John Adams Quotation of the Week
Jonathan Rowe on Apr 24th 2006 12:39 pm |
It’s funny. See this thread on worldmagblog, which illustrates that stubbornness is intractable in human nature. Someone possesses an erroneous assumption. They are given more than adequate evidence refuting the assumption. Yet, they stubbornly refuse to let go of their error.
In this case, it’s a fellow named Joel Mark who assumed that John Adams was an orthodox Christian, and not a Unitarian, was shown overwhelming evidence to the contrary, complete with references to primary sources, yet still refuses to let go of the notion that Adams was a traditional minded Christian. In one comment directed at me, he wrote:
Jon Rowe,
You are flat out wrong….John Adams was NOT a Unitarian. That was never how he identified himself or was identified and the Unitarians were not even around in Massachusetts or America in his prime years.
You are unreliable on this matter. maybe its just that your sources are poor. But you are wrong.
He further asks for “smoking gun” evidence demonstrating that Adams identified himself as a Unitarian. Ye ask, and ye shall receive. Here is Adams himself on the matter:
I thank you for your favour of the 10th and the pamphlet enclosed, “American Unitarianism.” I have turned over its leaves and have found nothing that was not familiarly known to me.
In the preface Unitarianism is represented as only thirty years old in New England. I can testify as a Witness to its old age. Sixty five years ago my own minister the Reverend Samuel Bryant, Dr. Johnathan Mayhew of the west Church in Boston, the Reverend Mr. Shute of Hingham, the Reverend John Brown of Cohasset & perhaps equal to all if not above all the Reverend Mr. Gay of Hingham were Unitarians. Among the Laity how many could I name, Lawyers, Physicians, Tradesman, farmers!
John Adams to Jedidiah Morse, May 15, 1815. Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 122, Library of Congress.
And:
We Unitarians, one of whom I have had the Honour to be, for more than sixty Years, do not indulge our Malignity in profane Cursing and Swearing, against you Calvinists; one of whom I know not how long you have been. You and I, once saw Calvin and Arius, on the Plafond of the Cathedral of St. John the Second in Spain roasting in the Flames of Hell. We Unitarians do not delight in thinking that Plato and Cicero, Tacitus Quintilian Plyny and even Diderot, are sweltering under the scalding drops of divine Vengeance, for all Eternity.
John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816, Ibid, reel 430.
These quotations are featured in James H. Hutson’s fine book of quotations, pp. 220-221.
Filed in Uncategorized
Cool. Do I get to pass the “Goat of the day” baton?
I think Joel Mark makes one good point that is usually ignored. Both of your quotes here come from when Adams was 80 years old! 1815 is the tail end of the founding era. That’s after the french revolution, after the war with England, and after the Federalist party dissolved.
I’m not as familiar with Adams, but I believe at least with Jefferson that it’s misguided to try and find out what his religious beliefs were. Many of the founders didn’t have coherent religious beliefs. Jefferson’s changed with the trends. I wouldn’t be surprised if this were true of Adams as well. Can you provide quotes of Adams saying he was a Unitarian (or even unitarian-like things) prior to his presidency, or earlier?
I do realize that with some of these people, they did not speak as openly on the matters until their retirement for political reasons.
Jon–
It certainly does seem that Joel Mark is displaying a stubbornness worthy of John Adams, doesn’t it?
Matthew:
John Adams, in the above quotations, talks about being a Unitarian sixty five years earlier. Do you think he was lying?
I thought he was referring to his minister there. Wasn’t he saying “I can show how old Unitarian is; all of these people were Unitarians for at least 65 years”? and I thought the minister he was referring to was his current minister. The second quote might be him saying he had been a unitarian for 60 years; it’s just difficult to tell because of his numerous comma splices.
Do you know of any declarations of unitarianism or even unitarian-like statements made during his political career? I would think if he had been a unitarian since his 20s that it would be mentioned in correspondence somewhere. The only reason I can think as to why not is, as I said before, he ignored the topic at the time to avoid political backlash.
As far as the second quote, if there were actually any doubt as to Adam’s meaning, he makes it quite clear by using the identical form to note that he doesn’t know how long his correspondent has been a Calvinist: “One of whom I have had the Honor to be” and “one of whom I do not know how long you have been.” There’s really only one way to read this paragraph: as of the writing of it, the writer was claiming to have been a Unitarian for more than sixty years.
Yeah, good point Bill. The wording is a little strange, but it wouldn’t make sense for the 60 years to be referring to anyone but himself in that statement (if it was referring back to “We unitarians” its meaning would be that they have only abstained from indulging their Malignity for 60 years).
However, this only helps us in knowing that Adams, in 1816, thinks he’s been a unitarian for about 60 years (give or take 5 years, at least, considering his previous statement was 65 years; assuming he was talking about himself in that instance). This could very well be simple retrospection; that is he’s looking back on his life and realizing he was a unitarian all along regardless of whether he identified himself as one at the time.
According to this Unitarian Universalist website, John Adams became a member of First Parish Church on January 3, 1773. The church switched from congregationalist to unitarian in 1750, so he became a member twenty years after the switch.
Who cares?
I assume this discussion ultimately involves the original meaning of the Establishment Clause, right?
Do you really believe the Founders intended to create the separation that exists today? Do you believe the text really supports the meaning it has been given by the Court?
Actually no Hans. Adams theological views relate to not the Establishment Clause, but a different albeit related issue: Whether America was founded by “Christians” (meaning orthodox evangelical/fundamentalist types), for “Christians” to create a “Chrisitan Nation” (in a public/governmental sense, as opposed to a private/demographic sense).
Now, one can understand that the key Founders were not orthodox Christians (arguably, as theological Unitarians, not Christians at all) and that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution have little if anything to do with creating a “Christian Nation,” but still vehemently disagree with the Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence. Fair enough.
But, based on my studying this issue for a number of years, millions of people mislead by the likes of D. James Kennedy, David Barton, and William Federer believe that America is a “Christian Nation” in the sense that I argue against. And I’m just trying to “set the record straight.” If it weren’t for the millions who believe this twaddle, I would be tackling a strawman; because 1) virtually no one in the historical academy takes the “Christian Nation” claim seriously, and 2) there is a real issue as to whether the Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence is proper.
Thanks for the clarification.
I never understood this debate. What’s wrong with saying that America was founded by Christians or that America was was a Christian nation? I think that’s just descriptive and separate from positions on establishment or freedom of religion. If I described a secular country that was predominately Muslim as a Muslim nation, would that be wrong? Nation does not necessarily equal government, it’s use usually describes the people themselves (some “nations” are even without governments).
The problem is that people who say America is a “Christian nation” rarely, if ever, mean that in the purely descriptive sense of a nation populated mostly by Christians; they usually mean it to imply that Christianity occupies some privileged status in American law.
Thanks Ebonmuse, that’s exactly what I was going to write. As the myth goes (I’m exaggerating a little bit; but not too far off from the way Barton, Kennedy, Demar, et al. tell the story), they “opened” their Bibles and “found” the Declaration and the US Constitution in there. And further, the US was “founded” so those Christians could write as much of the Bible as they wanted into the civil law and the citizenry be ruled by (their interpretation) of revealed religion. This is what it means to be a nation “Under God” according to their understanding of the phrase. In short, the “Christian Nation” crowd has a theocratic agenda and they distort history to suit that agenda.
In terms of the practical effect of exposing their myth; if they realize that the US wasn’t “founded” by Christians to be a “Christian” nation, that indeed the key founders were theological Unitarians, thus not Christians as they understand that term, that they never “owned” the Founding as they were (mis)taught, they’d be less zealous about trying to “Reclaim America” and perhaps adopt a more “live and let live” attitude about culture and society.
And if they are being treated unequally by the Courts or institutions, I’ll back them in their dispute. But, as many have pointed out, the “war against Christians” in many ways is a loss of privilege, NOT real unequal or unfair treatment. When it comes to hate-crimes laws that might stifle their freedom of speech, I’m entirely on their side. When it comes to expression of religion in the public square, I’m all for it as long as it’s done pursuant to a generally applicable, neutral program where their traditional religious speech is given no special privilege against non-traditional, unorthodox, religious or atheistic speech.
Yes Adams was a Unitarian. However it is it should be noted that though the people who are making noise saying that the U.S. was founded as a “Christian nation” would not consider a modern person with Adam’s view to be a “Christian”, Adams did consider himself to be a “Christian.”
I think it is telling that our motto is “In God we trust” and not ” In Jesus we trust”. I see America as being founded as a religious nation but not a Christian one. Many of our founding fathers and others such as Lincoln often talked of asking Providence or the Lord for strength or guidance but they do not call upon Jesus to protect the country. I think that was intentional. Maybe the founding fathers who were Christian had enough sense to not offend people such as Adams and Franklin.
John Adams was a Unitarian, and many (but not all) modern Christians and Unitarians would agree that Unitarians are not Christians.
But if asked if he was a Christian, I think it almost a certainty, Adams would have said yes.
Knowing what Adams believed and practiced is not so simple as referencing a few quotes — though such quotes cannot be ignored in one’s analysis.
[...] There is a myth circulating that very few Unitarians existed among the Massachusetts Congregational Churches until sometime in the 1800s, well after the Founding. Apparently, this misconception existed in John Adams’s time as well, and Adams’s himself addressed the matter: I thank you for your favour of the 10th and the pamphlet enclosed, “American Unitarianism.” I have turned over its leaves and have found nothing that was not familiarly known to me. [...]
[...] Jefferson and Adams Deists? Neither of them referred to themselves as Deists in their adult life. Franklin embraced Deism as a teenager but rejected Deism his entire adult life. Both Franklin and Jefferson, contra the Deists, invoked an active, personal God. Ellis apparently is unaware that Adams’ Congregation preached Unitarianism as of 1750 and Adams testified being one since a teenager. [...]
Jonathan,
Your “conservative Christian critics may rightly point out that Founding era (late 18th and early 19th Century) unitarian-universalism differed from today’s Unitarian-Universalism.”
The Founding-era’s Unitarianism and Universalism differed from modern Unitarian Universalism, much as twenty-first century political and scientific theory differ from eighteenth-century political or scientific theory.
The fact that twenty-first century Americans have different ideas about the place of women in society or, indeed, about slavery, than eighteenth-century Americans shows that ideas and attitudes change over time. Thank goodness!
The distinguishing characteristic of American Unitarianism and American Universalism has been that neither has ever demanded a rigid orthodoxy. Each was a polydox faith; each was open to new ideas.
Eighteenth-century Unitarianism was about freedom to deviate from orthodox dogma. And if eighteenth-century Universalism insisted that God would not bar heaven’s doors over differences in theology, why would nineteenth-century Universalists close their churches to Darwinist skeptics?
It’s by no means surprising that what people in a polydox tradition believe would change over time. Indeed, I think it fair to say that twentyfirst-century Unitarian Universalism affirms John Adams’s fundamental approach to religion, even if most modern Unitarian Universalists do not embrace the details of his theology. He wouldn’t expect them to.
Eric