"Accidental" Influences on the American Founding

Over the years I've noticed claims of "accidental" influences on the American founding. What does that mean? Influences that they rarely if ever cited, but who somehow deserve credit for their ideas, nonetheless. Here are a few examples:

1. Thomas Hobbes. America's founders almost never positively cited him, and often negatively did. John Locke was no "accidental" influence, but to the contrary. He was arguably the most cited philosopher. The argument is that Hobbes gets smuggled in through Locke and the "state of nature/social contract and rights" teachings. The followers of Leo Strauss (or at least a number of them) teach this. 

2. Thomism. There was some kind of meaningful anti-Roman Catholic bias in the zeitgeist of the American Founding such that Catholic figures like Thomas Aquinas were rarely if ever cited. The Anglican Thomist Richard Hooker is nominally, positively cited by Locke. Some of America's actual founders like James Wilson cited Hooker, but they were much more imbibed in Locke and others.

3. Roman Catholic canon law. Late Catholic scholars Brian Tierney and Charles Rice make the case that such anticipated and incorporated the concept of "rights" as was understood by America's founders and the Declaration of Independence and later documents and writings. 

4. Calvinist resisters. The work of Mark David Hall and others. Someone like Samuel Rutherford whom the founders rarely if ever cited. John Adams cited Stephanus Junius Brutus’ Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos and the work of a few other notable figures in one place. If Algernon Sidney counts in this tradition, Thomas Jefferson cited him as one of four chief ideological sources behind the Declaration of Independence. There are attempts to credit "Calvinism/the resisters" for all sorts of things where they weren't explicitly cited (like Madison's quotation in The Federalist Papers about "depravity"). This might be more "half accidental." 

5. The Bible. The much discussed study of Lutz et al. Few understand the nuanced dynamic around it. The study shows that prior to the writing and ratification of the US Constitution, the Bible was cited quite a bit in places like revolutionary era sermons. Those sermons, interestingly, also cite John Locke and his concept of "state of nature/contract and rights" which Leo Strauss has termed "wholly alien to the Bible." Many of the notable ministers were heterodox and arguably count as more "Enlightenment" types as opposed to traditional orthodox Christians. And the Declaration of Independence itself doesn't authoritatively cite the Bible/Jesus/Jehovah/Christianity. 

However, the Lutz study stresses that the Bible was NOT cited for the US Constitution and credits "Enlightenment rationalism" for such. Many "Christian America" apologists mistakenly cite the Lutz study as standing for the proposition that the US Constitution explicitly sourced the Bible. One could still make an argument that the Bible's influence on the principles in the US Constitution was "accidental." They would note that there are principles of "republicanism" found in the Old Testament that "match up" with what's written in the US Constitution. 

6. Roger Williams. A figure America's founders rarely if ever cited. It's ironic in that he was the founder of an American colony. His idea of religious liberty which he innovated, they later championed. He also coined the term "separation of church and state." James Burgh likely was familiar with Williams and got the phrase "separation" from him. And Jefferson in turn likely got it from Burgh. 

7. Spinoza. I think Matthew Stewart argues this. I haven't read Stewart's book, but rather critical reviews of it. From James H. Hutson:

Stewart contends that the founders wanted to “bestow upon America the blessings of popular deism,” “the radical and essentially atheistic philosophy on which the modern liberal state rests.” 

The subtext of Allan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind" makes a point similar to Stewart's; though Hobbes and Locke are the "atheists" whose esoteric philosophy gets embedded into the American Founding. The enterprise of arguing on behalf of "esoteric" and "accidental" influences will always be contentious. I know that scholars might rightly object to imputing Hobbesianism to Locke and consequently to America's founders. 

But as I read the record, they are objecting for the wrong reasons. The subtext seems Hobbes was irreligious in a way that Locke wasn't. America's founders didn't like Hobbes because he argued on behalf of a big beastly government, which they militantly opposed. Yes, people accused Hobbes of being an "atheist" back then, as today. They also accused Rousseau and yes, Locke of esoteric atheism, deism, among other things.

All three of them dressed up their teachings under the auspices of "Christianity." In fact, Hobbes' "Christianity" seemed to be extremely similar to Locke's and perhaps Rousseau's. Hobbes believed that God was the first cause of the world and reduced essential Christian dogma to one, simple claim: "Jesus is the Christ." Locke believed this. And both stressed materialism. 

The point is that Hobbes is exoterically as much of a "Christian" as Locke was, with similar minimalistic, materialistic theologies and philosophies. Objecting to attempts to paint Locke as some kind of esoteric atheistic hedonist is fine. We can object to those esoteric readings of Hobbes as well, as theologically they seemed to be on a similar if not the same page. 

.

Asking the Right Questions

On America's Declaration of Independence and In General. 

I noted when discussing the sentiments of Leo Strauss' followers that I didn't think America's Declaration of Independence was a "Christian" document but rather, it's a "theistic" document. My reasons for this is the document doesn't invoke the Trinity, Jesus Christ or even Jehovah, but rather speaks of a God of some sort (in four places) in more generic terms. Further, it doesn't quote verses and chapter of scripture authoritatively. I got pushback from a friend. And I understand the reasons why; some of them apt. I would concede, for instance, that some/many of the important ideas contained in the DOI were earlier posited by serious Christian thinkers. 

In my post on the Straussians, I noted that "[t]hey ask the right questions" even if one doesn't always agree with their conclusions, hence they are worth seriously engaging. One obvious point for the "pro-Christian America" side is that America's DOI emerges out "Christendom." Renowned evangelical/reformed scholars Drs. Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, and George Marsden in their book "The Search For Christian America" raise the bar beyond watered down, "generic Christendom" in their analysis of the "Christian America/Nation" question. In doing so, they didn't find the American founding to be very "Christian." 

But here is an example of the kind of pertinent questions that they, and the Straussians (I don't think the three scholars are Straussians, but their methodology and conclusions are similar and they also at times have cited one another) ask:

"Is the authoritative invocation of Aristotle and Cicero authentically 'Christian'?" 

I write this because, on the subject of America's DOI, Thomas Jefferson in his 1825 letter to Richard Henry Lee tells us of its sources:

All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c. …

Aristotle and Cicero were neither Jews nor Christians. Whether authoritatively citing them is "Christian" is debatable. Francis Schaeffer, the very influential reformed philosopher and theologian to whom Noll, Hatch and Marsden were responding in their aforementioned book, did not think that authoritatively citing Aristotle was authentically "Christian." Schaeffer didn't appreciate the theology of Thomas Aquinas that incorporated Aristotle into Christendom. Yet, America's founders authoritatively cited Aristotle, and even more so, the later "Romans" like Cicero. 

One problem with Schaeffer is that he tried to claim the American founding on behalf of his kind of reformed theology that looked to the four corners of the Bible and excluded sources like Aristotle et al. that other Christian traditions incorporate. This is a key criticisms that Noll, Hatch and Marsden make against Schaeffer. 

There was such a Calvinistic "reformed" influence on the American founding. Schaeffer was partial to Samuel Rutherford of "Lex Rex" fame. This tradition still arguably doesn't "own" the founding, certainly not Schaeffer's understanding of it. For one, as J Daryl Charles has noted, many of these reformers didn't eschew authoritative invocations of Aristotle; they incorporated the natural law and didn't break from Aquinas. 

Jefferson had strong disdain for Calvin and probably had some kind of bias against Calvinists (though he was friendly with Calvinists of his day who had similar political beliefs). We might understand why he would be hesitant to credit that tradition for ideas which he supported and successfully implemented. Out of the four sources for America's DOI that he named, Algernon Sidney arguably was the authoritative representative for "reformed resistance." 

And then there's John Locke who is the most influential of the four sources that Jefferson named. How "Christian" was he and his ideas? Schaeffer wanted to credit Rutherford et al. for his ideas. But for reasons I need not go into here, that's problematic. Locke did nominally cite the Anglican Thomist Richard Hooker, but then proceeded to articulate ideas that seem unrelated to Hooker but looked more like a modified version of Hobbes, whose name Locke "justly decried." 

America's founders also negatively cited Hobbes, but it wasn't because of his "state of nature/social contract and rights" dynamic -- ideas Leo Strauss aptly termed "wholly alien to the Bible." Rather, it was because Hobbes' version of the ideal state was a big beast -- a Leviathan. 

There's also the question of whether Hobbes and Locke were themselves "Christians." Both identified as such. Both were suspected back then as of today as of atheism, deism, or otherwise esoterically holding unconventional religious beliefs. At minimum, both held esoteric unconventional religious beliefs in an era where one couldn't legally publicly proclaim such. 

Locke authoritatively cited the Bible when making his novel propositions. I don't know enough about Hobbes to comment on whether he did. Rousseau likewise dressed his philosophy up in "Christian" clothes. 

This is my understanding. I will let others make of all this as they will. It's more important, as I see it, to ask the right questions and clarify one's understanding of the dynamics and let others do the same and decide for themselves. 

Liberty of Conscience and the Persistence of Blasphemy Laws in the United States

When I first started blogging on the issue of the political-theology of the American founding many years ago, I grappled with the notion that blasphemy laws continued to exist in the United States under its constitutional order. I quoted the following from the late Straussian scholar Walter Berns in his book "Making Patriots":

Liberty of conscience was widely accepted at the time of the Founding, but this did not prevent some jurists and legislatures from insisting, at least for a while (and given our principles it could be only for a while), that Christianity was part of the law, meaning the common law. So it had been in England, and so, it was assumed by some (but not Jefferson), it would continue to be in America. But there was no disagreement about the place of the common law. Indeed one of the first things done by the states after independence was to declare (here in the words of the New Jersey constitution of 1776) that “the common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law, as have been heretofore practiced in this Colony, shall remain in force, until they shall be altered by a future law of the Legislature; such parts only excepted, as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this Charter [or constitution].”  

But if the “rights and privileges” contained in the various state charters or constitutions included the right of liberty of conscience, and if, in turn, this right required, in Madison’s words, “a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters,” what did it mean to say that Christianity was part of the common law? Very little, as it turned out; and it turned out as it had to turn out. Consider, for example, the case of blasphemy in America…. pp. 32-33.

Berns then went on to note that to the extent that blasphemy prosecutions survived for a short period of time in the early American republic, it was redefined as something akin to a secular breach of the peace, with blasphemy now stripped of its religious character.

This site from the Library of Congress notes something similar:

One of the first recorded instances of someone being convicted for blasphemy in the state of New York occurred in 1811. In People v. Ruggles, the New York Supreme Court upheld the conviction, saying that the crime of blasphemy is “independent of any religious establishment,” and that it affects “the essential interests of civil society.” In 1824, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court similarly upheld a conviction for blasphemy in Updegraph v. Commonwealth. That court also concluded that blasphemy laws seek “not to force conscience by punishment, but to preserve the peace of the country….” Two more similar cases came down in the 1830s, with State v. Chandler in 1837 and Commonwealth v. Kneeland in 1838. In these cases, the Delaware Supreme Court and the Massachusetts Supreme Court both upheld blasphemy convictions on the grounds that they were meant to preserve public peace rather than punish beliefs.

Because these cases involved state law, the outcomes and rationales for them could differ. Below is a quotation from the Chandler decision that gives the secular, pluralistic rationale for blasphemy laws:

If in Delaware the people should adopt the Jewish or Mahometan religion, as they have an unquestionable right to do if they prefer it, this court is bound to notice it as their religion, and to respect it accordingly. 

 ...

It will be seen then that in our judgment by the constitution and laws of Delaware, the christian religion is a part of those laws, so far that blasphemy against it is punishable, while the people prefer it as their religion, and no longer. The moment they change it and adopt any other, as they may do, the new religion becomes in the same sense, a part of the law, for their courts are bound to yield it faith and credit, and respect it as their religion. Thus, while we punish the offence against society alone, we leave christianity to fight her own battles, ...

This is not "Christian Nationalism." Personally, I think blasphemy laws are NOT consistent with notions of "liberty of conscience" or the First Amendment. Here is an interesting letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, dated January 23rd, 1825 wherein he makes that point:

We think ourselves possessed or at least we boast that we are so of Liberty of conscience on all subjects and of the right of free inquiry and private judgment, in all crises and yet how far are we from these exalted privileges in fact. There exists I believe throughout the whole Christian world a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or to doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the old and new Testaments from Genesis to Revelations. ... [E]ven in our Massachusett which I believe upon the whole is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most of the States A law was made in the latter end of the last-century repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemers upon any book of the old Testament or new Now what free inquiry when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigation into the divine authority of those books? ... I think such laws a great embarassment. great obstruction to the improvement of the human mind. Books that cannot bear examination certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws. It is true few persons appear desirous to put such laws in execution and it is also true that some few persons are hardy enough to venture to depart from them; but as long as they continue in force as laws the human mind must make an awkward and clumsy progress in its investigations. I wish they were repealed. ...

 

Law and Liberty Symposium on Harvey Mansfield

Check it out here. Harvey Mansfield is a Straussian. I don't consider myself a "Straussian." Though I am "Straussian influenced" and "Straussian interested." They ask the right questions and engage in intense philosophical inquiry. They also have extremely contentious understandings, many of which I can't endorse. 

I'm interested in their view on Locke. They think he was either an atheist or a "deist" as we understand the term today (cold, non-intervening distant deity). There is no question Locke was an "esoteric" something; but I doubt it was THAT as opposed to some kind of freethinker on doctrines like The Trinity. I haven't studied Hobbes as much as Locke, but I doubt he was an atheist or cold deist either.

Though Locke did seem to be influenced by Hobbes in the sense that they spoke of a "state of nature" and then of a "social contract and rights." They may have had different understandings of such; however they were still speaking on that common philosophical ground. On the religion issue, Strauss himself aptly noted that this construct was "wholly alien to the Bible." Yet, during the revolutionary era, the concept of state of nature/social contract and rights ended up being preached from the pulpit.

The Straussian discourse involves the implications of all of this.

For instance, here is how Mansfield understands Locke and America's Declaration of Independence:

Certainly, we live in a world influenced by the ideas of modern political philosophy—and Mansfield provides a key to this influence for the low price of his book. He introduces us to Hobbes, who provides an image of man in his natural condition, wherein he has a right to his own person, yet nothing to safeguard this right. God has no place in this state of war, where each person has the right to preserve his life in whatever way he judges necessary. What comes out of this natural state of war? The idea of the social contract—a new kind of government based upon reasonable consent. “Nature teaches men to preserve themselves,” Mansfield explains, “but … reason teaches men to seek peace by consenting to a common power over them, the sovereign.” Reason now is the foundation of government. 

Locke gives us the right to private property by expanding man’s natural right to his own body to include a right to the products of man’s labor. This has direct political implications. For when men, once again driven by reason, exit the state of nature into the social contract, they do so not only to preserve life but to protect private property. Locke domesticates Machiavelli and Hobbes, and we see his influence overtly enshrined in documents like the Declaration of Independence.

Understanding America's Declaration of Independence as "domesticating Machiavelli and Hobbes" seems a bit of a stretch to me. Though, I agree that the notion of unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness really have nothing to do with the Bible or traditional practice of Christianity and that the DOI, although a theistic document, is not a "Christian" one.

The revolutionary language of America's DOI is more of a product of Enlightenment philosophy. However, there is other language in that document that speaks more of "resistance" under the extant positive law that resonates with reformed theology/philosophy.