wrote his 'Life,' but
collected and published an edition of his writings. In doing this,
as well as in his other efforts in American history, Dr. Sparks has
placed future generations under great obligation. He was a pioneer
in historical investigation. Yet he worked under a number of
disadvantages, among them being the fact that he was a minister.
Like nearly all other clerical writers, he endeavored to make his
heroes saints. He corrected Washington's spelling and grammar, well
known to have been poor. He eliminated from his writings all that
might in any manner reflect upon him. Instead of a man of flesh and
blood, Dr. Sparks gives us a beautifully chiseled statue. More
conscientious and careful than his predecessor Weems, he yet
follows him in some of his errors.
Considering that both Weems and Sparks, who place Washington
in such an unenviable light, were clergymen, it was with some
pertinency that William Roscoe Thayer said, "Well might the Father
of his Country pray to be delivered from the parsons."
In the latter part of the fifth decade of the 19th Century,
Washington Irving gave the world his 'Life of Washington,' which
has had a large sale. Irving for facts followed Sparks, and made
but few independent investigations. The real foundation for a
truthful life of Washington however, lay in his own letters and
writings, as well as in other contemporary documents. Sparks did a
great service to American history in bringing some of these to
light, even though he was prejudiced in his ideas, and imperfect in
his method. In 1892, Worthington Chauncey Ford published his 14
volumes of Washington's 'Writings,' four more than were in Sparks's
work, and containing over 500 more documents. Speaking of Sparks's
methods of depicting Washington, Mr, Ford says:
"In spite, however, of all that can be said in praise of Mr.
Sparks's work, it must be admitted that his zeal led him into a
serious error of judgment, so common to hero-worshipers, not only
doing his own reputation, as an editor, an injury, but what is of
greater moment, conveying a distorted idea of Washington's personal
character and abilities -- an idea that was, rapidly developing
into a cult, from which it is still difficult to break away, and in
which it is dangerous to express unbelief. Not only did the editor
omit sentences, words, proper names, and even paragraphs without
notice to the reader', but he materially altered the sense and
application of important portions of the letters. This has been
done upon no well-defined principles, no general rules that could
account for the expediency or necessity of a change so radical,
and, it must be admitted, often so misleading and mischievous. The
interesting study that might be based upon the gradual mental
development of the man from youth to old age is rendered impossible
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
13
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
by Mr. Sparks's methods of treating the written record, and
consequently the real character of Washington as a man is as little
known today as it was to the generation that followed him."
(preface to Writings of George Washington, vol. 1, pp. 18 and 19.)
In 1925 John C. Fitzpatrick compiled Washington's 'Diaries,'
which were published in four volumes by Houghton, Mifflin & Co.
These had been widely scattered. Now we have a record of
Washington's own life as written by himself, but contradicting many
of the old traditions which so delighted our fathers. Mr. Ford was
the chief of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress
from 1902 until 1909. Mr. Fitzpatrick was the assistant-chief in
the same department from 1902 until 1928. In 1926 Mr. Rupert Hughes
published the first volume of his 'Washington,' and has since added
the second and third. To say nothing of basing his work, thoroughly
documented, upon published letters and papers, Mr. Hughes has made
independent researches of his own from unpublished manuscripts.
Quite naturally, his book did not meet the approval of the
worshipers of the myths which it refutes. Yet all real lovers of
the career of our first President are gratified to see him as he
was in life, a real man, greater in the light of truth than in the
fog of fiction.
Washington in character and manner was reserved. He kept his
own counsel, and few had his confidence. He expressed himself only
when he thought it necessary to do so. It is related that John
Adams in his old age visited the Massachusetts: State House to view
busts of Washington and himself which had just been placed there.
Pointing to the compressed lips on the face of Washington, he said,
"There was a man who had sense enough to keep his mouth shut." Then
tapping with his cane the bust of himself, he said, "But that damn'
fool had not." Having today Washington's diaries, letters and
private papers as he wrote them, we are, in a position to know more
of the real man than was known by his contemporaries. To them he
was an enigma.
Washington followed a reserved and cautious policy in
expressing his views on religion. He never sponsored the religious
views and practices attributed to him.
It has been vigorously asserted, for the greater part by those
who have had an interest in doing so, that George Washington was a
very religious man, and a devout member of the Protestant Episcopal
Church, of which he was also vestryman. They say:
That he was one of the most regular of church attendants; that
no contingency could arise which would keep him from the house of
God on the Sabbath; that if he had company he would go regardless,
and invite his visitors to accompany him.
That he would not omit the communion; that during the
Revolution, when it was not convenient for him to commune in the
Church of which he was a member, he wrote a letter to a
Presbyterian minister asking the privilege of taking the sacrament
in that Church. [NOTE: According to one story, he wrote a letter.
According to another, he made a verbal request.] That he was a man
of prayer, and was often found at his private devotions.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
14
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
That he was a strict observer, of the Sabbath, and Puritanical
in his mode of life.
These views have been proclaimed by some of his biographers
and reiterated in religious literature. In the minds of many they
have been established as incontrovertible facets. Yet Washington
had not been dead a third of a century before all these Statements
were as Strongly contested by some as they were affirmed by others.
Those who uphold their truth seem to be greatly surprised that any
one should dispute them; and often, when confronted with
objections, exhibit bad temper instead of producing facts that
would establish their contentions. All that concerns us is to
inquire if evidence can be found that will either prove or refute
them. Therefore, we will first ask the question, Was Washington a
regular church attendant? The Rev. Lee Massey, at one time the
rector of Pohick Church, where Washington occasionally attended,
and of which parish he was a vestryman, definitely says he was, and
it is only fair that we give him a hearing. Says Mr. Massey:
"I never knew so constant an attendant in church as
Washington. And his behavior in the house of God was ever so
deeply reverential that it produced the happiest effect on my
congregation, and greatly assisted me in my pulpit labors. No
company ever withheld him from church. I have often been at
Mt. Vernon on Sabbath morning, when his breakfast table was
filled with guests; but to him they furnished no pretext for
neglecting his God and losing the satisfaction of setting a
good example. For instead of staying at home, out of false
complaisance to them, he used constantly to invite them to
accompany him." (Quoted in The True George Washington, by Paul
Leicester Ford, pp. 77-78.)
This would be quite convincing were it confirmed by Washington
himself; but unfortunately in the four large volumes of his
'Diaries,' where he tells, "Where and How My Time Is Spent," he
directly and positively contradicts it.
We will divide the Diary into four periods, using only such
years as are complete. First, before the Revolution; second, after
the Revolution; third, while he was President, and fourth, after
his second term as ended. During the Revolution he discontinued the
Diary. We find in 1768 that he went to church 15 times, in 1769, 10
times, in 1770, nine times, in 1771, six times, and the same number
in 1772. In 1773, he went five times, while in 1774 he went 18
times, his banner year outside of the Presidency. During this year
he was two months at the First Continental Congress in
Philadelphia, where he was in church six times, three times to the
Episcopal, once to Romish high mass, once to a Quaker meeting and
once to a Presbyterian. In 1784, after the Revolution, he was in
the West a long time looking after his land interests, so we will
omit this year. In 1785 he attended church just once, but spent
many of his Sundays in wholly "secular" pursuits. In 1786 he went
once.
These last two year's he was so busy with the work on his farm
and other business affairs that he seems to have forgotten the
Church almost entirely. In 1787 he went three times. This was the
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
15
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
year he was present at and presided over the Constitutional
Convention in Philadelphia. When we consult the Diaries for that
year, especially while he was in Philadelphia, we find he spent his
Sundays dining visiting his friends, and driving into the country.
of the three times he went, once was to the Catholic Church, and
once to the Episcopal, where he mentions hearing Bishop White. In
1788, he attended church once. The Diaries deal many hard blows to
the mythical Washington, above all to the myth that he went
regularly to church.
In 1789, he became President, during which time the Diary is
incomplete, and it is impossible to account for all the Sundays.
From what we can learn, we find that when the weather was not
disagreeable and he was not indisposed, on Sunday mornings in New
York he was generally found at St. Paul's Chapel or Trinity. In
Philadelphia he attended either Christ Church, presided over by
Bishop White, or St. Peter's, where the Rev. Dr. Abercrombie
officiated. This was to be expected. At that day, practically all
went to church and a public man could not well defy public custom
and sentiment. Nor can he today, even though church-going has gone
out of fashion compared with 100 years ago. Washington spent his
Sunday afternoons while President writing private letters and
attending to his own business affairs. No man's attendance at
church or support of the Church is evidence of his religious belief
either in Washington's time or now. Any honest minister will admit
this. After Washington retired from the Presidency his own master,
and free from criticism, he went to church as few times as
possible, for in 1797 he attended four times, in 1798, once, and in
1799, the year of his death, twice. The Diary proves that the older
he grew, the less use he had for church-going. And only twice in
the Diary does he ever comment upon the sermon; once, when he
called it "a lame discourse," and again when he said it was in
German and he could not understand it. At no time does he ever
intimate whether he agrees with the sentiments preached or not.
This is significant.
We are compelled to agree with the comment of Mr. Paul
Leicester Ford, who, in speaking of the Rev. Mr. Massey's [NOTE:
Bishop Meade says the Rev. Mr. Massey was originally a lawyer.]
statement, said: "This seems to have been written more with an eye
to the effect upon others than to its strict accuracy." Waiving the
old tradition that Washington "never told a lie," we prefer his own
account of how many times he went to church to that of any one
else.
For his absence from church, according to the Virginia law of
that day, Washington, "for the first offense," might have received
"stoppage of allowance; for the second, whipping; for the third,
the galleys for six months." Law enforcement at this time was
evidently very lax.
That Washington was a vestryman has no special significance
religiously. In Virginia, this office was also political. The
vestry managed the civil affairs of the parish, among others, the
assessment of taxes. Being the largest property holder in the
parish, Washington could hardly afford not to be a vestryman, which
office he would have to hold before he could become a member of the
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
16
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
House of Burgesses. Thomas Jefferson, a pronounced unbeliever, was
also a vestryman, and for the same reasons. General A.W. Greeley
once said, in 'The Ladies Home Journal,' that in that day "it
required no more religion to be a vestryman than it did to sail a
ship." It is remarkable, after the civil functions of the vestry
were abolished in Virginia, in 1780, how few times Washington
attended church. He no longer had a business reason for going. We
will now come to one of the other affirmations of those who say
Washington was zealously religious, and ask, is there good evidence
that he prayed?
In the fall of 1925 I was on a visit to New York City after an
absence of some years. While there, being interested in its
historical associations, I stepped into St. Paul's Chapel, located
on the corner of Broadway and Vesey Street. I took a look at the
pew in this old church, erected in 1776, in which it is said George
Washington sat when he attended services while President of the
United States, when the seat of government was located in New York
City. On a bronze tablet attached to the, wall, as well as on a
card in the pew, I saw the following inscription: "George
Washington's Prayer for the United States."
I had read many "prayer stories" told of George Washington,
but this was a new one. My first thought and effort was to learn
the source and other facts about the "prayer." I wrote the vicar of
St. Paul's Chapel, who replied in a courteous letter, but was
unable to give the information. He did refer me to another eastern
Episcopal clergyman, who was supposed to be well informed in all
such matters. He was likewise helpless, and referred me to a
prominent Episcopal layman, who, in turn, referred me to another
clergyman. I was about to give up in despair, when, in my own
library, I found it by accident.
In 1783, shortly before Washington resigned his commission as
commander-in-chief, a financial stringency, accompanied by anarchy
and riots, swept the country. The soldiers demanded their pay,
which Congress was unable to provide. Something had to be done to
alleviate the distress and discontent. Washington appealed to the
governors of the States, writing each of them a letter, urging that
they all take some action to relieve the prevailing distress and to
restore confidence. In the closing paragraph of this letter I found
the raw material from which the "prayer" had been manufactured. I
quote them here, capitalizing in the "prayer" those words the
prayer-makers have interpolated, and in the original, the words
they have omitted.
The Alleged Prayer
(added words in capital letters)
ALMIGHTY GOD, WE MAKE OUR EARNEST PRAYER THAT THOU WILT KEEP
THESE UNITED STATES in THY holy protection, that THOU wilt incline
the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination
and obedience to government; to entertain a brotherly affection and
love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United
States at large, And finally that THOU wilt most graciously be
pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy and to
demean ourselves with that charity, humility and pacific temper of
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
17
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our
blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of Whose example
in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. GRANT OUR
SUPPLICATION, WE BESEECH THEE, THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD. AMEN.
(Engraved on a bronze tablet in St. Paul's Chapel, Broadway and
Vesey Streets, New York City.)
Its Source
(omitted words in capital letters)
"I NOW MAKE IT MY EARNEST PRAYER, THAT GOD WOULD HAVE YOU, AND
THE STATE OVER WHICH YOU PRESIDE, in HIS holy protection; that HE
would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of
subordination and obedience to government; to entertain a brotherly
affection and love for one another, for their fellow-citizens of
the United States at large, AND PARTICULARLY FOR THEIR BRETHREN WHO
HAVE SERVED IN THE FIELD; and finally, that HE would most
graciously be pleased to dispose us all to justice, to love mercy,
and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility and pacific
temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author
of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose
examples in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation.
"I HAVE THE HONOR TO BE, WITH MUCH ESTEEM AND RESPECT, SIR,
YOUR EXCELLENCY'S MOST OBEDIENT AND MOST HUMBLE SERVANT. -- G.
WASHINGTON." (Found in Ford's 'Writings of Washington,' vol. x, p.
265.)
In making a prayer from this last paragraph of a letter to
civil magistrates the prayer promoters have committed sins both of
omission and commission:
Instead of "sir," with which Washington begins his letter to
the governors, they have written, "Almighty God, we make our
earnest prayer, etc." Washington in the original speaks in the
first person, singular. He does not speak directly to God, but he
makes an earnest prayer, or wish that God will do a certain thing.
The prayer makers use the first person plural and speak to God
directly. They have omitted "and the state over which you preside,"
and "for their brethren who have served in the field." Instead of
Washington's closing, "I have the honor to be, sir, etc.," they
have substituted, "Grant our supplication, we beseech Thee, through
Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
That they should add this last phrase, with which all the
prayers in the Episcopal prayer book terminate, was unfortunate
when we consider that nowhere in Washington's writings does he
mention directly or by name Jesus Christ. When he was a boy of 13,
he wrote in a copy book,
Assist me, Muse divine, to sing the morn,
On which the Savior of mankind was born.
(See Sparks's Washington, p. 519.)
The only other case is in this letter to the governors, where
he speaks "of the Divine Author of our blessed religion." In Rupert
Hughes' 'Washington,' vol. 3, p. 290, is a facsimile of the last
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
18
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
page of the letter, proving that it is not in the handwriting of
Washington, but in that of one of his secretaries. While there is
no doubt that Washington wrote or dictated the original, the words
in his own handwriting do not exist. He gave his ideas to his
secretaries, who used their own embellishments. A legal definition
of forgery reads, "Forgery consists not only in signing a false
name to an instrument, but also in the alteration of an instrument
that was otherwise genuine, the rule requiring that the alteration
should be in a material part."
It must be conceded, that this "prayer" closely approaches the
definition of forgery. As evidence of how fictions will circulate,
and become more powerful as they go, 'The New York World Almanac,'
for 1930, P. 906, says: "This prayer, it is said, was made by
Washington at St. Paul's Church, following his inauguration in the
old Federal Building on the North side of Wall Street, facing Broad
Street." It was probably hoped that those not familiar with the
history of the prayer, Which means the majority, would assume this
to be an accepted fact.
Washington must have been "powerful in prayer" if we are to
believe two other stories told of his attempts to reach the "throne
of grace." Some 30 years ago it was proclaimed that in his youth he
composed a prayer book for his own use, containing a prayer for
five days, beginning with Sunday and ending with Thursday. The
manuscript of this prayer book was said to have been found among
the contents of an old trunk. It was printed and facsimiles
published. Clergymen read it from the altar, one of them saying it
contained so much "spirituality" that he had to stop, as he could
not control his emotions while reading it.
Yet, while this prayer book was vociferously proclaimed to
have been written by Washington, there was not an iota of evidence
that he ever had anything to do with it, or that it even ever
belonged to him. A little investigation soon pricked the bubble.
Worthington C. Ford, who had handled more of Washington's
manuscripts than any other man except Washington himself, declared
that the penmanship was not that of washington. Rupert Hughes
(Washington, vol. 1, p. 658) gives facsimile specimens of the
handwriting in the prayer book side by side with known specimens of
Washington's penmanship at the time the prayer book was supposed to
have been written. A glance proves that they are not by the same
hand.
Then in the prayer book manuscript all of the words are
spelled correctly, while Washington was a notoriously poor speller.
But the greatest blow it received was when the Smithsonian
Institute refused to accept it as a genuine Washington relic. That
Washington did not compose it was proved by Dr. W.A. Croffutt, a
newspaper correspondent of the Capital, who traced the source of
some of the prayers to an old prayer brook in the Congressional
Library printed, in the reign of James the First.
Even the Rev. W. Herbert Burk, rector of the Episcopal Church
of Valley Forge, although a firm believer in Washington's
religiosity, thus speaks of these prayers: "At present, the
question is an open one, and its settlement will depend on the
discovery of the originals, or upon the demonstration that they are
the work of Washington."
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
19
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
While the "Washington Prayer Book" was thoroughly discredited,
there is another prayer yarn told of him that will not die so
easily. United States histories, Sunday School papers and religious
tracts have sustained its life. The United States government has
emblazoned it in bronze on the front of the Subtreasury building in
New York City. In 1928, the Postmaster-General issued $2,000,000.
in postage stamps to commemorate it. When he was informed that it
was a fiction and the real facts presented to him, he replied that
he was too busy to correct the mistakes of history. As a romance it
is always worth telling. The scene was laid in Valley Forge, in the
winter of 1777-78, while Washington's army was in winter quarters,
suffering from hunger, nakedness and cold, when many had abandoned
all hope of success. There, Isaac Potts, a Quaker, at whose house
Washington is said to have had his headquarters, when walking in
the woods on a cold winter day, saw Washington on his knees in the
snow engaged in prayer, his hat off and his horse tied to a
sapling.
This story was first told by our old acquaintance, Weems, the
great protagonist of Washington mythology, He does not give his
authority for telling it, but others have added to the account. We
can clear Isaac Potts of all complicity in foisting it upon the
world, as he never told it or certified to its truth. The nearest
we can approach him is that some old person said he had told it.
The Rev. E.C. M'Guire, in a book entitled 'The Religious Opinions
and Character of Washington,' published in 1836, quotes a man 80
years old, one Devault Beaver, who claims he received the story
from Potts and his family.
In 1862, James Ross Snowden wrote a letter to the Rev. T.W.J.
Wylie, minister of the First Reformed Presbyterian Church of
Philadelphia, in which he said his father. N.R. Snowden, had heard
the incident from Potts. He said he could not find his father's
papers, in which it is claimed he wrote an account of it. He admits
that Weems told the story in a different manner from his father's
version, but insists that his father told it correctly. As in all
of these fables, when evidence is sought, some link in the chain is
lost. The character of the proof is shady. The word of very old men
is always to be taken with a grain of allowance, especially when
uncorroborated. I once talked with an old man of 87 who claimed
that he had seen Lafayette, Charles Carron, of Carronton, and
Martha Washington. Upon an investigation, I found it possible that
he had seen the first two, but as his birth record showed him to
have been born in 1802, the year Martha Washington died, it is
certain that he never saw her.
We sometimes speak of incredible stories as "old wives'
tales," not thinking that similar stories told by old men are in
the same category. This payer story is told with variations.
According to Weems, Potts accidentally finds Washington at prayer.
Being attracted by a sound in "a venerable grove," he looks into it
and finds him pouring forth his soul to God, his countenance being
of "angelic serenity," these two expressions being added to give a
dramatic and romantic effect. Weems makes Potts a patriot, who,
after watching Washington's struggle with the Almighty, rushes into
his house with great glee, and shouts to his wife, "Sarah! My dear
Sarah! all's well! all's well! George Washington will yet prevail!"
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
20
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
telling her what he had seen. According to the story as told by the
Rev. Mr. M'Guire, Potts was a Tory, as most Quakers were, and he
makes him say to his wife, not calling her by any Christian name,
"Our cause is lost." He seemed to think the revolutionary conflict
would be settled by Washington's prayer. Instead of Potts's coming
upon Washington suddenly, hearing a sound in the grove, and upon
investigating finding the Commander-in-Chief at his orisons, as
told by Weems, M'Guire makes him follow the General for some time
to see where he was going and what he was going to do, when, lo, he
saw him get down on his knees in the snow and pray. According to
the Snowden account, Potts's wife's name was not Sarah, but Betty.
He represents him as now willing to support the cause of America,
does not tell what his views were previously. The prayer causing
the Quaker to change from a Tory to a patriot was no doubt the work
of some later artist who wished the fable to be more effective.
The Rev. M.J. Savage says:
"The pictures that represent him on his knees in the
winter forest at Valley Forge are even silly caricatures.
Washington was at least not sentimental, and he had nothing
about him of the Pharisee that displays his religion at street
corners or out in the woods in the sight of observers, of
observers, or where his portrait could be taken by 'our
special artist!'"
Benson J. Lossing, in his 'Field Book of the Revolution' (vol.
2, p. 336), also gives an account of this historical prayer, but
does not mention the source from which he obtained it. Like Weems,
he tells that Potts was attracted by a noise in the grove, but
while none of the other chroniclers say anything about Washington's
having a horse, Lossing speaks of "his horse tied to a sapling,"
and instead of the General's face being a "countenance of angelic
serenity," he says it was "suffused with tears." A reasonable
question to ask is, "Can there be found any evidence that
Washington was a 'praying man?"
Bishop White, whose church he attended on and off for 25 years
in Philadelphia, says he never saw him on his knees in church. This
ought to settle the question. If he did not kneel in church, who
will believe that he did so on the ground, covered with snow, with
his hat off, when the thermometer, was probably below zero?
As further proof that the story is fictitious, there is reason
to believe that Isaac Potts did not live in Valley Forge at the
time Washington's army was there, in the winter of 1777-1778. Mr.
Myers of the Valley Forge Park Commission, recently admitted this.
That Potts did not own the house at the time is established by
Washington's account book, where it is proved that the rent for
headquarters was paid to Mrs. Deborah Hawes, and the receipts were
made out in her name. Potts bought the house when the war was over.
There is yet another story of Washington's praying in the
bushes at Princeton, which we will not dilate upon now. But Valley
Forge was the most prolific in legends. During the same winter that
Potts caught Washington praying in the snow, the Rev. John Gano,
Baptist preacher, is said to have cut the ice in the river, and
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
21
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
baptized the commander-in-chief by immersion in the presence of 42
people, all sworn to secrecy! And this has been confirmed by a
grandson of the Rev. Gano in an affidavit made at the age of 83
years! But the entire story is discredited by the fact that the
Rev. Gano was not at Valley Forge, and that he served with
Clinton's, and not with Washington's, army. For proof, see
'Biographical Memoirs of the Rev. John Gano,' also Headingly's
'Chaplains of the Revolution.'
Thwarted in their attempts to find evidence that Washington
was publicly a pious man, those interested have tried to prove that
he was privately devout, and prayed clandestinely. If any were in
a position to know of this it would be his own family. His adopted
daughter, and step-granddaughter, Nellie Custis, wrote Mr. Sparks
in 1833, when Washington's alleged piety was called into question
and it was necessary to find evidence to prove it, "I never
witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them." (See
Sparks's Washington, p. 522.) She professes to think he was a
believer, and mentions persons having told her they had seen him
pray years ago, but all of the evidence is of this character --
always second hand. It will be necessary to show what interest
Washington had in making the public think he was not religious,
when in fact he was in private. In this he would be as much of a
deceiver as those who are religious in public and not in private.
And a really religious man believes in "letting his light shine."
If, like Washington, he is not a religious man, and at the same
time honest, not wishing to offend his friends who are religious,
he will take a non-committal attitude. The more we know of the real
character of George Washington, the more we find him to have been
a man who refrained from subterfuge.
George Washington Parke Custis, a step-grandson and adopted
son of Washington, wrote, from time to time, a series of articles
for newspapers. giving his recollections of his adopted father. He
was but 18 when Washington died, in 1799, and his own death
occurred in 1857. His articles were, after his death, collected and
edited by B.J. Lossing and published in book form. His, statements
vary greatly when compares with those of others who knew
Washington. In fact, he, as a mythologist, is assigned next place
to Weems. He says that Washington, standing, was in the habit of
asking the blessing at the table. Of the hundreds who had dined
with Washington, no one confirms this. But it is interesting to
read the statement of one who did dine with him and thought he was
asking the blessing but found for it no confirmation.
Commissary-General Claude Blanchard dined with Washington, and
gives in his Journal the following account:
"There was a clergyman at this dinner who blessed the
food and said grace after they had done eating and had brought
in the wine. I was told that General Washington said grace
when there was no clergyman at the table, as fathers of a
family do in America. The first time that I dined with him
there was no clergyman and I did not perceive that he made
this prayer, yet I remember that, on taking his place at the
table, he made a gesture and said a ward, which I took for a
piece of politeness, and which was perhaps a religious action.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
22
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
In this case his prayer must have been short; the clergyman
made use of more forms. We remained a very long time at the
table. They drank 12 or 15 healths with Madeira wine, In the
course of the meal beer was served and grum, rum mixed with
water."
This, rather than proving that Washington prayed at the
dinner, rather proves that they all liberally celebrated the
sacrament.
Those who think they find in Washington's praying in the snow
at Valley Forge an evidence of the effteacy of prayer will find
that a long time elapsed between the time he besought God, and the
realization. During the remainder of his life he was not without
trials and tribulations. After the battle of Monmouth, in 1778, he
did not fight another battle for three years, chiefly because of
want of guns, clothing and ammunition for his men. In the meantime
the British raided the coast of Connecticut, burning and
destroying. Arnold's treason almost succeeded, in which case, all
would have been lost. The British invaded and conquered Georgia and
the Carolinas. They subdued the inhabitants with great cruelty, and
were about to subject Virginia to the same fate. Whether prayer was
responsible for it or not, the real Providence of Washington and
the country manifested itself in the form of French assistance, At
Yorktown, in 1781, Washington, with 9,000 of his own troops,
General Rochambeau with 7,000 French soldiers, Admiral De Grasse
with 42 French ships of the line and 19,000 French seamen,
surrounded Lord Cornwallis, who had an inferior force, and
compelled him to surrender. This would not have been possible had
Thomas Paine and John Laurens not journeyed to France in February,
1781, and on August 25 returned to Boston with a shipload of
clothing, arms and ammunition, and 2,500,000, livres of silver, to
clothe Washington's ragged and unpaid soldiers and place in their
hands arms fit to use in battle.
But it is not likely that the Valley Forge prayer story will
die soon. It is too good a "property" to abandon, for the Rev. W.
Herbert Burk, the Valley Forge rector, is working hard to erect a
million dollar church to commemorate it. He also stands sponsor for
the prayer in St. Paul's Chapel in New York City. Bishop Warburton
once said: "A lie has no legs and cannot stand, but it has wings
and can fly far and wide."
Was Washington a Communicant? Here we must also enter the
realm of myth before looking at homely facts. While the Episcopal
Church has nursed the myths of Washington's praying, in the
Presbyterian Church are embalmed those asserting that he took
communion. Strange to say, the Episcopal Church, while claiming him
as a member and believer, seldom claims him as a communicant. The
evidence of clergymen who knew Washington and whose churches he
attended is very destructive to this myth.
In the Philadelphia Presbyterian Hospital is a large painting
of Washington taking the communion at an out-door service, supposed
have been held under the apple trees in Morristown, N.J. Those who
hold that this picture represents an historical incident are agreed
as to the place, but they differ as to the date. One says it
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
23
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
happened in 1777, while another says 1780. As the story is
generally told, Washington addressed a letter to a Presbyterian
minister, the Rev. Dr. Johnes, asking him if he would admit to the
communion a member of another Church. The clergyman replied,
"Certainly. this is not a Presbyterian table, but the Lord's
table," as Jared Sparks relates it in the chapter in his 'Life of
Washington' which is devoted to the first President's religious
opinions and habits. Accordingly, we are told, Washington attended
the meeting and partook of the sacrament. sparks gives as his
authority Dr. Hosacks' 'life of De Witt Clinton.' Dr. Hosack's
authority was the Rev. Samuel H. Cox, who tells us he had it "from
unquestionable authority ... a venerable clergyman, who had it from
Dr. Johnes himself." But he thinks that "to all Christians, and to
all Americans, it cannot fail to be acceptable." (Sparks's
'Washington,' pp. 523, 524.) As in other cases, a link in the chain
of evidence is missing, and we are asked to accept the story on our
faith as Christians and our patriotism as Americans. But in 1836,
Asa C. Colton could find no evidence that it was a fact. He found
a son of the Rev. Dr. Johne:s, who had no recollection of the
alleged event, and could give no testimony. His wife was more
accommodating, but all she could say was that it was "an
unquestioned family tradition," which it might have been, though
"tradition" is always suspicious. A report was then circulated that
the Rev. Dr. Richards, of the Auburn Theological Seminary, had in
his possession the letter of Washington to Dr. Johnes. When
appealed to, he denied that he had it or had aver seen it, though
he said the story was "universally current," and "never
contradicted," which is about as weak as evidence can be made.
Fortunately for the truth of history, we are not obliged to
rely upon the word of unnamed "venerable clergymen," or
"universally current traditions" to prove that George Washington
was not a communicant. We can produce well known men of character
and truthfulness, ministers of the gospel whose churches he
attended for years and who had his personal confidence, who not
only say he did not take the sacraments, but they had no evidence
that he was a believing Christian. If he did not accept the
communion in the churches he regularly attended, is it probable
that he, would beg that privilege of another minister in another
church? This is not in accordance with common sense, and therefore
not good argument. Moreover, these clergymen who are in a position
to know whereof they speak, have left us written statements,
recorded in reliable histories.
One of the most honored clergymen of the Episcopal Church in
the latter part of the 18th Century and the early part of the 19th,
was the Rev. Dr. James Abercrombie, rector of St. Peter's Church,
in Philadelphia. Here Washington sometimes attended while he was
President. Dr. Abercrombie was a scholar and at one time a
correspondent of Samuel Johnson. Sprague's 'Annals of the American
Pulpit,' vol. 5, p. 394, says: "One incident in Dr. Abercrombie's
experience as a clergyman, In connection with the father of his
country, is especially worthy of record: and the following account
of it was given by the doctor himself in a letter to a friend, in
1833, shortly after there had been some public allusion to it."
Then follows Dr. Abercrombie's letter:
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
24
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
"With respect to the inquiry you make, I can only state
the following facts: that as pastor of the Episcopal Church,
observing that, on sacramental Sundays George Washington,
immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with
the greater part of the congregation -- always leaving Mrs.
Washington with the other communicants -- she invariably being
one -- I considered it my duty, in a sermon on public worship,
to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of
those in elevated stations, who uniformly-turned their backs
on the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended
for the President; and as such he received it. A few days
after, in conversation, I believe, with a Senator of the
United States, he told me he had dined the day before with the
President, who, in the course of conversation at the table,
said that, on the previous Sunday, he had received a very just
rebuke from the pulpit for always leaving the church before
the administration of the sacrament; that he honored the
preacher for his integrity and candor; that he had never
sufficiently considered the influence of his example, and that
he would not again give cause for the repetition of the
reproof; and that, as he had never been a communicant, were he
to become one then, it would be imputed to an ostentatious
display of religious zeal, arising altogether from his
elevated station. Accordingly, he never afterwards came an the
morning of sacrament Sunday, though at other times he was a
constant attendant in the morning."
Here is honest, straightforward talk, both on the part of
Washington and the clergyman. 'What is more, it is confirmed by
others. The Rev. Dr. Wilson, the biographer of Bishop White, in his
sermon on the "Religion of the Presidents," says:
"When Congress sat in Philadelphia, President Washington
attended the Episcopal Church, The rector, Dr. Abercrombie,
told me that on the days when the sacrament of the Lord's
Supper was to he administered, Washington's custom was to
arise just before the ceremony commenced, and walk out of the
church. This became a subject of remark in the congregation,
as setting a bad example. At length the Doctor undertook to
speak of it, with a direct allusion to the President.
Washington was heard afterwards to remark that this was the
first time a clergyman had thus preached to him, and he should
henceforth neither trouble the Doctor or his congregation on
such occasions; and ever after that, upon communion days, 'he
absented himself altogether from church.'"
Dr. Wilson's sermon was published in the Albany 'Daily
Advertiser,' in 1831. Mr. Robert Dale Owen, then a young man, was
attracted by it, and went to Albany to interview Dr. Wilson, and
gives the substance of the interview in a letter, written on
November 13, 1831, which was published in New York two weeks later:
"I called last evening on Dr. Wilson, as I told you I
should, and I have seldom derived more pleasure from a short
interview with anyone. Unless my discernment of character has
been grievously at fault, I met an honest man and a sincere
Christian. But you shall have the particulars. A gentleman of
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
25
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
this city accompanied me to the Doctor's residence. We were very
courteously received. I found him a tall, commanding figure, with
a countenance of much benevolence, and a brow indicative of deep
thought, apparently 50 year's of age. I opened the interview by
stating that though personally a stranger to him, I had taken the
liberty of calling in consequence of having perused an interesting
sermon of his, which had been reported in the 'Daily Advertiser' of
this city, and regarding which, as he probably knew, a variety of
opinions prevailed. In a discussion, in which I had taken part,
some of the facts as there reported had been questioned; and I
wished to know from him whether the reporter had fairly given his
words or not. I then read to him from a copy of the 'Daily
Advertiser' the paragraph which regards Washington, beginning,
'Washington was a man" etc., and ending 'absented himself
altogether from church.' 'I endorse,' said Dr. Wilson with
emphasis, 'every word of that. Nay, I do not wish to conceal from
you any part of the truth, even what I have not given to the
public. Dr . Abercrombie said more than I have repeated. At the
close of our conversation on the subject his emphatic expression
was -- for I well remember the very words -- "Sir, Washington was
a Deist."
Dr. Wilson further said in this same interview:
"I have diligently perused every line that Washington
ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in
which he pledges Himself as a believer in Christianity. I
think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to
the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more."
As Dr. Wilson was the biographer of Bishop White, we will hear
from him again.
Our next witness will be "a venerable clergyman," but not
unknown and unnamed -- the Rt. Rev. William White, the first bishop
of Sylvania, one of the most distinguished men in the history of
the American episcopacy, a man of intellect, high character and
honor. He was one of the few Anglican ministers who did not take
the side of England during the Revolution. Washington attended his
church, Christ's, in Philadelphia, for about 25 years when he
happened to be in that city. The two men, the prelate and the
soldier and statesman, were personal friends. I recently visited
this church, and the verger told me that Bishop White is yet the
biggest part of the church. His episcopal chair still stands by the
side of the altar, while his body rests beneath it. On August 13,
1835, Colonel Mercer, of Fredericksburg, Va., wrote Bishop White
this letter:
"I have a desire, my dear sir, to know whether General
Washington was a member of the Protestant Episcopal Church, or
whether he occasionally went to the communion only, or if he
ever did so at all. No authority can be so authentic and
complete as yours on this point."
Bishop White replied:
"Philadelphia, Aug. 15, 1935.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
26
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
"In regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires
me to say that General Washington never received the communion
in the churches of which I am the parochial minister. Mrs.
Washington was an habitual communicant. I have been written to
by many on that point, and have been obliged to answer them as
I now do you,. I am respectfully,
"Your humble servant,
"William White"
(Memoir of Bishop White, pp. 196, 197.)
The Rev. Bird Wilson, in the 'Memoir of Bishop White,' p. 188,
says: "Though the General attended the churches in which Dr.
White officiated, whenever he was in Philadelphia during the
Revolutionary War, and afterwards while President of the
United States, he was never a communicant in them."
In a letter to the Rev. B.C.C. Parker, dated November 28,
1832, in reply to some inquiries about Washington's religion,
Bishop White said:
"His behavior in church was always serious and attentive,
but as your letter seems to intend an inquiry on the point of
kneeling during the service, I owe it to the truth to declare
that I never saw him in the said attitude. ... Although I was
often in the company of this great man, and had the honor of
often dining at his table, I never heard anything from him
which could manifest his opinions on the subject of religion.
... Within a few days of his leaving the Presidential chair
our vestry waited on him with an address prepared and
delivered by me. In his answer he was pleased to express
himself gratified by what he had heard from our pulpit; but
there was nothing that committed him relatively to religious
theory." (Memoir of Bishop White, pp, 189-191.)
In another letter to the Rev. Mr. Parker, dated December 31,
1832, the Bishop says even more distinctly:
"I do not believe that any degree of recollection will
bring to my mind any fact which would prove General Washington
to have been a believer in the Christian revelation further
than as may be hoped from his constant attendance upon
Christian worship, in connection with the general reserve of
his character." (Memoir of Bishop White, p. 193.)
Ward's 'Life of Bishop White,' p. 72, says, "Washington was
not himself a communicant of the church."
it was early in the 1830's that the supposed piety of
Washington was called into question and evidence of its being a
fact demanded. This accounts for the letters we have quoted being
written during that decade. The Rev. Dr. Abercrombie wrote the
letter I have quoted, in 1831; the Rev. Bird Wilson preached his
sermon on the religious beliefs of the founders of the republic in
the same year; Bishop White wrote his letter to the Rev. B.C.C.
Parker in 1932, and I his letter to Colonel Mercer in 1835. Jared
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
27
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
Sparks wrote to Nellie Custis for evidence of Washington's taking
the communion in 1833. The Rev. Mr M'Guire in 1836, made fruitless
inquiries about Washington's Presbyterian communion. We have
observed that no evidence could be found, except unsupported
tradition, that Washington Prayed, communed, or in any way gave
outward indication of being a religious man, except that he
attended church sometimes; while Bishop White and the Rev. Drs.
Abercromble and Wilson positively say that he was not religious.
In 1831, Mr. Robert Dale Owen, afterwards a member of Congress
where he introduced the bill establishing the Smithsonian
Institute, and who later was Minister to Naples, held a newspaper
debate with the Rev. Origen Bacherer, which was afterwards
published in book form and had a large circulation. Mr. Bacheler
insisted that Washington was a communicant and appealed to the Rev.
William Jackson, rector of Alexandria, Va., for evidence. Mr.
Jackson eagerly sought it, but failed to find it and wrote Mr.
Bacheler, "I find no one who ever communed with him." (Bacheler-
Owen Debate, vol. 2, p. 262.)
Still Mr. Bacheler, was not satisfied, and begged Mr. Jackson
to seek further. After trying again, be wrote, "I am sorry, after
so long a delay in replying to your last, that it is not in my
power to communicate something definite in reference to General
Washington's church membership," and in the same letter he says,
"Nor can I find and old person who ever communed with him."
(Bacheler-Owen Debate, quoted in John E. Remsburg's Six Historic
Americans, pp. 110-111.)
In the fall of 1928 I visited Pohick Church, which Washington
occasionally attended and in which he was a vestryman. I asked the
caretaker if there was any evidence in the parish records that
Washington took communion. At first he evaded my inquiry by saying
that in the Episcopal Church no one took communion unless he was
confirmed, and there being no bishops in this country at the time,
confirmation was impossible. I then asked if Episcopalians
dispensed with the communion in this country until they had
bishops. He again evaded a direct answer, but, pointing to the pews
of Washington, George Mason and George William Fairfax, who, like
Washington, were vestrymen, said "There is no evidence that any of
these men communed." Nearly all well-informed Episcopal clergymen
know Washington was not a communicant, but they find it very
inconvenient to admit it. To a Christian believer the communion is
the most sacred rite. All of them take it when they feel themselves
worthy. Some do not take it when they feel they are unworthy. To
say Washington was a Christian in the orthodox sense and never
partook of it -- and so far as we know this is true -- cannot be a
compliment to him.
I have cited four churches which Washington attended. The
ministers of two of them say emphatically that he did not commune.
One of them says just as emphatically that he was not a believer,
only a Deist. The other says he had no evidence of his Christian
belief other than that he attended church, which is no evidence at
all. In the other two, in both of which he was a vestryman, no
evidence could be found that he ever stood at the Lord's table.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
28
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
20, 1833, Mr. Sparks wrote to Nellie Custis, then Mrs. Lewis,
for evidence that her step-grandfather communed. She answered, on
February 20, 1833, as follows: "On communion Sundays, he left the
Church with me after the blessing, and returned home, and we sent
the carriage back after my grandmother." (Sparks's 'Washington,' p.
521.) Sparks himself, on p. 523, expresses his regrets at this in
these words:
"The circumstance of his withdrawing himself from the
communion service, at a certain period of his life, has been
remarked as singular. This may be admitted and regretted, both
on account of his example, and the value of his opinion as to
the importance and practical tendency of the rite."
The probability was that he thought the rite had no "practical
tendency," and unlike many others then and now he was not hypocrite
enough to go through a form which he considered meaningless. But to
undertake to say, as Sparks afterwards does, that this is no
reflection upon Washington as a Christian is begging the question.
It is true that Ralph Waldo Emerson resigned from the ministry
because he refused to celebrate the Lord's Supper, but no one knew
better than Mr. Sparks that Emerson's religion was of a far
different type than that he tries to prove Washington had.
Myths about Washington compared with kindred myths. When we
read these various stories about Washington and compare them with
other myths of American history, now conceded to be nothing but
myths, we will perceive that they are all cut from the same cloth.
In Watson's 'Annals of Philadelphia,' p. 422, we read of the
following incidents at a session of the first Continental Congress:
"It was on this occasion that General Washington, then a
member from Virginia, was observed to be the only member to
kneel, when Bishop White first offered his prayer to the -
throne of grace -- as if he were early impressed with a sense
of his and their dependence on the God of battles."
Here the author out-did himself. When Bishop White wrote to
the Rev. B.C.C. Parker that he had never seen Washington on his
knees, apologists might be able to say that he no doubt forgot this
time in Congress, were it not for the fact that the prayer at this
Congress was not offered by Bishop White, but by the Rev. Jacob
Duche, who afterwards turned traitor and tried to induce Washington
to do the same. Yet this fable, like the prayer at Valley Forge,
has been celebrated in picture and by the Peter Parleys who have
written history.
We Have been told that John Brown, while on his way to the
scaffold, stopped and kissed a Negro child. This has been written
in United States history, with a touching engraving attached.
Andrew Hunter, who prosecuted Brown, has firmly denied it, saying
that a cordon of soldiers surrounded him; that no one, particularly
no Negro, was permitted to get near him. Oswald Garrison Villard,
in his 'Life of John Brown Fifty Years After' (p. 554), says: "No
little slave child was held up for the benison of his lips, for
none but soldiery was near and the street was full of marching
men."
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
29
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
The story of General Lee surrendering his sword to General
Grant has likewise been popular in histories, and Grant has been
eulogized for his great "magnanimity" in returning it. General
Grant, in his 'Memoirs,' thus disposes of the story: "The much
talked of surrendering of Lee's sword and my handing it back, this,
and much more that has been said about it, is the purest fiction."
(Vol. 2, p. 494.)
The 'Western Christian Advocate' published a story about
Lincoln, which, though it was copied in a score of Lincoln
biographies, was without the slightest basis in fact. It was to the
effect that upon the reception of the news of Lee's surrender,
Lincoln and all his cabinet got down upon their knees in prayer. In
1891, Hugh McCullough, Lincoln's last Secretary of the Treasury,
was yet living. Through an old acquaintance, Mr. N.P. Stockbridge,
of Fort Wayne, Ind., he was approached, and this is what he had to
say:
"The description of what occurred at the Executive
Mansion, when the intelligence was received of the surrender
of the Confederate forces, which you quote from the 'Western
Christian Advocate,' is not only absolutely groundless but
absurd. After I became Secretary of the Treasury I was present
at every cabinet meeting, and I never saw Mr. Lincoln or any
of his ministers upon his knees or in tears." (See Remsburg's
'Six Historic Americans,' Lincoln section, p. 83.)
one of the best known myths of American history was enshrined
by one of our greatest, poets, John Greenleaf Whittier in "Barbara
Frietchie." We have all read it, and some of us have recited it
when we went to school. It is a noble poem, and stirs our
patriotism. Yet, except for the fact that there really was such an
aged woman living in Frederick, Md., in 1862, when Stonewall
Jackson's army marched through that town, the poem represents only
fiction. Whittier, in a letter written on October 19, 1880, does
not vouch for its historicity but states that he told it as it was
told to him without asking whether it was a fact. The 'Americana
Encyclopedia' says, "Recent investigations have thrown some doubt
upon the authenticity of the account." Two Confederate generals,
Henry Kyd Douglas and Jubal A. Early, have denied that any such
occurrence took place. They both say there were no flag
demonstrations when their army marched through Frederick, except by
little children, and to these no attention was paid. The army did
not even march along the street on which Barbara Frietchie lived
and had they done so they would have seen no flag, for she did not
fly one. The only foundation for the story is that once Barbara
took a Union flag and hid it in a Bible, saying there no rebel
would ever look to find it, and we are not quite sure that this is
true. But when the poet says,
"Up the street came the rebel tread,
Stonewall Jackson riding ahead;
Under his slouched bat, left and right,
He glanced, the old flag met his sight.
'Halt!' -- the dust-brown ranks stood fast!
'Fire!' -- out blazed the rifle blast."
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
30
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
we must hold our breath. One fact has been proved above all others
which is that Stonewall Jackson a few days before had been injured
by a fall from a horse, and was carried through 'Frederick in an
ambulance. [NOTE: For the facts about Barbara Frietchie, see
'Munsey's Magazine,' vol. 26, p. 542, January, 1902. Article by
Mariari West.]
For the persistence with which myths are accepted as facts,
even when they are admitted to be myths, we can find no better
illustration than Edward Everett Hale's 'Man Without a Country.' It
was written in 1862, to stimulate patriotism during the rebellion.
The story was of Philip Nolan, a young lieutenant in the United
States Army, who, at the time of Aaron Burr's alleged treason, was
heard to remark. "Damn the United States! I wish I may never hear
of the United States again!" For this he was tried by a court-
martial and sentenced to imprisonment for life on a United States
man-of-war that would never make an American port, and whose
officers were told to see that he would never hear the name of his
country again. Such a man as Philip Nolan never lived, the story is
wholly fictitious, and Dr. Hale published it as such. Yet there
were people who were willing to vouch for the truth of the
narrative. Dr. hale said, in a late edition of the book:
"The story having once been published, it passed out of
my hands. From that moment it has gradually acquired different
accessories for which I am not responsible. Thus I have heard
it said that at one bureau of the Navy Department they say
that Nolan was pardoned in fact, and returned home to die. At
another bureau, I am told, the answer to questions is that
though it is true that an officer was kept abroad all of his
life, his name was not Nolan. The Hon. James Savage, who
discredited all tradition, still recollected this 'Nolan
court-martial.' One of the most accurate of my younger friends
had noticed Nolan's death in the newspaper, but recollected
that it was in September and not in August. A lady in
Baltimore wrote me in good faith that Nolan had two widowed
sisters living in that neighborhood. A writer in the New
Orleans 'Picayune,' in a careful historical paper, explained
at length that I had been mistaken all through; that Philip
Nolan never went to sea but to Texas; that there he was shot
in battle, March 21, 1801; and by orders from Spain every
fifth man of his party was to be shot, had they not died in
prison. Fortunately, however, he left his papers and maps,
which fell into the hands of a friend of the 'Picayune's'
correspondent.
"With all these suggestions the reader need not occupy
himself. I can only repeat that my Philip Nolan is pure
fiction. I cannot send his scrap-book to my friend who asks
for it, because I have it not to send." (Edition of 1917, pp.
103-104.)
When we read of the persistence of these myths, and that some
love them as a cat loves to lap milk, and a donkey to chew
thistles, we are sometimes inclined to agree with Napoleon when he
said that history consists "of lies agreed upon." For a knowledge
of how myths concerning religion are born, grow and flourish,
consult the great 'Ecclesiastical History' of Mosheim.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
31
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
The well-known historian, Henry C. Lea, in an address upon
"The Ethical Values of History," published in the 'American
Historical Review,' for January, 1904, said:
"History is not to be written as a Sunday-school tale for
children of a larger growth. It is, or should be, a serious
attempt to ascertain the severest truth as to the past and to
set it forth without fear or favor. It may, and it generally
will, convey a moral, but that moral should educe itself from
facts."
I think this applies to the fables told of Washington, and
those who tell them sometimes say they should not be controverted
because of the "moral" they teach. But what type of a moral is
taught when you tell about a man that which is absurdly untrue, and
what kind of morality is that built upon such a foundation. We are
not required to go beyond the truth in the life of George
Washington to find him to have been one of the greatest of men. To
what purport is it to say that, he went regularly to church when we
know he did not, prayed in the woods though he never prayed in
church; wrote a prayer book at that period of his life when his
chief thoughts were of war and the girls; asked a Presbyterian
minister's permission to take communion in his church, when he
declined to take it in the church he regularly attended?
Was Washington a Sabbath Keeper and a Puritan? Some who have
endeavored to prove that George Washington was sound in his
theological views and in the practices pertaining to them have also
declared that he was sound in his personal conduct, from the
Puritan standpoint. I say Puritan standpoint advisedly, lest I
inadvertently cast a reflection upon Washington; knowing that all
good men do not endorse this standpoint.
We are told that he was a strict observer of the Sabbath, and
we are sometimes referred to an incident in Connecticut, when he
would not travel on Sunday. The entry in his Diary telling of this
is dated Sunday, November 8, 1789, and reads as follows: "It being
contrary to law and disagreeable to the people of this State
(Connecticut) to travel on the Sabbath day -- and my horses, after
passing through such intolerable roads, wanting rest, I stayed at
Perkins' tavern (which, by the bye, is not a good one) -- all day
-- and a meeting house being a few rods from the door, I attended
morning and evening services, and heard a lame discourse from a Mr.
Pond." (Diaries, vol. 4, p. 50.)
Yet when we read Washington's own account of his later trip
through the southern States. We find he continually traveled on
Sunday, and seldom attended church. On Sunday, September 19, he was
on a trip inspecting his lands. He did not call upon his tenants
for their rent, because he says they were "APPARENTLY very
religious," and "it was thought best to postpone going among them
until tomorrow." The italics (capitals) are Washington's own. In
both of these cases he was aiming not to offend other persons'
conscientious scruples, not carrying out his own.
It has been said Washington did not receive visitors on
Sunday. So far as his home in Mt. Vernon was concerned, a glance at
the 'Diaries' will prove this to be untrue. When he had no guests
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
32
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
there on the first day of the week, he made it a subject of special
comment. While he was President he did not receive visitors on
Sunday for the very good and practical reason that he wanted the
day to himself to attend to his own private business. Let us look
at a few instances, typical of many:
Sunday. July 11, 1790. "At home all day -- despatching
some business relative to my own private concerns." (Diaries,
vol. 4, p. 142.)
Sunday. February 14, 1790. "At home all day writing
letters to Virginia." (Ibid, P. 87.)
Sunday. October 11, 1789. "At home all day writing
private letters." (ibid, p. 19.)
Sunday June 27. 1790. "Went to Trinity church in the
morning -- employed myself in writing business in the
afternoon." (Ibid. p. 130.)
Sunday. May 2, 1790. "Went to Trinity church in the
forenoon -- writing letters on private business in the
afternoon." (Ibid, 'D. 126.)
Sunday, April 18, 1790. "At borne all day -- the weather
being stormy and bad, wrote private letters." (Ibid, T). 116.)
Sunday, March 21. 1790. "Went to St. Paul's chapel in the
forenoon -- wrote private letters in the afternoon. Received
Mr. Jefferson, Minister of State, about one o'clock," (ibid,
p. 106,)
It would be useless to quote further, as this is practically
the fact about all of his Sundays, so far as the 'Diaries' are
complete, while he was President. Paul Leicester Ford says, in
speaking of his attending to his own private business on Sunday:
"It was more or less typical of his whole life." (The True George
Washington, p. 78.)
We find that he was engaged in many "secular" pursuits on
Sunday. Mr. Ford adds: "He entertained company, closed land
purchases, sold wheat, and, while a Virginia planter, went fox-
hunting on Sunday." (Ibid, p. 79.) A few specific, instances of
this will be given. on Sunday, March 31, 1771, he was engaged "on
the arbitration between Dr. Ross and Company and Mr. Semple."
(Diaries, vol. 2, p. 12.) Sunday, October 13, 1771, he spent his
time "plotting and measuring the surveys which Capt. Crawford made
for the officers and soldiers." On Sunday, December 25, of the same
year, he "agreed to raise Christopher Shadels wages to 2,0, pounds
per annum." one week prior to this, December 18, he "went to Doeg
Run and carried the dogs with me, who found and run a deer to the,
water." (Diaries, vol. 2, pp. 45 and 46.) On Sunday, October 25,
1772, he was "assisting Crawford with his surveys" (ibid, p. 840),
while on Sunday, November 4, be "set off for the Annapolis rases."
(Ibid, p. 82.)
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
33
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
Washington danced, and the 'Diaries' are full of instances of
his going to assemblies and balls. During the Revolution he, with
Generals Greene, Knox, Wilkinson and others, signed a subscription
Paper to pay the sums set beside their names "in the promotion and
support of a dancing assembly." Once he danced for three hours with
Mrs. Greene without sitting down. once the entire party danced all
night. At Newport General Rochambeau gave a ball and Washington
danced the first figure, while the French officers took the
instruments from the musicians and furnished the music. He
frequently traveled to Alexandria to attend balls, and danced until
he was 64 years old. (See The True George Washington, pp. 1,83,
184.)
The theater was the bane of our Puritan ancestors. As late as
1792 a performance of Sheridan's 'School for Scandal' was stopped
by the sheriff in Boston. New York was about the only city in the
northern colonies where performance of plays was permitted.
Pennsylvania passed an act prohibiting theaters in 1700. In 1759
this law was evaded by the creation of a theater outside the limits
of Philadelphia. The ministers petitioned the legislature to
suppress it and were successful, but the King and Council in London
vetoed the act. There was peace until 1779, when, taking advantage
of the fact that Pennsylvania was independent of England, the
ministers were successful in having passed a law imposing a fine of
500 pounds on anyone who erected a theater. The law was reenacted
in 1786, but the penalty was reduced to 200 pounds. On March 2,
1789, this law was repealed on petition of leading citizens of
Philadelphia. Theaters were now permitted.
All his life, Washington's 'Diaries' prove, he attended the
theater whenever an opportunity offered. In Philadelphia he did not
hesitate to defy the stern puritanical element that opposed the
theater, and for this he was criticized. On January 9, 1797, he
records: "Went to the theater for the first time this season. The
Child of Nature and the Lock and Key were performed." (Diaries,
vol. 4, p. 248.) On the 24th of the same month he attended the
Pantheon. There bareback and fancy riding were the attraction. On
January 26, Washington sold the proprietor a fine white horse,
named Jack, for $150. On February 27, five days before his term as
President expired, he "went to the Theater in the evening." The
play on the boards this time was 'The Way to get Married,' followed
by a comic ballet entitled, 'Dermot and Kathleen, or Animal
Magnetism.'
Bishop Meade has denied that Washington went fox-hunting,
attended theaters, or that he would stoop to cards or dice. (Old
Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, vol. 2, pp. 242,-55.)
We can only say the good Bishop was mistaken. His father, who was
a member of Washington's staff during the Revolution, ought to have
told him better. cards and dice were a favorite amusement with
Virginia gentlemen. Washington partook of them. He did not play for
heavy stakes, but in a carefully kept ledger is to be found an
account of his losses and gains. In his "Ledger B," [NOTE: See vol.
2, of Rupert Hughes' Washington, pp. 208, 209, in which the ledger
pages are reproduced.] 1772-1774, his net loss was six pounds,
three shillings and three pence, not bad for two years, and 63
games, of which he lost 36 and won 27.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
34
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
What would shock our modern Puritans more than all things else
is the well-known fact that he not only drank liquor, wine and
beer, but manufactured and sold them. When Congress passed the
first excise law in 1794, placing a tax on distilled spirits, it
caused a rebellion in western Pennsylvania. Washington himself
regarded this law as an incentive to make money, so he installed a
distillery at Mt. Vernon, and made whisky, "from rye chiefly and
Indian corn in a certain proportion."
Mr. Ford says: "In 1798, the profit from the distillery was
344 pounds, 12 shillings, and seven and three quarter pence, with
a stock carried over of 756 1/4 gallons." (The True George
Washington, p. 123.)
Yet we must remember that the Puritans of Washington's day did
not take umbrage at the manufacture of rum, as their descendants do
today. In New England it was the leading industry. While Washington
was careful not to give offense to his pious countrymen in things
pertaining to doctrine, all his life he set his face against their
puritanical practices. But those who still believe that Washington
was a Puritan can console themselves with the fact that while he
was a big grower of tobacco, he did not personally use it.
While he is usually looked upon as a grave, solemn man,
Washington was fully capable of both making and enjoying a joke. He
was popular with women, but there is no record of any
improprieties. Far from being the walking manikin some would have
us believe he was, we find him a real man of flesh and blood. The
excellence of Washington's character did not consist in loud
Professions of superior righteousness, and in giving attention to
forms; but we find him a superior man because at all times he was
honest, honorable, reliable, recognized the rights of others, was
patient under difficulties and disappointments, always exercising
that uncommon thing known as common sense. These are the reasons
why his contemporaries esteemed him and had confidence in him, and
why, with all of the light shown upon his career, he yet holds his
place in history.
The Public Attitude of Washington toward the Church and
Religion. The public attitude of Washington toward the Church as an
institution, and religion in general, is interesting, but it has no
bearing on his private opinions, which he never expressed. To
"Lafayette, on August 15, 1787, he wrote:
"I am not less ardent in my wish that you may succeed in
your plan of toleration in religious matters. Being no bigot
myself, I am disposed to indulge the professors of
Christianity in the church that road to heaven which to them
shall seem the most direct, plainest, easiest and least liable
to exception." To Sir Edward Newenham, he wrote on October 20,
1792:
"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind,
those which are caused by difference of sentiment in religion
appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought
most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and
liberal policy which has marked the present age would at least
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
35
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
have reconciled Christians of every denotation, so far that we
should never again see their religious disputes carried to
such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."
After Washington was inaugurated as the first chief
magistrate, representatives of the different religious bodies
waited upon him and presented him with addresses, to which he
replied. From these replies I select the following excerpts:
"While all men within our territories are protected in
worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of their
consciences, it is rational to be expected from them in
return, that they will all be emulous of evincing the sanctity
of their professions by the innocence of their' lives and the
beneficence of their actions; for no man, who is profligate in
his morals, or a bad member of the civil community, can
possibly be a true Christian, or a credit to his own religious
society." (To the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church,
May, 1789.)
"If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension
that the Constitution framed in the convention, where I had
the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious
rights of any religious society, certainly I would never have
placed my signature to it; and, if I could now conceive that
the general government might ever be administered as to render
liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded
that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish
effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny,
and every species of religious persecution." (To the General
Committee Representing the United Baptist Churches of
Virginia.)
"The liberty enjoyed by the people of these States, of
worshipping Almighty God agreeably to their conscience, is not
only among the choicest of their blessings, but also of their
rights. While men perform their social duties faithfully, they
do all that society or the state can with propriety demand or
expect; and remain responsible to their Maker for the religion
or modes of faith which they may prefer or express." (To the
Quakers, 1789.)
"As mankind becomes more liberal they will be more apt to
allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members
of the community, are equally entitled to the protection of
civil government. I hope ever to see America among the
foremost nations in examples of justice and liberality. I
rejoice that a spirit of liberality and philanthropy is much
more prevalent among the enlightened nations of the earth, and
that your brethren will benefit thereby in proportion as it
shall become still more extensive." (To the Hebrew
Congregation of Savannah, May, 1790.)
"On this occasion, it would ill become me to conceal the
joy I have felt in perceiving the fraternal affection, which
appears to increase every day among the friends of genuine
religion. It affords edifying prospects, indeed, to see
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
36
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
Christians of different denominations dwell together in more
charity, and conduct themselves in respect to each other with,
a more Christian-like spirit than ever they have done in any
former age, or in any other nation." (To the Episcopalians,
August 19, 1789.)
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to
political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable
supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of
patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of
human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and
citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and cherish them. A volume could not trace
all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it
simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for
reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation
desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation
in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the
supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.
Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education
on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both
forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in
exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true
that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular
government."' (From the Farewell Address.) [NOTE: All these
answers to the addresses of the Churches will be found in the
Washington section, pp. 151-157. of Harpers 'Encyclopedia of
United States History,' and Mr. Ford's 'Writings of
Washington.']
Every public man, every office holder and politician realizes
that organized religion, socially, politically and economically, is
a factor to be recognized and dealt with. Washington, not only as
Commander-in-Chief, but more so as President, was obliged to have
the united support of all the people, regardless of his individual
views. He was careful to warn all these Churches against the great
vice of the world, religious bigotry, intolerance and persecution.
Because a motive is inspired by religion, it may not always be
right, but religion is a powerful motive, right or wrong.
Washington, in all these addresses, had in mind that religious
controversy and dissension breed discord. At the same time, he
realized that to secure independence and erect the new government,
the cooperation of the Churches and the ministers was essential. He
wanted their support, and to have their enmity would have been
unfortunate.
There have been few Clemenceaus, Bradlaughs, Berts and
Gambettas in public life who openly opposed the Church. These did
so under extraordinary circumstances. Had Washington been as firm
an Agnostic as Ingersoll, it would have been to his advantage to
remain silent on the subject. He is careful to refer to religion in
general, not to any particular belief or Church. He says nice
things to them all, but commits himself to none. His use of the
word "Christian" at times means nothing definite. Christianity
might mean Roman Catholicism or Unitarianism, or "mere morality,"
just as its user prefers. Of course every man must give special
homage to the religion of the country in which he lives. In the
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
37
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
"Farewell Address," he often refers to "religion morality." This
might mean any religion, and the, other excerpts confirm us in
thinking that he meant all religions and none in particular.
Thousands of men today hold that religious institutions should
be upheld because of the prop they give to morality. They support
Church for that reason, while they are indifferent to its
theological teaching. They believe, as did Draper: "The tranquility
of society depends so much on the stability of its religious
convictions, that no one can be justified in wantonly disturbing
them." They think religion is necessary for other people, while not
needed by themselves. It will also be noticed that Washington,
while he sometimes couples morality and religion, stresses the
former, and ends by saying that "virtue or morality is a necessary
spring of popular government."
Among the addresses sent to Washington when he became
President was one from the First Presbytery of the Eastward, which
objected to the new Constitution because it did not recognize God
and the Christian religion, in these words: "We should not have
been alone in rejoicing to have seen some explicit acknowledgement
of the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent, inserted
somewhere in the Magna Charta of our country." To this, Washington
replied:
"The path of true piety is so plain as to require but
little political direction. ... In the progress of morality
and science, to which our government will give every
furtherance, we may confidently expect the advancement of true
religion and the completion of our happiness."
Here, as on similar occasions he is too canny to say what
"true piety" is. His statement that "true piety" will be advanced
through the "progress of morality and science," would place him at
the present day in the ranks of Rationalism.
Washington knew, at the same time, as did Madison, that
religion, legally united with the state, is no aid either to
"virtue or morality." For that reason he said, in the treaty with
Tripoli, made in 1796, and, ratified by the Senate in 1797: "The
Government of the United states of America is not, in any sense,
founded upon the Christian religion." He was too shrewd to oppose
the orthodoxy of his time, and equally shrewd in not committing
himself to its teachings. Socially, he conformed to the religious
customs of his day, just enough to maintain the good will of
religious people.
What Was Washington's Belief? It is said that some one asked
of Lord Beaconsfield his religion. He replied, "The religion of
wise men." Thereupon, his interlocutor again ask, "What religion is
that," and my Lord answered, Wise men never tell." Washington was
a wise man and never told.
In classifying these Presidents, placing them in one Church or
another, whenever they actually were believers in the doctrines of
that Church, I have had no difficulty in securing indubitable
evidence, except in the case of President Pierce, whose religious
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
38
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
affiliations it required some effort to learn. The proofs have been
culled when possible from the spoken or written words of the
Presidents themselves, combined with their public attitudes, In
which I could make no mistake.
Washington never made a statement of his belief, while his
actions rather prove that if he was not a positive unbeliever, he
was at best an indifferentist. We have seen that he was not a
regular attendant at church services -- rather an irregular one. I
have examined 14 years of his complete Dairies, 13 of them when he
was at home, with two Episcopal churches within eight or 10, miles.
One of these years, 1774, was his banner year for church
attendance, when he went 18 times. Yet we find, in these 14 years,
his average attendance to have been about six times a year -- not
a very good record.
That Washington did not commune is established beyond all
doubt by reputable witnesses. The evidence of Bishop White, the
Rev. Dr. Abercrombie and the Rev. Dr. Wilson certainly outweighs
the very shady assertion that he once took communion in a
Presbyterian church, which rests upon questionable and anonymous
evidence, to say nothing of its utter improbability.
Bishop White says Washington did not kneel in prayer. Nellie
Custis says he stood during the devotional service. She also admits
that she never saw him pray, but that someone long dead had told
her that he had seen him praying many years before. The Valley
Forge prayer is a myth of even a weaker type, than the Presbyterian
communion story. The "Prayer for the United, States" is a
demonstrated fabrication. These fictions would not be necessary
were there true evidence that Washington was religious. During the
Revolution, forged letters were published in London attacking his
personal moral character. It has been said that letters written by
Washington were in existence that cast reflections upon him, but no
one has ever been able to produce them. Between the fictions,
forgeries and falsehoods told to make Washington either a plaster
saint or a rake, it is difficult to say which would have disgusted
him the more.
Jared Sparks says:
"After a long and minute examination of the writings of
Washington, Public and private, in print and in manuscript, I
can affirm, that I have never seen a single hint, or
expression, from which it could be inferred, that he had any
doubt of the Christian revelation, or that he thought with
indifference or unconcern of that subject. On the contrary,
wherever he approaches it, and indeed wherever he alludes in
any manner to religion, it is done with seriousness and
reverence." (Life of 'Washington,' p. 525.)
If Dr. Sparks found from Washington's writings that he never
had a "doubt of the Christian revelation," neither could he find
among them anything proven, his belief in the same. He may have
thought about it and it is likely that he did, but as to expressing
his views, he surely was indifferent and unconcerned. The truth is
that the majority of unbelievers, especially men of prominence in
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
39
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
political or social life, make no statement of their unbelief.
True, when Washington spoke of religion, he spoke with "seriousness
and reverence," but he so spoke of all religions and not of any
particular one. That an unbeliever is necessarily flippant, it is
the prerogative of Mr. Sparks to assert. Scholarly Freethinkers
consider religion an important subject, even though they reject its
orthodox interpretation. While not necessarily reverent in their
attitude, they discuss it seriously from the standpoint of science
logic and history. [NOTE: That I may not be justly accused of
unfairness, I reproduce in entirety, in the Appendix, the chapter
in Sparks's 'Life of Washington' that deals with his religious
views.]
Most important of all, there stands out the fact that while in
Washington's writings there is nothing affirming or denying the
truth of Christian revelation, there is also nothing inconsistent
with Deism. Deists of the time believed in God and his Providence.
They accepted all of moral value in the Christian Bible and in all
other sacred books, holding it to be a part of natural religion.
They held in high esteem the moral teachings and character of
Jesus. Even the orthodox never tire of quoting complimentary things
said about him by Paine and Rousseau. Many Deists prayed and
believed in prayer.
Nor can Dr. Sparks find anything in the writings of Washington
tending to prove that he believed in Jesus as the Christ and the
son of God. Nor will he find anything which will prove that a
future existence had any firm place in his calculations, though
Deists, as a rule, hope for "happiness beyond this life." During
Washington's sickness and death religion was not mentioned. No
minister was called in, though three doctors were present.
Dr. Moncure D. Conway says:
"When the end was near, Washington said to a physician
present -- an ancestor of the writer of these notes -- 'I am
not afraid to go.' With his right fingers on his left wrist,
he counted his own pulses, which beat his funeral march to the
grave. 'He bore his distress with astonishing fortitude, and
conscious as he declared, several hours before his death, of
his approaching dissolution, he resigned his breath with the
greatest composure, having the full possession of his reason
to the last moment,' so next day wrote one present. [NOTE: See
Appendix for the account of Washington's sickness and death as
written by his secretary, Tobias Lear, from whom Dr. Conway
quotes.] Mrs. Washington knelt beside his bed, but no word
passed on religious matters. With the sublime taciturnity
which marked his life he passed out of existence, leaving no
word or act which can be turned to the service of
superstition, cant or bigotry."
He died like an ancient pagan Greek or Roman. This has puzzled
many who have tried to fit Washington with orthodox garments.
In his letters to young people, particularly to his adopted
children, he urges upon them truth, character, honesty, but in no
case does he advise going to church, reading the Bible, belief in
Christ, or any other item of religious faith or practice, once he
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
40
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
wanted mechanics for his estate. He did not demand that they be
Christians, but he wrote to his agent, "If they be good workmen,
they may be from Asia, Africa, or Europe; they may be Mohammedans,
Jews, or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists."
Except the legal phrase, "In the name of God, Amen," there are
no religious references in Washington's will, something unusual in
wills made at that time. While he liberally recognizes his
relatives he leaves nothing to churches or for other religious
purposes, but he does remember the cause of education.
We have already quoted Bishop White to the effect that when
the vestry of Christ Church waited upon Washington with an address,
he expressed gratification at some things he had heard from their
pulpit, but said not a word that would indicate his own religious
views. Just before he left the Presidency, all the ministers of
Philadelphia waited upon him, also bearing an address. We will let
Thomas Jefferson tell the story, as he wrote it in his Diary, for
February 1, 1800, just six weeks after Washington's death:
"Feb. 1. Dr. Rush tells me that he had it from Asa Green
that when the clergy addressed General Washington on his
departure from the Government, it was observed in their
consultation that he had never on any occasion said a word to
the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion and
they thought they should so pen their address as to force him
at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or
not. They did so. However, he observed, the old fox was too
cunning for them. He answered every article in their address
particularly except that, which he passed over without notice.
Rush observes he never did say a word on the subject in any of
his public papers except in his valedictory address to the
governors of the States when he resigned his commission in the
army, wherein he speaks of the benign influence of the
Christian religion.
"I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in
his secrets and believed himself to be so, has often told me
that General Washington believed no more in the system
(Christianity) than he did." (The Writings of Thomas
Jefferson, vol. 1, p. 284.)
Dr. Benjamin Rush was one of the ablest physicians of his time
and a patriot of the Revolution. The Asa Green spoken of was one of
the most noted Presbyterian ministers of the day, and was the
chaplain of congress while the seat of the government was located
in Philadelphia. The object of these ministers was to find, if
possible, what Washington's religious views were, and to draw from
him some sentiment they could use to combat the infidelity of
Thomas Paine. The result was that orthodoxy received no more
comfort than heterodoxy.
A glance at an entry in Washington's Diary for October 10,
1785, throws great light upon his attitude toward the Church and
religion. It will speak for itself: "A Mr. John Lowe on his way to
Bishop Seabury for ordination, called and dined here -- could not
give him more than a general certificate founded on information,
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
41
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
respecting his character -- having no acquaintance with him, nor
any desire to open a correspondence with the new ordained bishop."
Washington for social and matrimonial reasons could attend
church as little as possible -- an average of six times a year at
home. He could be a vestryman because that was a political office
from whence he went to the 'House of Burgesses and from whence his
taxes were assessed. This was in his interest. He could meet and
dine with clergymen and treat them with courtesy. When they
addressed him he could say some nice things in reply, just enough
to keep them from barking at his heels. But to be involved in a
correspondence with a bishop over an ordination or to be mixed up
in any of the church imbroglios of the time was more than he could
stand and here he drew the line. He has been well called "the sly
old fox," and nowhere did he demonstrate this quality better than
when he was obliged to deal with the Church, the clergy and
religion.
Theodore Parker says:
"He had much of the principle, little of the sentiment of
religion. He was more moral than pious, in early life a
certain respect for ecclesiastical forms made him vestryman in
two churches. This respect for outward forms with ministers
and reporters for newspapers very often passes for the
substance of religion. It does not appear that Washington took
a deep and spontaneous delight in religious emotions more than
in poetry, in works of art, or in the beauties of Nature ...
Silence is a figure of speech, and in the latter years of his
life I suppose his theological opinions were those of John
Adams, Dr. Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, only he was not a
speculative man, and did not care to publish them to the
world." (Six Historic Americans.)
The Rev. Dr. Abercrombie said, "Washington was a Deist." The
Rev. Dr. Wilson said, "I think any one who will candidly do as I
have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and
nothing more." Gouverneur Morris said he no more believed in the
system of Christianity than Morris did himself. His intimate
friend, Bishop White, who perhaps was the best qualified to judge,
denies that Washington ever took communion to his knowledge ,
though he attended Dr. White's church more often than any other
while he was President. He also admits that he never heard
Washington utter a word which would indicate him to have been a
believer; and what is more, he says he never saw him on his knees
during prayer, an attitude all Episcopalians assume when performing
that function of religion. The positive evidence, I admit, is
meager, but combined with the facts and circumstances to which I
have called the reader's attention, it is strong. That he was an
evangelical Christian has never been proved and is improbable. That
he was a Deist is not inconsistent with any known fact.
Mr. Parker says that silence is a figure of speech. We may add
that it is sometimes more eloquent and convincing than words.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
42
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
The facts of the mythical character of Washington's alleged
piety have been before the world for many years. Historians and
biographers not desiring to give offense to the religious public,
taught to accept his religiosity as infallibly true, have either
not mentioned them at all or spoken of them in whispers. But, as
historians develop more courage and more of them speak the truth
out loud, more of them acclaim it his Deistic sentiments. William
Roseoe Thayer, in his 'Life of Washington' (Published by Houghton,
Mifflin & Co.), says: "I do not discover that he was in any sense
an ardent believer. He preferred to say "Providence,' rather than
'God,' Probably because it was less definite." For a considerable
Period at one time of his life he did not attend the communion."
(p. 239.) "He believed in moral truths and belief with him was
putting into practice what he professed," (Ibid.) "He had imbibed
much of the deistic spirit of the 18th Century." (p. 240.)
Mr. Rupert Hughes has not yet completed his biography of
Washington, but three volumes so far having been published. From
personal acquaintance with him, however, I know that his view of
Washington's religious opinions is substantially in accord with the
view of Mr. Thayer and others whom I have cited.
Another recent writer, W.E. Woodward, speaks of them without
hesitation in these words:
"He seemed, according to the evidence, to have had no
instinct or feeling for religion." "The name of Jesus Christ
is not mentioned even once in the vast collection of
Washington's published letter's. He refers to Providence in
numerous letters, but he used the term in such a way as to
indicate that he considered Providence as a synonym for
destiny or fate," (p. 142.) "Bishop White, who knew him well
for many years, wrote after Washington's death that he never
heard him express an opinion on any religious subject." "He
had no religious feeling himself, but thought religion was a
good thing for other people -- especially for the common
people. Any one who understands American life will recognize
the modern captain-of-industry attitude in this point of
view." "He considered religion a matter of policy, of that we
might have been sure -- knowing as we do his type of mind."
"He said nothing about religion -- nothing very definite --
and was willing to let people think whatever they pleased."
(P. 143.)
I think I have given in this chapter plenty of evidence to
sustain these writers' opinions. When Messrs. Hughes' and
Woodward's books were published, their critics did not deny the
truth of their statements of fact, but denounced them for making
them, others, like Woodrow Wilson, in his 'Life of Washington,' and
Paul Haworth, in his 'Washington: The Country Gentlemen,' thinking
his religious opinions to be a dangerous subject, have said nothing
about them. It is often dangerous to Speak the truth.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
43

Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink