Hi,
I came across this while searching the internet. It seems like an obvious truth. I thought it might start a new discussion or
continue an old one on a new footing.
Larry
From the "Journal of law and Religion"
Religious Foundations of Law in the West: An Historical Perspective*
Harold J. Berman
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1051071
Published online: 24 April 2015
Abstract
The fundamental changes that have taken place in our legal institutions during the past two generations are part of a transformation of the entire Western legal tradition, marked particularly by its disconnection from the religious foundations upon which it was built. For over eight hundred years, from the late eleventh to the early twentieth century, law in the West was supported by, and in many respects based on, religious beliefs, both Roman Catholic and Protestant. In the twentieth century the intimate connection between the Western legal tradition and the Western religious tradition has been substantially broken.
Sixty to seventy years ago, the connection between law and religion in the West was so intimate that it was usually taken for granted. Even in the United States, where religious diversity was far greater than in most other Western countries, and where agnosticism and atheism were more tolerated, it was generally accepted that the legal system was rooted in Judaic and Christian religious and ethical beliefs. “We are a religious people,” wrote Justice William O. Douglas as recently as 1951, speaking for a majority of the United States Supreme Court, “whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” Not only law and legality in general, but many specific legal standards, principles and rules were widely thought to be derived ultimately from the Bible, from the history of the church, and from what the Declaration of Independence called “the laws of Nature and Nature's God.”
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
From the excerpt of the first post:
"The fundamental changes that have taken place in our legal institutions during the past two generations are part of a transformation of the entire Western legal tradition, marked particularly by its disconnection from the religious foundations upon which it was built."
Partly my motivation is that I think people will be more at ease - less angry - when they can recognize the benefits that have come to them from their past. Be it their family of origin or the positive things that have come down from their society.
Less anger and more peace and toleration is a good thing, in my view. I think we appreciate our history even if we decide to build our future on another basis.
I also think its a good thing to think about the benefits that derive for the past because that knowledge will serve to keep options open for the future - whether for individuals - or on a larger scale.
I people - singly or as a society - are better off when they actually know how they got to a certain place. If they decide to build on other ideas and they find that - maybe eventually they are not so well off - then they have options to return - even if the return is with modifications.
Having the option to return or to modify is better than not having options.
I was surprised to see some of the reactions I got - even when I posted excerpts from important documents in American history.
So it seems to me that there would be good reason to discuss this - because more agreement between people is a good thing, it seems to me. And history is something that can be more easily evidenced than philosophical concepts.
So these kinds of thoughts - or something close to them - seems to be the reason folks host these kinds of forums.
So I thought I would try again.
Larry
Hi Larry,
You said, "Western concepts of freedom grounded in Christianity."
What is xtianity grounded on? Judaism? What is that grounded on? Keep going back. As they say, it's turtles all the way down.
You said, "Western concepts of freedom grounded in Christianity."
"What is xtianity grounded on? Judaism? What is that grounded on? Keep going back. As they say, it's turtles all the way down"
Yes, early on Christianity was known as " The Way" and it was a Jewish sect. There were other Jewish sects - parties or whatever we want to call the various groups.
The books of Moses were influenced by his sources and historical situation if we were to listen to conservative scholars. Or by Israel's historical situation or the situation of the Jews if we listen to more liberal ones.
But I have my hands more than full at the moment w/o getting into another area.
I started taking a Sunday School class at my church in September that was run by a young scholar/pastor - guy's going for a PHD from a well known - now secular, in my view - once Christian university. his area of study is the New Testament. But after a few classes I went on my own because - the classes were on the Gospels - I wanted to research the dates they were written. Spent months and hundreds of dollars buying mostly used books.
A worthwhile study for me - but it took lots of time. And $$. I am not ready tp deal with OT scholarly controversies.
I also bought used book on Egyptian art this past Fall - beautiful stuff and I have enjoyed going to museums and learning more - but --- can always learn more.
Larry
This is just another revisionist history posting by Larry. He is nothing more than a lying hack for christians that want to rewrite history and to force christianity on everyone else.
The truth is that Western Concepts of FREEDOM actually come from ancient Greece.
That the American concept of freedom actually rejects christian concepts and tenets.
If you study American history, you would know that the founders rejected obedience to a religion. This is evident in Thomas Jefferson's letter that describes "Separation between Church and State., The Establishment Clause of the Constitution of the United States, and the Treaty of Tripoli that clearly states in Article 11 that this nation was NOT founded upon the christian religion.
I have proved this to this idiot Larry A. till I'm sick. He is a troll. He was a troll way back when, when he used to pull this shit. Now he is doing it again!
He is a fucking troll. I am formally requesting that CyberLN remove him. If you look at the history of Larry A.'s post and threads they are all the same. Every goddamned one of them. They may start out different but they are all the same.
Larry is a troll.
mykcob4: "I have proved this to this idiot Larry A."
mykob4 needs to refresh his memory by revisiting CyberLn's post "Civility". Although many here do not agree with Larry A. on religion, he is a gentleman when it comes to expressing his opinion. Perhaps mycob4's continual uncivil behavior should make him a much more eligible candidate for being banned than Larry A.
Maybe I'mFree should read all of Larry A.'s posts before he shoots off his mouth.
Read CyberLN's "Civility" post mykob4 and if you cannot comply, do not comment on Larry A.'s posts. Very simple.
@ImFree
Since you are not a Mod then you can either ignore MY post or restrain yourself. You don't have the right to tell me what to do. I can comment on ANYONE's post. Who the fuck are you to tell me I can't?!
Is that a suggestion IM or are have you joined the thought police?
"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement."
Wikipedia
I see absolutely zero evidence that Larry is a troll. Not accepting another's posts as truth is not evidentiary. I think the troll monicker is absolutely over-used in these forums.
So far as my post on civility, I will simply say that if any poster overtly tells someone with an opposing view to go away, brutally intimidates them, or shames them venomously about their age, sexuality, gender, nationality, etc., I will have to consider banning you. I prefer to give a lot of leeway to folks in the interest of discourse, but for fuck sake, cut out the bullshit! If anyone has any questions, comments, or want clarification about this, please PM me.
Cyberln
"for fuck sake, cut out the bullshit! "
This is why I adore you :)
When I went to other forums the restrictions are so many that I'd be afraid I'd screw up so much more there.
CyberLN,
Thanks for the defense. But try to consider that these folks want and expect a board where they can connect with only other atheists. I know I am an intruder and that my presence here - just that very fact - could stir up controversy and hostility.
I imagine that many come from painful places. I have had my own negative experiences trying to fit in with church folk.
Also there is much in Western and American history that cannot be defended.
Its very possible that I have just worn out my welcome - should I stay or go???
I don't know - I don't imagine I will find anyone here who would invite me to stay. Nerves seem pretty raw. But I would like people to know that I think I can defend the 1st post of this thread and my posts in the other threads.
It just seems like obvious truth to me.
Still, nerves are raw and maybe it will be better for me to leave. But I will watch the this thread and if I detect a change , I will join in again.
But you folks could do me a favor and create a place on the board where people can post anonymous prayer requests.
Where they can be anonymous but post some requests and I will try to pray for them - maybe be able to exchange emails with them.
They have nothing to lose - if God does not exist they lose nothing. If he does and answers prayer they gain. I would like to have that kind of an opportunity - anonymous posting and a way to exchange private messages.
Larry
@Larry A.: Sorry but I don't understand what you mean with this text.
@Larry....
You said "Western concepts of freedom grounded in Christianity." ....... but you appear to mean "American concepts" ....
over here in Europe we have fought many very long and very very bloody wars to remove the dead hand of various churches from the levers of our legal systems....... trust me...whatever our (European) various legal systems are based on.. in the main .it aint Christianity.
Over thousands of years the churches have continually maneuvered for exemption from the laws governing the rest of society....look up the "spat" between HenryII of England and Thomas Becket ..... from memory it was occasioned by the churches insistence...(backed by the Pope) that a church man could not be tried for murder by the Kings courts.... but had to be tried in their own cannon courts ... resulting in extra lenient sentences.........
Any thing sounding familiar here...
Look up Roger Williams "THE BLOUDY TENENT OF PERSECUTION"
Roger Williams (July 15, 1644)
http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/williams/btp.htm
In another post I pointed to a U.S. Library of Congress webpage that discusses this kind of stuff and goes on to discuss the several aspects the way American history has interacted with religion - which was mostly Christianity.
English history is replete with back and forth persecutions - Protestants and Catholics - this cannot be defended and must be admitted.
But it is also a fact that political freedom emerged as a result of Christian theology as it interacted with enlightenment thought.
The chief Library of Congress archiest who developed the LOC webpage wrote a few books - one by the same title as the exhibit - it is a companion book to the exhibit that I own. I also own one or two others by the same guy. A reputable historian - I don't know what his beliefs are. Some of his conclusions are controversial as are all academic conclusions these days. But he had help from other reputable historians as well.
There was a guy named Norman Cousins who was a famous literary person back in the 40s or 50s I guess. As I understand it he had cancer - I don't know what his beliefs were - atheist , agnostic - very possibly - but as I understand it he had cancer and did some good research for his own benefit on what the American founders believed and he put all of that into a book - sometimes still available as a used book - I own a copy - where he has very little initial commentary and then just original source material from several prominent founders - personal letters - documents like ; Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance."
I also own a book that was published by Simon and Shuster in 1944. The Book is entitled - "The Ten Commandments: Ten Short Novels of Hitler's War Against the Moral Code"
The book is an anthology where 10 different literary people - all refuges from Hitler's Europe according to the book jacket - now lost - who based their stories on facts that were supposedly coming out of Europe during WW2. The writers - atheists, communists , a Jewish rabbi and so on - but they were writing as a part of the American and English? war effort.
Except for the first essay - the stories are supposed to show how the Nazis were breaking every one of the Ten Commandments. I never read the stories - I don't like fiction - but I thought it was interesting that during times of stress these folks were trying to shore up belief in the Ten Commandments as one way to shore up freedom in Western societies.
The preface was written by a Herman Rauschning who claims to have had a meeting with Hitler himself. Though I read online that this was disputed by someone - Rauschning himself might have lied about this. I don't know.
But everything I have read - and more besides - would confirm that Western freedom and Christianity at are intimately connected.
That is not to deny enlightenment influence or Greek or other - but freedom came about as a struggle. Christian belief - theology - and the practices of believing Christians - and Jews for that matter - had their part to play and it was a big part.
Without historical revision or cherry picking facts its a story well worth exploring. But you can only do so much in one post.
Larry
@Larry A. "Western concepts of freedom grounded in Christianity"
Western concepts of freedom are the result of a centuries-old struggle for freedom from oppression founded on a pernicious partnership between despots and priests. Religions gave kings legitimacy as "god's anointed" and kept the masses in awe with stories of hellfire and damnation. Everytime people have struggled for freedom, black-robed priests have been there on the wrong side supporting the tyrants.
Religions are tools for instilling fear, compelling obedience, crushing thought, and entrenching privilege. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, democracy, and equality under the rule of law are all utterly foreign to religious institutions.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances
Notice that all of these rights have to do with expression. All together were considered necessary for the preservation of freedom. I think that is a fair statement. Not the freedom of religion comes first in two different ways. First - originally a national church was prohibited. This clause since 1948 has been the subject of ongoing controversy through continuous lawsuits and Supreme Court decisions. The other clause seeks to protect religious expression in the public. It protects more than the ability to hold church services - it protects such things as religious leafletting.
The founders actually gave a lot of public support to religion - prayer resolves, for instance.They valued it as a way of limiting government because of the way it supported public morality.
For instance look at the Massachusetts Constitution - and influential document during the Federalist era.
The article is not legal today but is kept for historical reasons:
Source is a current Massachusetts webpage:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution
PART THE FIRST
A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Article I.
All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. [Annulled by Amendments, Art. CVI.]
Article II.
It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship. [See Amendments, Arts. XLVI and XLVIII.]
Larry
@Larry
You are wrong again. The first amendment protects ALL freedom of expression. It wasn't written to specifically protect religious expression. In fact, it was written to protect against religious zealots that wanted to ban anything that didn't agree with the christian god. This nation was expressing individual freedom at the time of the American revolution. The King was evoking religious tenet that his word was law. Therefore the founders were defying religious authority in favor of INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. It would be hypocritical of them to deny religious freedom as religious freedom is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.
There are NO Articles in the Declaration of Independence. It is a long letter that gives the reasons for declaring war on the King of England.
I have MORE than proven over and over that the Founders did not intend nor did they found this nation of christianity. I point to AGAIN, The tTreaty of Tripoli, The Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the letter from Thomas Jefferson that defines Separation of Church and State.
You would like to revise history but I just won't let you get away with it. I fought on behalf of this nation. I swore an oath to the Constitution. I received 3 Purple Heart Awards in that service. I will not let you demean the honor of my service and the service of men and women of this nation, by YOU revising history to fit your fucked up narrative.
https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause
In my post on the 1st amendment I said this
"Notice that all of these rights have to do with expression. All together were considered necessary for the preservation of freedom."
Its the way I see the First Amendment rights - they are all of them expressive rights and all alike deemed to be necessary for the preservation of freedom. Religious expression no more than freedom of the press but no less either.
BTW in the case of religious leafletting - handing out tracts in public places - is that acting on freedom of religious expression or freedom of the press or is it freedom of speech - or all three at once and so deserving of closest possible scrutiny in courts?
Don't we agree here?
What rank did you retire as?
I only spent 4 years in the Marine Corps and with a limited education was fortunate to make E5. Served 1 year in Vietnam as a ground pounder. But it wasn't my cup of tea.
I did quite a bit of reading of Supreme Court decisions later though. Seems like we have some stuff in common. I read the Jefferson letter - it was referenced in Everson in 1948, through a case that was decided in the 1870s or 80s.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/330/1
My research suggests to me that the clerks at the Supreme Court happened upon that letter because there was a case in 1946 that dealt either with polygamy or sex trafficking across state lines. I forget which. I am not claiming that America is a Christian nation the way some Christians today do. I have tried to read this history as objectively as I can - and believe I am safe to say that Christianity is one of the sources from which our theory of freedom is derived.
If you look at this Everson decision you will find that both Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance" and Patrick Henry's document that favored tax support for churches are appended. This was a controversy that the founders struggled with.
They lived under establishments of official churches - Massachusetts was the last to disestablish and that was not until after John Adams died. While he lived he was too revered a figure to challenge his belief that a mild form of establishment was required for the stability. Washington and Patrick henry agreed with him over the opinions of the younger Madison. This debate took place after the Revolutionary war.
The Everson decision also referenced these cases:
Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164
Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333
At the time I was researching all this stuff - late1990s Scalia said that Davis was still "good law", if memory serves.
Both Davis and the earlier Reynolds decision were polygamy decisions. Reynolds was a Mormon sentenced to hard labor because he set himself up to be a test case when Utah was still federal territory. He remains a hero to LDS convinced today. The Court read Jefferson's letter and reduced his sentence to one that did not include hard labor. In this regard note the last part of the sentence:
Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I think the Reynolds and Davis courts said that we are free to believe anything we want - and the state is free to punish behavior they outlaw even though that behavior stems from belief.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/133/333/case.html
Lets see where they used the word "Christian":
"Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of the United States, by the laws of Idaho, and by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries, and to call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind"
"Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman, and to debase man. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society, and receive more general or more deserved punishment. To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community."
"Probably never before in the history of this country has it been seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the government for acts, recognized by the general consent of the Christian world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation, must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect encouraging crime may be carried out without hindrance."
Certainly the Davis court considered the US to be a Christian nation. The wording here summarizes the gist of the 1st post.
"The fundamental changes that have taken place in our legal institutions during the past two generations are part of a transformation of the entire Western legal tradition, marked particularly by its disconnection from the religious foundations upon which it was built.'
The reading I did on this leaves me honestly believing that up until fairly recently there would not have been a debate about this - that our legal tradition, including our concept of rights - were grounded in our Christian heritage.
What should we think between this and the treaty with Tripoli you point to? I think simply that for diplomatic purposes we stressed our secular side - for internal purposes the religious interconnection of law and religion and the sentiments of many.
I have taken a lot of time with this post. I hope you will grant that I am trying to be as respectful as possible. Also that my reply is sufficiently nuanced that I am trying to deal with the material I have read as objectively as I can. That does not mean that others could not make a like effort and arrive at different conclusions. Legal theory is changing from that of the founding era - I would think the founders would hardly recognize their thinking in today's decisions. Some would probably cheer the change and some would be upset by it, is my guess.
After writing all of this I discovered that it was in the Reynolds case that Jefferson's letter is referenced.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/98/145/case.html
Larry
mykcob4
I am doing a second post on the Danbury letter/ First Amendment issue here - not as fodder to prove a point - but as more information to add to the discussion. What should we make of this, do you think?
The source for this is the Library of Congress virtual exhibit Religion and the Founding of the American Republic
Religion and the Federal Government, Part 1"
The exhibit was well researched by professional historians and - to my mind - should be seen as a good source of information. The exhibit has itself to pass the neutrality tests - Supreme Court teaching on religious neutrality, because the Library of Congress is a U.S. Government institution. First Amendment legal teaching does apply to it.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html
"Religion and the Constitution
When the Constitution was submitted to the American public, "many pious people" complained that the document had slighted God, for it contained "no recognition of his mercies to us . . . or even of his existence." The Constitution was reticent about religion for two reasons: first, many delegates were committed federalists, who believed that the power to legislate on religion, if it existed at all, lay within the domain of the state, not the national, governments; second, the delegates believed that it would be a tactical mistake to introduce such a politically controversial issue as religion into the Constitution. The only "religious clause" in the document--the proscription of religious tests as qualifications for federal office in Article Six--was intended to defuse controversy by disarming potential critics who might claim religious discrimination in eligibility for public office.
That religion was not otherwise addressed in the Constitution did not make it an "irreligious" document any more than the Articles of Confederation was an "irreligious" document. The Constitution dealt with the church precisely as the Articles had, thereby maintaining, at the national level, the religious status quo. In neither document did the people yield any explicit power to act in the field of religion. But the absence of expressed powers did not prevent either the Continental-Confederation Congress or the Congress under the Constitution from sponsoring a program to support general, nonsectarian religion."
But I want to see what this exhibit says about that letter. there are two blocks of text posted on it.
"A Wall of Separation
The celebrated phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," was contained in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. American courts have used the phrase to interpret the Founders' intentions regarding the relationship between government and religion. The words, "wall of separation," appear just above the section of the letter that Jefferson circled for deletion. In the deleted section Jefferson explained why he refused to proclaim national days of fasting and thanksgiving, as his predecessors, George Washington and John Adams, had done. In the left margin, next to the deleted section, Jefferson noted that he excised the section to avoid offending "our republican friends in the eastern states" who cherished days of fasting and thanksgiving."
Thomas Jefferson to Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins and Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association in the state of Connecticut, January 1, 1802. Holograph draft letter, 1802. Jefferson Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (163a)
Bookmark this item: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html#obj163a
"The Danbury Baptist Letter, as Originally Drafted
The Library of Congress is grateful to the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory for recovering the lines obliterated from the Danbury Baptist letter by Thomas Jefferson. He originally wrote "a wall of eternal separation between church and state," later deleting the word "eternal." He also deleted the phrase "the duties of my station, which are merely temporal." Jefferson must have been unhappy with the uncompromising tone of both of these phrases, especially in view of the implications of his decision, two days later, to begin attending church services in the House of Representatives."
Thomas Jefferson to Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins and Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association in the state of Connecticut, January 1, 1802. Letter, digitally revised to expose obliterated sections. Copyprint. Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (163b)
Bookmark this item: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html#obj163b
Larry
So.......
Like I said ,""American concepts of freedom grounded in Christianity."
Wartime Novels ,Library of Congress ,Roger Williams....... ?
OK....and just what significance does this book list have for the Swiss Cantons ...for the German principalities ...for France....
No my friend your view is far too parochial...... "the West" is far more than America ...indeed while your Mr Williams was trying and ultimately failing to cajole the government of Oliver Cromwell....America was no more than an under developed colony ...it was Europe that was shaping the foundations of modern nation states ...true some of your people had good ideas...indeed some were positively "prophetic".... BUT Western concepts of freedom have many parents they did not spring fully formed from America and certainly not from Christianity.... in fact I believe much of what you seek to claim as the Christian based western system of rights and freedoms came from revolutionary France....famously atheist I think you'll find. And the legal system has its roots in Magna Carta.
No...freedom does not come from any school of religion.
"And the legal system has its roots in Magna Carta."
Certainly the Magna Carta. I think the American founders took a dim view of the French Revolution - I'll research that.
No doubt I am too parochial in my readings - I am not as well read as I would wan to be. That at least two agreements and one disagreement but that one is to be researched.
What should I make of this, do you think:
https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/american_originals/inaugtxt.html
WASHINGTON'S INAUGURAL ADDRESS
OF 1789
A Transcription
[April 30, 1789]
Fellow Citizens of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Among the vicissitudes incident to life, no event could have filled me with greater anxieties than that of which the notification was transmitted by your order, and received on the fourteenth day of the present month. On the one hand, I was summoned by my Country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love, from a retreat which I had chosen with the fondest predilection, and, in my flattering hopes, with an immutable decision, as the asylum of my declining years: a retreat which was rendered every day more necessary as well as more dear to me, by the addition of habit to inclination, and of frequent interruptions in my health to the gradual waste committed on it by time. On the other hand, the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my Country called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and most experienced of her citizens, a distrustful scrutiny into his qualifications, could not but overwhelm with dispondence, one, who, inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpractised in the duties of civil administration, ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies. In this conflict of emotions, all I dare aver, is, that it has been my faithful study to collect my duty from a just appreciation of eve ry circumstance, by which it might be affected. All I dare hope, is, that, if in executing this task I have been too much swayed by a grateful remembrance of former instances, or by an affectionate sensibility to this transcendent proof, of the confidence of my fellow-citizens; and have thence too little consulted my incapacity as well as disinclination for the weighty and untried cares before me; my error will be palliated by the motives which misled me, and its consequences be judged by my Country, with some share of the partiality in which they originated.
Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency. And in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their United Government, the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has resulted, cannot be compared with the means by which most Governments have been established, without some return of pious gratitude along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me I trust in thinking, that there are none under the influence of which, the proceedings of a new and free Government can more auspiciously commence.
By the article establishing the Executive Department, it is made the duty of the President "to recommend to your consideration, such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." The circumstances under which I now meet you, will acquit me from entering into that subject, farther than to refer to the Great Constitutional Charter under which you are assembled; and which, in defining your powers, designates the objects to which your attention is to be given. It will be more consistent with those circumstances, and far more congenial with the feelings which actuate me, to substitute, in place of a recommendation of particular measures, the tribute that is due to the talents, the rectitude, and the patriotism which adorn the characters selected to devise and adopt them. In these honorable qualifications, I behold the surest pledges, that as on one side, no local prejudices, or attachments; no seperate views, nor party animosities, will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests: so, on another, that the foundations of our National policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; and the pre-eminence of a free Government, be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its Citizens, and command the respect of the world.
I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my Country can inspire: since there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage, between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity: Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.
Besides the ordinary objects submitted to your care, it will remain with your judgment to decide, how far an exercise of the occasional power delegated by the Fifth article of the Constitution is rendered expedient at the present juncture by the nature of objections which have been urged against the System, or by the degree of inquietude which has given birth to them. Instead of undertaking particular recommendations on this subject, in which I could be guided by no lights derived from official opportunities, I shall again give way to my entire confidence in your discernment and pursuit of the public good: For I assure myself that whilst you carefully avoid every alteration which might endanger the benefits of an United and effective Government, or which ought to await the future lessons of experience; a reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen, and a regard for the public harmony, will sufficiently influence your deliberations on the question how far the former can be more impregnably fortified, or the latter be safely and advantageously promoted.
To the preceeding observations I have one to add, which will be most properly addressed to the House of Representatives. It concerns myself, and will therefore be as brief as possible. When I was first honoured with a call into the Service of my Country, then on the eve of an arduous struggle for its liberties, the light in which I contemplated my duty required that I should renounce every pecuniary compensation. From this resolution I have in no instance departed. And being still under the impressions which produced it, I must decline as inapplicable to myself, any share in the personal emoluments, which may be indispensably included in a permanent provision for the Executive Department; and must accordingly pray that the pecuniary estimates for the Station in which I am placed, may, during my continuance in it, be limited to such actual expenditures as the public good may be thought to require.
Having thus imported to you my sentiments, as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign parent of the human race, in humble supplication that since he has been pleased to favour the American people, with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparellelled unanimity on a form of Government, for the security of their Union, and the advancement of their happiness; so his divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.
Washington's distinctive signature
This transcription was taken from the original document in the Records of the U.S. Senate, Record Group 46, in the National Archives.
OK but don't believe my wife. I see no evidence of pigheadedness at all. I think its just her way to get her way. She mostly does.
Larry