David Barton

Benjamin Rush was a leading educator, helping start five colleges and universities, including the first college for women. Additionally, he is called the “Father of American Medicine,” personally trained three thousand students for their medical degrees, published a number of medical textbooks, and made numerous medical discoveries which still benefit us today. He was also a founder of America’s first abolition society and for forty years was a national leader in the abolition movement.

 Because of his faith, we still enjoy the fruit of his labors. For example, in 1791, Dr. Rush founded “The First Day Society” which grew into today’s Sunday Schools. Additionally, he also started America’s first Bible society: The Bible Society of Philadelphia. The original constitution for that Bible society was authored by Dr. Rush.  

In that constitution, Dr. Rush listed two important reasons that America needed Bible societies: first, he pointed out that with a Bible, every individual could discover how to have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ; second, he argued that if every individual owned a Bible – and would study and obey it – that all of our social problems, including crime, slavery, etc., would diminish.

As Dr. Rush explained, it is in living by the Bible that man becomes both “humanized and civilized.” In looking for ways to print Bibles faster and more economically, Dr. Rush and the Society came across what was called stereotyped printing – an early form of mass production. With the help of President James Madison and an act passed by Congress in the Capitol building,  Dr. Rush’s Bible society obtained stereotype plates by which they could mass produce Bibles. The result was America’s first mass-produced, stereotyped Bible – and it came about through the efforts of Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence.

 Consider next signer Francis Hopkinson. He was a church music director, a choir leader, and the editor of a music work from 1767 – one of the first hymnals printed in America. His work took the one hundred and fifty Psalms and set them all to music so that the Psalms could be sung much as King David had done over two thousand years before. Interestingly, his work was one of the earliest in America to include musical notation and place notes in a staff so that the melody could be seen. This unique Bible hymnbook was the work of Declaration signer, Francis Hopkinson.

david barton david barton

              Begin with John Witherspoon. He was an ordained minister of the Gospel, published several books of Gospel sermons, and played major roles in two American editions of the Bible, including one from 1791 that is considered America’s first family Bible.

 The Rev. Dr. Witherspoon wrote the introduction for this Bible, and although the Bible’s text is essentially the same as that of the King James ersion, it does not carry that title. After all, the Americans – including Dr. Witherspoon – had just fought a war to be free of kings, so why attach the name of a king to an American edition of the Bible Therefore, this Bible describes itself only as “The Holy Bible” because, as Dr. Witherspoon pointed out, this was God’s Word, not the word of a king! 12 John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration and minister of the Gospel, helped produce America’s very first family Bible.

The 1791 bible prepared by dr. witherspoon (left), his introduction (right), and one of his many books of sermons (upper left) Consider next Charles Thomson. Charles Thomson was the Secretary of Congress, and he and John Hancock were the only two to sign the first draft of the Declaration of Independence. Charles Thomson is another Founder responsible for an American edition of the Bible. That Bible – called Thomson’s Bible – was the first translation of the Greek Septuagint into English. It took Charles Thomson twenty-five years to complete his translation, but even today that work is still considered one of the more scholarly American translations of the Bible. Consider also signer Charles Carroll of Carrollton. Charles Carroll was the last of the fifty-six signers to pass away, dying in 1832 at the age of 95. A strong and unequivocal declaration of his Christian faith appears in numerous writings, including a letter he wrote on his 89th birthday in which he declared:

“On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation, and on His merits; not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts.” 13 In other of his writings, Charles Carroll explained that his Christian faith was one of the chief reasons that he had entered thomson’s bible carroll’s letter expressing his strong christian faith into the American Revolution – he was fighting to preserve religious liberty. In fact, he was so committed to Christianity that he built and personally funded a Christian house of worship. Charles Carroll’s life and words confirm that he was a strong Christian, and he is one of that handful of Americans who have been honored at the Capitol with a statue, located in East Central Hall. Consider next signer Benjamin Rush. When he died in 1813, the writings of the day, and the other Founders who were still alive, declared that Dr. Rush was one of our three most notable Founders, ranking him in prominence along with George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. 15 Yet who today has heard of Benjamin Rush, or who knows of his accomplishments?

david barton david barton

 There are many today who dispute this fact. Rather than acknowledge that Christianity played an important role in the formation of this nation, or that there is a deep and rich religious heritage attached to the Capitol building, or that most of our Founding Fathers were strongly and openly religious, they instead claim just the opposite. For example, one prominent historian amazingly asserts, “The Founding Fathers were at most deists.” And in an article entitled “America’s UnChristian Beginnings,” the writer forcefully claims that “The early presidents and patriots were generally deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the relevance of the Bible.” Another author similarly charges, “[M]ost of our other patriarchs were at best deists, [not] believing in . . . the God of the Old and New Testaments.” And the title of one book seems to say it all: The Godless Constitution.

The reason that such absurd accusations often go unrefuted by the average citizen is that most Americans don’t know who our Founders were. For example, in the picture of the signing of the Constitution (this picture will be discussed in detail later in a different room in the Capitol) how many of the 39 signers can the average citizen identify? Which one is Gouverneur Morris? Or William Paterson? Or John Dickinson? Although each of these signers played crucial roles, most Americans today have never heard of them. Similarly, in the picture of the signers of the Declaration, which one is Stephen Hopkins? Or Samuel Huntington? Or Richard Henry Lee? If citizens don’t know who our Founders were, when they clearly can’t address the question of whether or not they were religious. 

In earlier years, charges of the non-religious nature of our Founders were immediately dismissed because citizens knew about our individual Founders. For example, the textbook from 1848 pictured on the right 11 (recently reprinted), was used in classrooms for decades. It provided the signing of the constitution a brief biography of each of the 56 signers of the Declaration and was quite candid about the strong Christian faith of so many of them.

 In a return to the practice of these earlier schoolbooks, let’s examine some of the religious beliefs held by Founders depicted, for example, in the painting of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

 Realize that every individual in the painting had an impact on the Declaration of Independence, even though not everyone pictured actually signed it. Why? Because even though Congress approved the Declaration on July 4th, 1776, it was then signed only by the President and Secretary of Congress. The final engrossed version of the declaration was not signed by most representatives until August 2nd; and during that intervening month, some who had voted for the Declaration were called away to the service of their country before they could sign.

For example, George Clinton voted for the final draft of the Declaration on July 4th, but before he could sign, he was called to assume military leadership in New York. And even though Robert Livingston was on the five-man committee charged with writing the Declaration, he was recalled to serve in his State legislature before he could sign the very document he had helped draft. George Clinton and Robert Livingston, even though they ultimately did not sign the Declaration, are both in the Rotunda painting of the signing of the Declaration and each is so significant that he has been honored with a statue at the Capitol.

david barton david barton

The small seeds of social compact, local control, and community self-government introduced into America by the religious immigrants pictured in the Rotunda took root and grew. A century-and-a-half later, those seeds were brought to maturity when our Founding Fathers announced those same principles in the Declaration of Independence – including the principle that all of America would now govern itself under God’s laws: “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.”

 So strong was their reliance on God’s Word and precepts during the American Revolution that even the currency and flags reflected this reliance. For example, the emblem on North Carolina’s currency contained the words “The law is our king” emblazoned upon an open Bible, and several revolutionary flags and banners openly appealed to God. Unquestionably, during the American Revolution, the Bible and God’s law were officially recognized as the basis of American self-government – the concept introduced a century-and-a-half earlier by the Pilgrims.

However, the Pilgrims were responsible for introducing more into America than just the concept of self-government based on God’s standards. They also introduced from the Bible many ideas that have become established parts of our culture today, including free-enterprise, the hard-work ethic, workfare rather than welfare, and private property ownership. 

It is understandable that the Geneva Bible – particularly with its anti-autocratic commentaries – would be seen as a problem by the rulers of that day. In reaction, supporters of autocracy published the Bishops’ Bible and the Rheims Bible, both of which specifically attacked the content of the Geneva commentaries. This type of conflict was a factor leading to the establishment of official versions of the Bible.

 In probably the best-known example, King James I of England authorized the funding of a new translation of the Bible about 1600, and it was finally published in 1611. Even though it was translated from essentially the same manuscripts as the Geneva Bible, this version removed all the commentaries and thus silenced the dissenting voice.

 Not surprisingly, then, the “authorized” or King James Bible became the official Bible of many British monarchs and was therefore often the official Bible of the English colonies. In fact, Great Britain even made it illegal for the British colonies to print a Bible in the English language. 6 By this stipulation, all English-language Bibles were to be printed under the supervision of the Crown, thus helping regulate which versions were in circulation. (This law will be significant in a later discussion of the paintings in the Rotunda from the Revolutionary era.)

 There is one other painting in the Rotunda in which the Geneva Bible had a direct influence: the Baptism of Pocahontas. Pocahontas was one of the first converts to Christianity in the New World (led to Christ by John Rolfe, who later became her husband), and the Geneva Bible was apparently influential in her conversion. The picture depicts Pocahontas being baptized in 1613 by the Rev. Alexander Whitaker. Interestingly, on her baptism, Pocahontas changed her name to Rebecka, wanting a Biblical name to accompany her through her new life. 

Turning to the west side of the Rotunda, the four paintings there focus on the American Revolution, moving forward some 150 years beyond the Age of Discovery and Colonization. These four were painted by one of our Founding Fathers: John Trumbull, “The Painter of the Revolution.” 

John Trumbull served as an officer during the American Revolution, and what makes his paintings so meaningful is that he personally witnessed much of what he painted and personally knew many of those whom he painted in the pictures. Because of his commitment to artistic accuracy, the faces in his paintings in the Rotunda are probably about as close as is possible to having photographs of our Founding Fathers.

 John Trumbull came from a family of outspoken Christians, and other members of his family are also honored in the Capitol. For example, his brother Jonathan, who was a colonel during the Revolution as well as an officer on George Washington’s staff, is included in the painting of the surrender of Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown.

 After the Revolution, Jonathan became Governor of Connecticut; and while Governor, he issued several proclamations – with strong evangelical language – calling his entire State to extended times of prayer. It is not surprising, however, that he issued such evangelical proclamations, for they reflect his very nature. In fact, Jonathan Trumbull was one among the overwhelming majority of our Founding Fathers and early leaders who were strongly and openly religious.

david barton david barton

In addition to these eight pictures, several statues of America’s heroes and statesmen line the walls of the Rotunda. Each of the fifty States is allowed to display two statues of individuals from that State within the Capitol. (There are also five to ten other statues here, depending on various displays at any given time.) So, if an individual is commemorated by a statue in the Capitol, it is indeed a great honor – very few individuals from across America’s long history have ever been accorded this distinction.

 Most of the statues began arriving at the Capitol in 1870 and are found primarily in four rooms: the Rotunda, East Central Hall, the Hall of Columns, and National Statuary Hall (refer to Appendix A). Although the statues are occasionally shuffled around to different locations within the Capitol or sometimes replaced by a different statue from the State (as in the case of an astronaut from Colorado), such changes do not happen often. For the most part, the statues are generally of earlier leaders and statesmen and generally remain in the same area. 

Many of the statues and paintings within the Capitol will be highlighted as individual rooms are examined. Let’s start, however, by focusing our attention on the events depicted in the eight paintings in the Rotunda, beginning with the Embarkation of the Pilgrims in 1620. The Pilgrims are kneeling in prayer, committing their endeavor to God. Notice especially the Bible in the center of the picture around which they are gathered. That Bible is a “Geneva Bible.”

The Geneva Bible (140 editions were printed from 1560 to 1644 1) was the favorite of those who were called Pilgrims, Separatists, Dissenters, and Puritans. These groups believed that there was much corruption in the organized church Of the sixteenth century and that many of the church’s practices had become anti-Biblical; they objected to those corrupt practices (hence the title “Dissenters”). Some “dissenters” dedicated themselves completely unto God and separated themselves from the church and its objectionable practices (and consequently were called “Separatists”) while other “dissenters” sought to cleanse and purify the church from within (and thus were called “Puritans”). 

The Geneva Bible was the Bible that the early religious colonists (often called “Pilgrims”) brought to America’s shores. This Bible, despite its size of nearly 6 inches by 8 inches, was called a “pocket” Bible. (Previous editions of the Bible were huge and unwieldy, some being over two feet in height!) Many of the earlier Bibles were termed “Pulpit Bibles” because they were, in fact, often chained to the pulpits of churches. However, with the Geneva Bible, a person could individually possess and also read the Word of God without having to rely on a king or church official to interpret what the Bible said.

The most unique feature of the Geneva Bible – and the feature which so impacted American culture – was its marginal commentaries. These commentaries were largely the work of reformers who had been driven from Great Britain during the reigns of Bloody Mary and James I – two monarchs who were advocates of the Divine Right of Kings and of the authority of the State over the Church. The commentaries in the Geneva Bible reflected reformation thought and took an anti-autocratic tone toward both church leaders and state leaders. 

With such open criticism of church and state leaders, the Pilgrims became the target of harsh religious and government persecution. Seeking a place where they could serve God according to their interpretation of the Scriptures, the Pilgrims arrived in America in November 1620. While still anchored offshore, the Pilgrims established the “Mayflower Compact” – the first government document written on this continent.

 The “Mayflower Compact” articulated two important Biblical principles emphasized in the Geneva commentaries. The first was that of evangelization, and thus the Pilgrims declared that they had come to this continent for the express purpose of evangelizing the nation to a knowledge of Jesus Christ. The second religious principle in that document was what is now termed social compact – that individuals knit themselves together into a community which would then govern itself under fixed standards. In the case of the Pilgrims, their fixed standards were those established in God’s Word.

david barton david barton

The Capitol building of the United States of America – what a majestic edifice! This is one of a very few structures recognized the world over. In virtually any land, whoever sees a picture of this building knows it is the American seat of government!  

This grand structure has been the scene of some of the most profound moments in America’s history. In its two centuries of use, this building has welcomed the voices of some of our greatest heroes, has survived some of America’s most desperate and foreboding dangers, and has witnessed important decisions affecting American life and culture. 

Truly, many diverse stories record the heritage of this building. There are stories reflecting its architectural heritage, its political heritage, and its artistic heritage, but especially interesting are the stories reflecting its rich spiritual heritage. Because the spiritual heritage within this building is little known by most Americans today, this tour through the United States Capitol will highlight many of the stories and artifacts within the Capitol that confirm the deep roots of religious faith throughout American public life.

 THE ROTUNDA

 We will begin in the Rotunda. The Rotunda is in the center of the Capitol, and its entry is on the second floor. (Included in Appendix A is the floor plan of the interior of the Capitol, showing its rooms and floors. Please refer to the floor plan as the various rooms are discussed throughout this book.) The free-standing dome of the Rotunda is so tall that the Statue of Liberty could be placed inside and there would still be nearly 30 feet left above her torch!

 When Congress first moved into the Capitol in 1800, the building bore little resemblance to the current one. In the mid-1820s the Rotunda was completed, and not until 1863 was the massive dome built atop the Rotunda. It required nearly 70 years of construction for the Capitol to become the familiar structure we recognize today.

When the Rotunda opened to the public in 1824, the first things to catch the eye – both then and now – were the massive oil paintings which adorn the walls of the Rotunda. There are eight paintings; each measures 14 feet by 20 feet; and each depicts an important event bearing on our history.

 The four pictures on the east side depict the age of Exploration and Colonization; they were placed in the Rotunda between 1840 and 1855. The first is of Columbus landing in the Western World in 1492, depicting the prayer service held following his landing; the second is of DeSoto discovering the Mississippi River in 1541; the third is of the baptism of Pocahontas at Jamestown, Virginia, in 1613; and the fourth is of the Pilgrims in 1620, praying before departing from Holland to America. (Already, in just these four pictures, there are two prayer meetings and a baptism – an early indicator of the religious heritage found throughout the building.) 

The four paintings on the west side of the Rotunda were all in place in 1824 when the Rotunda originally opened; each represents an important event in America’s quest for independence. They include the Signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776; the Battle of Saratoga in 1777 (America’s first major victory of the American Revolution); the Victory at Yorktown in 1781 (the last battle of the American Revolution); and George Washington resigning as Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army in 1783.

david barton david barton

If our culture is moving the wrong way in America, it is because of Christian non-involvement. James A. Garfield, the 20th President of the United States, pointed this out a century ago. President Garfield was a minister of the Gospel. In a handwritten letter, he recounts personally preaching the Gospel nineteen times in a revival, with thirty-four people coming to Christ and thirty-one being baptized. Of course, this type of activity and background is not usually associated with our Presidents in the minds of most Americans today, but several of our Presidents were involved in Christian ministry.

Notice what President Garfield reminded Americans a century ago: Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. . . . [I]f the next centennial does not find us a great nation . . . it will be because thosewho represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces. It is safe to say that we who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation today have done little to control its political forces. Consequently, our national policies do not accurately reflect the values of the nation at large.

For example, 78 percent of the nation supports prayer in schools; 74 percent of the nation wants the Ten Commandments back in the classroom; 68 percent wants creation taught in public schools; 66 percent opposes partial-birth abortions; and there are similarly high numbers in numerous other areas involving faith and values. Yet despite the overwhelming support among the people on these issues, our public policies do not reflect these high numbers. In fact, the support on these issues is not nearly as high in Congress or in the courts as it is in the public. Why? Because Americans who embrace these values simply are not voting, and therefore are not electing to office leaders who embrace those same values.

The Rev. Charles Finney, a leader in America’s Second and Third Great Awakenings during the early and mid 1800s, reminded Christians of a lesson we need to remember today: The Church must take right ground in regard to politics. . . .

david barton david barton

Since the only way for America to end slavery was to separate from Great Britain, many Founders believed that separation would be an appropriate course of action. In fact, in the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson personally penned the clause declaring: [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. . . . Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

That is, not only has King George III engaged in slavery and the slave trade but he has even opposed all efforts to stop it. Ending slavery was so important to so many of the Founders that when America did separate from Great Britain in 1776, several States began abolishing slavery, including Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York. It is true that not every State immediately abolished slavery; and it is also true that even though the overwhelming majority of Founding Fathers were anti-slavery, not all were. In fact, Jefferson’s forceful denunciation of the slave trade in the original draft of the Declaration was complained about so strenuously by the delegates from Georgia and South Carolina that his clause was removed from the Declaration and a milder condemnation inserted instead. Nevertheless, the desire to end slavery was a major factor in the thinking of many Founding Fathers.

For example, America’s first antislavery society was founded in 1774 with the help of Benjamin Franklin and Dr. Benjamin Rush (both of whom became signers of the Declaration of Independence). This society was founded two years before the separation from Great Britain – an act of civil disobedience, for King George III had said America could not end slavery.

But these two Founders ignored that dictum and worked to end slavery anyway; and Dr. Benjamin Rush led the anti-slavery fight for almost four decades and even headed the national abolition movement. For many Founders, their desire to end slavery was religiously motivated. This fact is illustrated by John Quincy Adams, who hated slavery and so crusaded against it that he was nicknamed “the hell-hound of abolition” for his unrelenting efforts to abolish that evil. In a famous speech, Adams cited the Bible passage from Luke 4 where Jesus declared that he had come to “proclaim liberty to the captives”; he then noted that if this was the goal of the Savior, it should also be the goal of all Christians – they, too, should work to end slavery. Clearly, issues such as religious liberties and the desire to end slavery – as well as the removal of trial by jury, the impressment of American seamen by the British, the placing of the military power above the civilian power, and many others – were important reasons behind the Founders’ separation from Great Britain. Yet all that most Americans hear about today is “taxation without representation.”

Another indication of how little is known today about our own history is revealed when Americans are asked, “Who were the leaders most responsible for the movement in America that led to our independence?” Today, we hear names such as Samuel Adams, the “Father of the American Revolution”; Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration; John Hancock, the President of Congress with his bold signature on the Declaration; and John Adams, who not only signed the Declaration but who also negotiated and signed the Peace Treaty with Great Britain to secure our independence. These were indeed important political leaders behind our independence, but previous generations also knew about other important leaders. John Adams himself declared that the Rev. Dr. Jonathan Mayhew and the Rev. Dr. Samuel Cooper were two of the individuals “most conspicuous, the most ardent, and influential” in the “awakening and revival of American principles and feelings” that led to our independence. Other ministers whose influence and leadership were also important included the Rev. George Whitefield, the Rev. James Caldwell, the Rev. John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg with his brother the Rev. Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, and many more. (The exploits of many of these ministers are recorded in several older historical works, including The Pulpit of the American Revolution, The Patriot Preachers of the American Revolution, and The Chaplains and Clergy of the Revolution.) Regrettably, today we don’t hear much about the role of the church – of ministers and Christians – in the founding of our civil government.

david barton david barton

Benjamin Rush was one of America’s most influential Founding Fathers, signing the Declaration of Independence and serving in the presidential administrations of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. Furthermore, he helped found five universities, authored numerous textbooks, and was one of the first Founders to call for free, national public schools. He understood the instability of a democracy; he also understood that if our people ever lost their knowledge of the Bible and its rights and wrongs, then we would lose our republican government. As he explained:

[T]he only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government . . . is the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible.

Regrettably, America has forgotten many of these principles of government and has moved away from what the Founders so clearly articulated. This seems amazing considering the lengths to which they went to ensure that we would always know and understand those principles. How did we forget? How did we depart from those teachings? The movement away from those principles came as a result of destructive teachings introduced and widely disseminated during the last half of the nineteenth-century by men such as Colonel Robert Ingersoll, one of America’s first openly avowed and proudly self-proclaimed militant secular humanists. He aggressively attacked both Judaism and Christianity in order to remove the Judeo-Christian ethic from America. He wanted a different religion to be the foundation of government, explaining:

We are laying the foundations of the grand temple of the future . . . wherein . . . will be celebrated the religion of Humanity. . . . We are looking for the time when . . . REASON, throned upon the world’s brain, shall be the King of Kings and God of Gods. Ingersoll advanced two teachings to help achieve that goal:

(1) compartmentalizing the “religious” from the “secular,” and (2) excluding a candidate’s religious and moral beliefs from consideration of his competency for office (that is, to ignore a candidate’s private life and character). Tragically, these two teachings, although revolutionary at the time, have now become widely accepted, even among many in the God-fearing community. Concerning the latter teaching, Ingersoll asserted: The religious views of a candidate should be kept entirely out of sight. . . . All these things are private and personal.

However, such a policy is illogical. That is, it might be advisable to separate a candidate’s religious views from his run for office if citizens could be guaranteed that no public policy touching religion would ever arise while he was in office; but this has never happened and never will. In fact, in any given session of Congress today, from 10,000 to 13,000 bills are introduced, scores of which specifically address religious issues and values. The same is true at the state level (although fewer bills are introduced) and at the local level. Therefore, since a public official at every level of government will in some manner address religious issues, it is advisable to inquire into a candidate’s personal religious views.

To ignore a candidate’s religious views is as irrational as ignoring his economic views. It is certain that he will enact policy on economic issues, so it is important to know his economic views; the same is true with a candidate’s religious views. Unfortunately, however, too many today separate a candidate’s views on religious issues from his candidacy, fueling the notion that private life and views are irrelevant and have no bearing on professional public service.

Americans long believed that one’s private life and beliefs were an important indicator of the type of leader a candidate would make. In fact, the conviction of this truth was so strong that for generations it formed a core element in classroom instruction. One famous text incorporating this teaching was so popular that after being first published in December of 1800, it went through over 200 reprints, even being a favorite of President Abraham Lincoln. That text taught students that they must always examine the private life and character of a leader, explaining:

[P]ublic character . . . is no evidence of true greatness, for a public character is often an artificial one.

The textbook illustrated the truth of this axiom with the example of Benedict Arnold. In his public capacity, Arnold was a General in the American Army, an early leader in the American Revolution, and a war hero in the momentous battle of Saratoga in 1777, with monuments having been erected to honor his military exploits.

However, during the same time that he was being publicly lauded as an American patriot, in private he was embezzling supplies destined for the starving troops at Valley Forge, selling the supplies on the black market, and then pocketing the profits – all while American soldiers were dying for lack of those supplies. So greedy was Arnold that he even betrayed West Point to the enemy for money. Clearly, he was a traitor to his country. So was his public life or his private life a better indicator of his true character? Obviously, his private life. The textbook thus concluded:

It is not, then, in the glare of public, but in the shade of private life that we are to look for the man. Private life is always real life. Behind the curtain, where the eyes of the million are not upon him . . . there he will always be sure to act himself. Consequently, if he act greatly [in private], he must be great indeed. Hence it has been justly said that “Our private deeds, if noble, are noblest of our lives.” . . . [I]t is the private virtues that lay the foundation of all human excellence.

Schoolbooks long taught Americans to examine the private life; but from what source did they derive that teaching? From several sources, including experience and common sense, the Scriptures, and the Founding Fathers.

One Founder outspoken about this teaching was John Witherspoon, a signer of the Declaration who served on over 100 different committees in Congress. He was also the President of Princeton University and is considered the educational father of many Founding Fathers, having personally trained one U. S. President, one Vice-President, three Supreme Court Justices, thirteen Governors, and at least twenty Senators and thirty Congressmen – not to mention several Cabinet Members 29 (and this does not include the numerous individuals he trained for state, local, and municipal offices). What did this prominent Founder teach his students that caused so many to rise to high levels of leadership? Among other things, Witherspoon taught them the three basic traits of an American patriot:

That he is the best friend to American liberty who is the most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country.

According to Witherspoon, the first trait of an American patriot – the first indicator of a true leader – was that he be an active and sincere promoter of “true and undefiled religion.” Second was that he “set himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind.” Why would this trait be necessary for a good leader?

Because with America’s republican form of government, if the people became profane and immoral, then the government would also become profane and immoral; and since history proves that profane and immoralgovernments do not endure, then if someone loved America and its form of government, he would bear down on the enemies of good government: profanity and immorality. Witherspoon’s third characteristic was that whoever was “an avowed enemy of God” was “an enemy to his country.” Why? Since the American republic was firmly built on the principles of God’s Word, if an individual opposed what God stood for, he opposed the very foundation on which America had been built. How, then, could he be a true patriot?

(Abigail Adams agreed with John Witherspoon, explaining: “[A] true patriot must be a religious man. . . . [H]e who neglects his duty to his Maker may well be expected to be deficient and insincere in his duty towards the public.” )

Notice that two of Witherspoon’s three characteristics focused on private life – one on private religious life, and one on private moral life. Private life was very important to the Founders. Therefore, the textbooks in part derived their teaching on private life from great leaders such as John Witherspoon; however, they also derived that teaching from the Bible.

One clear Biblical passage espousing this position was Matthew 7:16-20, in which Jesus explained that a tree’s roots determined the character of its fruit – that if its root was corrupt, then its fruit would also be corrupt. As he reminded His listeners, grapes could not be picked from briar bushes, or figs gathered from thistle plants; what one was at his roots – at his core – would determine what eventually would manifest itself in public.

Nonetheless, many today absolutely refuse to consider one’s “roots” – one’s private life; they want to ignore private character and believe that the one they elect will somehow produce good results simply because he promised to do so during his campaign. This is an unsound approach, based on unrealistic, fanciful thinking. To find out if there will be good fruit in a leader, first examine his roots – his private life and character. As John Witherspoon explained: Those who wish well to the State ought to choose to places of trust men of inward principle, justified by exemplary conversation [lifestyle]. Is it reasonable to expect wisdom from the ignorant? fidelity [faithfulness] from the profligate [unfaithful]? assiduity [diligence] and application to public business from men of a dissipated [careless] life? Is it reasonable to commit the management of public revenue to one who hath wasted his own patrimony [inheritance]? Those, therefore, who pay no regard to religion and sobriety in the persons whom they send to the legislature of any State are guilty of the greatest absurdity and will soon pay dear for their folly.

In short, to know what fruit an individual will produce, check his roots – don’t expect public faithfulness from one who is privately unfaithful, or public frugality from one who is privately extravagant, etc. Always investigate a candidate’s private religious and moral beliefs and behavior.

According to John Adams, it was the presence of private moral and religious beliefs that produced trustworthy public officials and thus provided a security for government and its citizens. In fact, in his diary entry for February 9, 1772, he discussed “that struggle which I believe always happens between virtue and ambition,” insightfully noting that an individual in office who lacks virtue will “appl[y] himself to the passions and prejudices, the follies and vices of great men in order to obtain their smiles, esteem, and patronage, and consequently their favors and preferment.” This is an accurate description of what today may be termed a “politician” – an individual who willingly compromises principles in order to maintain favor with his party and constituents and thus win reelection. A statesman, however, will not compromise principles, regardless of the cost. What makes the difference between a politician and a statesman – what makes one willing to compromise principles and the other one not?

According to Adams, it was embracing the Biblical conviction of the reality of future rewards and punishments. That is, a statesman realizes that he will stand before God and account to Him for what he does in private as well as in public; this awareness of imminent accountability to God serves as a restraint on personal misbehavior. Such a restraint is especially important for office-holders, for although they are termed “public officials,” most of what they do in their official capacities actually occurs in private. Therefore, if there is no self-imposed restraint on a public official’s private actions stemming from a sense of his accountability to God, then that public official is a danger to good government because of the compromises he invariably will make.

Was John Adams a politician or a statesman? – was he willing to compromise principles, or was he determined to stand firm even though it might cost him the next election? Adams was definitely a statesman,explaining, “The duration of future punishment terrifies me.” Because he understood that he would answer to God for his every action, John Adams guarded his private behavior and carefully weighed his public policy decisions before God; as a result, his reputation for public integrity remains untarnished to this day.

david barton david barton

Noah Webster provides additional corroboration of the Founders’ views on this subject. Webster today is primarily known only as an educator (his impact on education was so profound that he has been titled the “Schoolmaster to America”), yet he was also a Founding Father, serving as a soldier during the Revolution and a legislator and judge afterwards. He was one of the first Founders to call for the Constitutional Convention and was personally responsible for specific wording in the Constitution. In a textbook he authored for public schools, Webster told students: All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.

Very simply, the Founders understood the numerous societal benefits produced by Biblical precepts and values and had no intention of expunging those principles from the public square. They even believed that American government would not function properly if separated from religious principles. As John Adams explained: [W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (emphasis added)

Adams was one of only two Founders to sign the Bill of Rights (and thus the First Amendment), and as a constitutional expert, he forcefully pronounced that our Constitution would not function properly if separated from religious values and standards. Yet, contemporary courts now use the document that bears his signature to prohibit what he encouraged under that same document. Significantly, subsequent generations retained the Framers’ beliefs about the importance of Biblical principles in maintaining a civilized society. For example, Robert Winthrop, a Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives in the 1840s, repeated what he had learned from the Framers, explaining: Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them, either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man, either by the Bible or by the bayonet. (There are similar authoritative declarations from numerous other Framers and early statesmen.)

Given the Founders’ unequivocal position on the necessity of including religious principles and expressions throughout the public arena, is it reasonable to believe that they would create an Amendment whose alleged purpose was to prohibit what they so cherished and advocated? Certainly not! To the contrary, not only did the Founders never intend that the First Amendment be a vehicle to separate religious principles from public affairs but they believed that through its Free Exercise clause they had protected these principles and kept them in the public square.

One of the clearest affirmations of the Framer’s commitment to retaining religious principles in official arenas came from President George Washington, who presided over the formation of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In his famous “Farewell Address,” † Washington reminded Americans that religious teachings and values must never be removed from politics and public policy, declaring:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable [insepa-rable] 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 to cherish them. (emphasis added) Notice that Washington even asserted that if anyone tried to separate religion and morality from public life and policy, he could not be called a patriot! Washington was not finished, however; he next warned Americans to reject the proposition that morality could be preserved apart from religion:

[L]et us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Washington, understanding that religion was the basis of morality and that there was no secure basis for a free government apart from religion, therefore insightfully queried:

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?

Washington warned that if religious principles were separated from public institutions such as our courts of justice, then citizens would no longer have a secure basis for property, life, or freedom. Clearly, the writings not only of George Washington but also of John Adams, Benjamin Rush, Fisher Ames, John Marshall, Noah Webster, James Madison, and many other prominent Founders make clear that they did not embrace the secular “separation” philosophy imposed on America today, and supposedly imposed under the authority of the Constitution they wrote.

Yet, if the phrase “separation of church and state” appears in no official founding document, then what is the source of that phrase? And how did it become so closely associated with the First Amendment?

On October 7, 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, sent a letter to President Thomas Jefferson expressing their concern that protection for religion had been written into the laws and constitutions. Believing strongly that freedom of religion was an inalienable right given by God, the fact that it appeared in civil documents suggested that the government viewed it as a government-granted rather than a God-granted right. Apprehensive that the government might someday wrongly believe that it did have the power to regulate public religious activities, the Danbury Baptists communicated their anxiety to President Jefferson. On January 1, 1802, Jefferson responded to their letter. He understood their concerns and agreed with them that man accounted only to God and not to government for his faith and religious practice. Jefferson emphasized to the Danbury Baptists that none of man’s natural (i.e., inalienable) rights – including the right to exercise one’s faith publicly – would ever place him in a situation where the government would interfere with his religious expressions. He assured them that because of the wall of separation, they need not fear government interference with religious expressions: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, . . . I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

david barton david barton