• About
  • Contact
  • Staff

Law & Liberty

A Project of Liberty Fund

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Liberty Law Forum
  • Podcasts
  • Book Reviews

May 18, 2012|John Adams, Massachusetts Constitution, Paul Rahe, Religious Establishment

John Adams and Religious Liberty: What Our Second President Can Teach Us About Constitutional Compromise

by Richard Samuelson|3 Comments

John Adams’ name is in the news again.  And once again he is being misrepresented. As in life, so too in death.  In the past few month, then noted historian Rosemarie Zigarri wrote in the Washington Post that (in the Post’s words)  “John Adams believed that the state should provide support for ministers.”  In a much discussed essay on Ricochet, the distinguished historian Paul Rahe recently made the same claim.

Everyone knows that Adams wrote the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, and everyone knows that Article III of the Constitution’s Declaration of Rights created a church establishment.  QED, it would appear.  The trouble is that Adams did not write Article III of the Massachusetts Constitution.  Indeed, he refused to write it because, in his words, “I found I could not sketch [it], consistent with my own sentiments of perfect religious freedom, with any hope of its being adopted by the Convention, so I left it to be battled out in the whole body.”  In that refusal lies an important story of democratic statesmanship.
Throughout his life, Adams believed in religious liberty.  As a young man, he decided not to become a minister because he could not follow that career path in good conscience: “the Reason of my quitting Divinity was my Opinion concerning some disputed Points.”


He wrote at the time that “men ought, (after they have examined with unbiased Judgments, every System of Religion, and chosen one System on their own Authority, for themselves) to avow their Opinions and defend them with boldness.” Such intense study and robust debate can only exist where there is religious liberty.  Late in life he told Jefferson that Massachusetts’ law against blasphemy was “a great embarrassment,” lamenting that it presented “great obstructions to the improvement of the human mind.”

Given these beliefs, drafting the Massachusetts constitution posed Adams with a problem. He thought it was important to show that republican constitutionalism could work.  The Massachusetts constitution was drafted by a special convention which would, in turn, submit its work to the people for their approval.  As of 1780, no other state had tried that experiment. Adams recognized that it was the best way to embody, in law, the principle that republican government was built upon the consent of the governed.  If it succeeded, it would be imitated.

Completing that process, however, entailed creating a constitution with a major flaw, for the people wanted an establishment.  To be sure the establishment the constitution created was peculiar, and far less severe than other establishments–the people of each town, in their town meeting, were to decide which denomination or denominations in the town were to receive their tax money.  But it was still an establishment.

Facing that dilemma, Adams punted.  He drafted Article II of the Declaration of Rights which declared “no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshiping GOD in the manner 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.”

And he let others draft Article III.  When the state convened a convention to revise the constitution in 1820, the 85-year-old Adams attended.  He wanted them to repeal Article III, but it was not yet time.

There’s an important lesson here in democratic politics.  Democratic politics, even constitutional politics, entails compromise.  One cannot claim “here the people rule,” and, at the same time, deny that the people have the right to put their preferences into law.  To be sure, our republic seeks to restrain and refine the will of the people with constitutional guarantees and with checks and balances.  But it is also important to keep public opinion, and the consent of the governed, in a prominent place.  A democratic republic cannot simply dismiss the wishes of the majority, however problematic those wishes sometimes are.

And why did the establishment in Massachusetts die?  Adams had placed a time bomb in the state constitution.  Article II, the guarantee of religious liberty, allowed religious pluralism to flourish in Massachusetts.  As a result, the town-by-town establishment broke down.  There were simply too many different churches, within and among the towns, for it to work.  In 1832, the people of the choose to end the establishment.

Helping the people to embrace religious liberty by choice, rather than by force, is not a bad achievement for a democratic statesman.  In a democratic republic, the people will have their say.  Constitutional politics takes time, but, as Adams realized, constitutional change is best secured when it is chosen, rather than forced upon the people.

Richard Samuelson

Richard Samuelson is Associate Professor of History at California State University, San Bernardino.

About the Author

James Bruce’s Critique of My Consequentialist Libertarianism: Part II
Friday Roundup, May 18th

Recent Popular Posts

  • Popular
  • Today Week Month All
  • Schlesinger, Warts and All January 30, 2018
  • The President's Non-enforcement Power May 7, 2014
  • The Beat Generation and The Decline of the West January 30, 2018
  • Trump Should Be Assessed Politically, Not Psychologically January 29, 2018
  • Enabling Congress to Control the Administrative State January 30, 2018
Ajax spinner

Related Posts

Related

Comments

  1. Eric Hodgdon says

    May 21, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    Stating a preference is not much of a hazard for Christians. It is more so for those who state no preference. To not consider any religion, one is shunned and more. A label is applied for not choosing a label.

    While we have no established religion, the Pledge of Allegiance was required in grade school, and still opens government meetings. To some, the Pledge is a an establishment of a religion, for it is done with a emptiness of consideration between the theory and the practice of our “National” government.

    Reply
  2. Eric Rasmusen says

    August 3, 2014 at 7:27 pm

    I wondered whether Article III was ever repealed.

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Christianity as US State Religion? - Page 19 says:
    November 8, 2013 at 7:22 am

    […] John Adams, second U.S. President The following link also contains some interesting insights re: John Adams and Religious Liberty: What Our Second President Can Teach Us About Constitutional Compro… Again, thanks & respect for your consideration of these ideas, I appreciate. If love is […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Book Reviews

Socrates on Courage, Self-Sacrifice, and the Divine

by Ariel Helfer

Robert Bartlett brings to life Plato’s juxtaposition of Socrates and Protagoras, who may have been Socrates’ most impressive opponent.

Read More

J.Q. Adams, Diarist

by Diana Schaub

He saw “the hideous reality of the slave ascendency in the Government of this Union” and set about resisting it.

Read More

Podcasts

Debating the Thorniest Issues: A Conversation with Peter Schuck

A discussion with Peter H. Schuck

Debating Poverty, Immigration, Racial Preferences, Campaign Finance, and Religious Freedom with Peter Schuck, author of One Nation Undecided.

Read More

Walker Percy in the Ruins: A Conversation with Brian Smith

A discussion with Brian A. Smith

Why we need Walker Percy’s diagnosis of what ails the contemporary soul.

Read More

Luther's Rebellion: A Conversation with Brad Gregory

A discussion with Brad S. Gregory

Martin Luther launched a religious revolution that shaped the modern world in ways that he never intended.

Read More

The Great Libertarian versus Conservative Debate: A Conversation with Nathan Schlueter and Nikolai Wenzel

A discussion with Nathan W. Schlueter

What principles really divide libertarians and conservatives?

Read More

Recent Posts

  • The Trump Administration’s Accomplishments—In Spite of the Deep State

    Mike Lofgren argues that the Deep State controls everything, but he attributes too much to malice, and not enough to ignorance and self-interest.
    by Alexandra Hudson

  • President Washington: A Prudent Guardian of State Secrets

    In 1796, in the midst of the donnybrook over the Jay Treaty, President Washington asserted what we now call “executive privilege .”
    by Richard Samuelson

  • The Breaking Point

    It would have been a welcome surprise for Trump to break with Woodrow Wilson’s precedent of making the SOTU a spoken address to the Congress.
    by Richard M. Reinsch II

  • Competition Can Improve on Apparent Market Failure

    Imperfect markets don't mean that regulation is the answer; competition often does a better job than bureaucracy at improving outcomes.
    by John O. McGinnis

  • Enabling Congress to Control the Administrative State

    Moderating the power of the administrative state means giving power back to Congress and eliminating judicial deference.
    by Mike Rappaport

Blogroll

  • Acton PowerBlog
  • Cafe Hayek
  • Cato@Liberty
  • Claremont
  • Congress Shall Make No Law
  • EconLog
  • Fed Soc Blog
  • First Things
  • Hoover
  • ISI First Principles Journal
  • Legal Theory Blog
  • Marginal Revolution
  • Pacific Legal Liberty Blog
  • Point of Law
  • Power Line
  • Professor Bainbridge
  • Ricochet
  • Right Reason
  • Spengler
  • The American
  • The Beacon Blog
  • The Foundry
  • The Originalism Blog
  • The Public Discourse
  • University Bookman
  • Via Meadia
  • Volokh

Archives

  • All Posts & Publications
  • Book Reviews
  • Liberty Forum
  • Liberty Law Blog
  • Liberty Law Talk

About

Law and Liberty’s focus is on the content, status, and development of law in the context of republican and limited government and the ways that liberty and law and law and liberty mutually reinforce the other. This site brings together serious debate, commentary, essays, book reviews, interviews, and educational material in a commitment to the first principles of law in a free society. Law and Liberty considers a range of foundational and contemporary legal issues, legal philosophy, and pedagogy.

  • Home
  • About
  • Staff
  • Contact
  • Archive

Apple App Store
Google Play Store

© 2018 Liberty Fund, Inc.

Subscribe
Get Law and Liberty's latest content delivered to you daily
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
No thanks