That is about how I feel. I have been taking cat naps all night as I have been finishing this amazing research project. I wish I would have done more work on it earlier, but Library of Congress was being glitchey this weekend. So. Here it is. I am going to share it with you all now that it has been turned in for a little bit.
Religion in Culture during the Early American Republic
In any society there must develop some systems of belief and practice that are generally followed. That is part of what makes up culture. But whereas in the present age the systems of belief and practice are rather vague and tolerant, during the early years of our republic they were much more strongly delineated. Then, questions of a religious or moral nature were considered to have a very grave importance. This is quite natural when one realizes that religion was perceived to have an influence on culture, education, morals, civilization—in short, every aspect of life. It was not an area that admitted a great deal of tolerance because if error was tolerated, it could lead to the disintegration of civilization. Naturally, while religion was perceived as a necessary guide to right living and a part of good education, there would be conflicting views about the "right religion" and the correct extent of religious education as well as whether or not other religions should be tolerated in society. Since the dominant force in culture at that point was protestant, Catholics were among those that often had difficulty finding a place. Native Americans who did not follow precisely the protestant prescriptions for right living had an even more difficult time. Despite this, there were some, even from that protestant section of society, who acknowledged the value and the positive aspects of these "fringe" cultures. After all, truth—even if it is found in one's enemy—is still truth.
It is interesting to note, in the broader scheme of things, an observation made by Michel Chevalier that in America a laissez-faire government was balanced by "rigid habits of life" and "religious severity," which he contrasts with the opposite occurrence in his native France of "laxity and a toleration" where morals and religion were concerned, and strict and rigid control " under all forms of government, monarchy, empire, or republic,"(142). He maintains that these sorts of balances are necessary. The Americans themselves seemed to have felt so also, for they were insistent on civil liberty and just as insistent on moral regulation of conduct. This idea crops up in Sunday-school books which give advice for practically every situation (Advice to Young Men), business regulation (as observed by Chevalier himself in the Lowell factory town), and in random magazines and papers.
Coming at this idea of toleration v. regulation is a separate observation on the nature of truth and error--"no error (in faith or belief) is or can be harmless, as no truth is or can be mischievous." Brownson sets forth this idea in a broad application of the religious concept of faith to every other aspect of life. He maintains that error should not be suppresses "by imposing any legal or civil disabilities on those who are its advocates," but that it should be allowed to "grapple in an open encounter with Truth." In this perspective, error is not to be merely tolerated (as that would cause harm), but rather allowed to present itself to be shown false in the light of truth. Brownson uses this as a launching pad for discussing the origins of the government of the United States, however, by the very nature of his original argument, it can with equal facility be applied to the religious culture of that time frame. One magazine gave a lengthy story that set Muslims on an equal if not superior moral ground with Yankee protestants when it came to business dealings. However, for the Muslim to be accepted in North American culture, he attended a church and was perceived as a Christian. As an isolated instance that may have been condoned, but when approached by a differing religion in greater numbers, there was more resistance and distrust, especially when that group is perceived as withholding their true intentions. This is why the Catholics came under particular suspicion.
The Catholics, and particularly the Jesuit order, were very often associated with the ideas of intrigue, plot, and conspiracy. The interesting thing is that some take the time to make the argument that the Jesuits are not just a danger to the broader society, but are even harmful to their own institutions. In the North American Review, they are said to "wound the honour of the monastical state; . . . . It even gives occasion to abandon too freely the religious orders; it exempts from the obedience and submission due to the ordinary functionaries." Not just religious authority is being flouted here, but also civil authority, which seems just as bad to the reviewer. As the article goes on, it only becomes more eloquent in its invectives against the Jesuits. They are guilty of, "monstrous errours upon all points of theology," and ”pernicious maxims in morality" which they seek to instill in others. Besides being accused of efforts to lead into "errour," the Jesuits are also accused of attempting to trap people in ignorance. The author takes Portugal as an example. " . . .the plan of these monks was to deceive the Portuguese and to put an obstruction by the same method to the progress of their studies, to the end that, after having nourished and restrained them a long time in ignorance, they might hold them always in a subjection and a dependence as unjust as pernicious." It is no wonder this author thinks that "a Jew will be more favoured in the world than a Jesuit."
This sort of opinion is also maintained in "Political Religion—The Brownson Order and Catholicity" in which the Catholics are accused of encouraging and partaking in all sorts of underhanded dealings and even murder. Not the "smallest similarity" is to be found between their Catholicism on the authors Protestantism, consequently, the author does not approve of them. When he turns his attentions to the Jesuit order, the language becomes more intense—"It is at once a government and a conspiracy, militant, secret, and publicist," (602). The founder of the order is compared to burglars, who "on the verge of doom . . .indulge in fancies of a huger thieving," to describe his inspiration to the founding of the order. At the root of all this suspicion and hatred lies this fear that is described in the North American: "With the pagans they will be pagans, with the atheists they will be atheists, with the Jews they will be Jews, with the reformers they will be reformers; for the determined purpose of penetrating your intentions, your designs, your hearts and your inclinations, and by these means to seduce you to become like the fool, who says in his heart there is no God." (203). By subverting truth, these people would hold the young country in darkness.
Not everyone had that extreme fear and distrust of the Catholics as typified in the Jesuits. In fact, a set of approval was granted to the Catholics through the efforts of the Jesuits among the native tribes of the Americas. In the Democratic Review, a writer not only comments on the exploration that the Jesuits have done in the North American continent, he also points to the work that the Jesuits have accomplished among the tribes. "The missions of St. Francis Xavier at Green Bay, or St. Ignace at Mackina, of St Mary at the Straights . . .show conclusively, with what zeal and ardor these heralds of the cross pushed their tabernacles in the wilderness, and made know to these wandering Arabs of the prairies the symbols of the Christian faith." He notes with wonder that, for the Jesuits, the conversion of "a single Indian" was worth the "hunger, thirst, cold, suffering, disease, death" that they faced. They are described as "venerable, intellectual and devoted" as opposed to the more insidious picture elsewhere painted. But here, in the wilderness, the religious influence of these missionaries is pictured as a civilizing and ennobling influence, where in places of an already-acknowledged civilization they are not trusted.
The key to this inconsistency is education, and specifically moral education. Religion was considered a vital part of any proper education. According to an article labeled "Education" in The United States Democratic Review, education is linked to the "social, moral and mental elevation of the great human family." (p149) The authors specifically associate themselves with the Protestant Episcopal Church. The argument being made is that as, "education improves and expands the moral and intellectual faculties of man-kind, or that it promotes virtue and lessens vice." (p149). The emphasis that the author takes is the education of the masses. By educating the masses, the authors hope to lessen the impact of men of wealth and power who would act solely in accordance with their personal ambitions rather than taking into consideration and care their "fellow-mortals, whose only faults, or rather misfortunes, were ignorance and poverty, which they did not originate and bring upon themselves, and had no power to alter." (161).
Education becomes a stabilizing factor in society by this rule. But they do not want just any education. They demand a practical and a liberal education to be made available for all youths—a public school system. With this, they have specific ideas about the role of religion in this education system. They do not want for religious education to be left to basic "catechism, forms, and ordinances; and the imperative duties of passive obedience to superiors" which runs contrary to their ideals of independence and education. They fear that this would only follow the traditions of government established churches. "Religion . . . [has] been used in the main as an instrument for enabling governments to keep populations in ignorance and subjection . . .This has been a peculiar feature in the Roman Catholic religion, and it is not much less so in the case of the established Protestant Church Great Britain and Ireland." (153). This was unacceptable as it was seen as having "kept in ignorance and made poor, and miserable, and irreligious, by laws which are founded upon policy, expediency, and fraud," the lower classes who are such a large bulk of society. In order to maintain a free and liberal government, we could not afford to have a mass of uneducated, "miserable and irreligious," people.
A Sunday-school manual takes up this refrain of education for moral and civil development of the people. Early on it references a common adage, "A penny saved is a penny gained," to make the point that knowledge is more important than wealth, or, "there is something to be saved and gained more precious than even gold or silver." The problem that this author sees is that, as the majority of grown-ups have been diligent in acquiring wealth, and perhaps been a trifle negligent in more important matters, the youth are growing up with the idea that wealth is the object in life and that they, "as soon as they begin to think and act for themselves, seem to have all ideas and ends merged in the one great pursuit of wealth for its own sake." (7-8). For this reason, the author decides that young men must be re-educated in religion. Without religion, we have an unbalanced picture of our place in the cosmos. People would think themselves "as God," and "...man, believing thus of himself, would be inclined to love himself, and think lightly of his fellow-man. He would seek his own good, as an end, without reference to the good of his neighbor" (14). This book goes beyond explaining why youths (particularly young men) should be educated in a particular way and actually describes a form of study to be pursued. Interestingly, much of the education described is more practical than strictly religious.
In the Scientific American was a little ditty about a Bishop and a wagoner. The Bishop complained that the wagoner seemed " better fed than taught" to which the wagoner replied, "Of course . . . for we feed ourselves, but for teaching, we depend on you." This was something that was not wanted in America—the dependence of the masses on one small group of people for their education. On the one hand, many of the privileged felt responsible to fascilitate the education of the lower classes, but on the other, a great emphasis was laid on self-education. Similarly, the author of the Sunday-school book for young men sets forth advice for the education of young men, that they should apply themselves to such study as is suited to their taste and talents and that they should devote at least a couple hours a day to study. In giving examples of this sort of procedure, the author draws on tradesmen and laborers who have done well through self-education. Much of that self-education takes place through diverse reading of informational or instructive texts. The author describes a proper proportion for the ingesting of writings: "Books of facts and books of principles should make by far the larger portion of a young man's reading, and works of fancy and fiction be resorted to only as mental recreation, or the means of improving the taste." (45). The books are compared to "nourishment" and the "works of fancy and fiction" are considered to lead to "a puny intellectual growth" which would not be beneficial to the young man or to society.
It is not just petitions and manuals that set forth the idea of education and religion together. In the first issue of the Whig Review, after talking about its political purpose, it claims another reason d'être—to promote intellectual and moral growth. In other words, a journalist was concerned about the education of the people and wanted to make sure that good growth was encouraged. In speaking of its focus on literature, it explains, "It affects our morals, . . . It affects all our philosophy and speculative belief," (4). Later, when introducing a Miss Barrett's poetry, a contributor comments on the importance of poets whose art draws us to "truth and knowledge". Were they to be taken from us, besides becoming "coarse and treacherous," "Our religion would lose faith, that imaginative worship of the heart, and be driven back to stocks and stones" (38). So not only are education and religion linked, but also more pleasurable pursuits of recreational literature are likewise linked to religion.
Still, the study of more recreational literature is also perceived to have a downside. The New-England Magazine and article describes the development of a Thomas Sable. "the study of the classics did much to inspire young Thomas with principles in religion and morals, widely different from those now permitted by customs and laws."(61). Here is a youth who pursues education, but strictly from the classics of Greek and Roman literature. The author notes that most of the gods would be imprisoned for felonies if they behaved they way they are depicted in modern society, and that cock-fighting was back then used by a Roman general to inspire his troops. So, Thomas Sable was not well equipped by his education to live profitably and morally within the context of the wider culture of the time. The lesson to be learned from this story, was that education can be misused, and literature if not read in proper proportions could do as much to harm a young person's development as it could do good when used correctly. Quality of education and religious and moral instruction are important.
A positive example of the right mixture of education and religion was Miss Barrett. In The American Whig Review a Miss Barrett is extolled as one of the two poets in England, the other being Alfred Tennyson. She is described as a genius. The spirituality of her poems is much commended as is her evident erudition. "Learned women are notorious for becoming bold and masculine; but there are few men who could bear about them so many of the rich spoils of books and antiquity, without awkwardness and pedantry." But Miss Barrett, the reviewer contends, is not guilty of that sort of simplicity or vulgarity in knowledge. "The secret lies in this: what with most men and with other women is apt to be a mere matter of acquisition, something foreign and accidental hung upon the original framework of the mind, with her, by a long and natural process of assimilation, has become part of the texture of the mind itself." She has translated Prometheus and read "the Hebrew Bible from Genesis to Malachi " among other works of erudition and spirituality. She is very intellectual, but also very spiritual. Her education is rounded, softened and made whole and feminine by her spirituality. Conversely, her spirituality is balanced and made more meaningful and given context by her education.
While its influence in cultural education cannot be denied, and indeed was a major focus of religious concern during the early republic, its wider influence must not be neglected. As is observed by Chevalier, religion also affects cultural relationships: "The Protestant education, much more than our Catholic discipline, draws round each individual a line over which it is difficult to step. The consequence is more coldness in the domestic relations, a more or less complete absence of a full and free expression of the stronger feelings of the soul, but, in turn, every one is obliged and accustomed to show more respect for the feelings of others." Chevalier notes both a positive and a negative in this—on the one hand, there is more respect given to each individual, but on the other, there is less personal and emotional contact.
Religion becomes a formalized aspect of society which can cause morality to be legislated, so to speak. The regulations of the Lowell factory that Chevalier observes include things like, " They must on all occasions, both in their words and in their actions, show that they are penetrated by a laudable love of temperature and virtue, and animated by a sense of their moral and social obligations." And, "All ardent spirits are banished from the Company's grounds, except when prescribed by a physician. All games of hazard and cards are prohibited within their limits and in the boarding-houses." Female employees are required to "attend regularly at divine service, and rigidly observe the rules of the Sabbath." He observes a balance between being strict in religion and morals and tolerant and lax in government in the Americas. Because the morals are maintained with such strictness, the people are more self-regulated and require less governmental interference. This is in strong contrast to today's system, in which much more power has been given to the government and much less moral responsibility is expected of the average citizen. Maybe Chevalier had the right idea?
On an interesting note, the magazine that was set forth to involve discourse on science and encourage the development of science in the new States, also seemed to have the greatest amount of poetry. The Scientific American is perhaps the most poetic of the journals used in this research. In the midst of technical articles and amusing anecdotes and bits of poetry, it drops in commentary that alludes to the importance of religion. "Keep that Testament in your vest pocket, over your heart." (Vol2, issue1). It seems as though, religion is culture in this society. It is inescapable no matter what subject is under discussion.
Religion as culture brings up a touching subject that involves some of our more inglorious episodes. It is concerning our treatment of the Native Americans. An article on the removal of Indians complains against the natives as not accepting religion and civilization. "Many of them were carefully taught at our seminaries of education, in the hope that principles of morality and habits of industry would be acquired," and missionaries "devoted themselves with generous ardor to the task of instruction, as well in agriculture and the mechanic arts, as in the principles of morality and religion." (67). But all these influences of education and religion were "unsuccessful and unproductive efforts" according to the author. He references a tribe that has "dwindled" in number since the Catholic efforts among them and judges that for them, "a sedentary life begins to be irksome. Already their attention is directed to the trans-Mississippian regions." He also cites the Delawares who came under Moravian influence as having gone into the west to return to their "pristine habits." Because, as far as he can see, the whites have done everything they could to help to elevate the natives, he blames "some insurmountable obstacle in the habits or temperament of the Indians," for their lack of cultural and religious assimilation. He does admit the existence of Cherokees who have assimilated more, but he restricts that movement to some "half-breeds and their immediate connexions." Even that statement he further qualifies by saying that their chief claim to civilization is that they have taken up slavery, and that that was only to indulge "that unconquerable aversion to labor, so characteristic of all savage tribes" (71).
The "blessings of religion, the benefits of science and the arts, and the advantages of an efficient and stable government," are listed together as the culture that it is impossible to give to the aborigines of North America. It seems that the author believes the natives to be a hopeless case as far as culture and religion are concerned, so the author concludes that for their "protection and permanent advantage" and for the "safety of the bordering parties" the natives ought to be removed to separately reserved lands.
Religion was vitally important to the culture of the early American republic. While some saw that religion could be used to oppress, and some used it to condemn others, still over-all, religion and morality wore the face of liberating benevolence. It was a means of rising above ones circumstances. It was an inspiration to education, and a necessary part of proper education. It was a balancing influence in politics, relationships, morals, and knowledge. It was the core of culture and civilization. Perhaps its inter-relationship with freedom is best epitomized by a poetic eulogy that was originally published in a Catholic paper, but then quoted at length in the United States Democratic Review.
" No! Religion and Liberty are not hostile, but kindred to each other. Liberty means
only leave to do good. So soon as men pass that meaning they enter under the rule of
Law. Religion is the source and teacher of all goodness; hence Liberty must he her
ally and her aid. Oh! blessed is the union of Liberty and Religion! This union is the
hope of humanity, the stay of order, the prop of peace, the highest earthly combination
of all that is good, and pure, and holy in our human nature. May this union he perfected
and endure for ever! May it fill the earth and subdue it, and remain unbroken and
unchanged till the night of the last day closes over the ruins of the world."
only leave to do good. So soon as men pass that meaning they enter under the rule of
Law. Religion is the source and teacher of all goodness; hence Liberty must he her
ally and her aid. Oh! blessed is the union of Liberty and Religion! This union is the
hope of humanity, the stay of order, the prop of peace, the highest earthly combination
of all that is good, and pure, and holy in our human nature. May this union he perfected
and endure for ever! May it fill the earth and subdue it, and remain unbroken and
unchanged till the night of the last day closes over the ruins of the world."
Not only does it eulogize religion and liberty together as inseparable, it also become a point at which people of differing faiths can come together in respectful agreement. The Catholic is no longer distrusted as his loyalty to this ideal is made evident. Instead of being described as a secretive and evil conspirator, he is described as a candid, straightforward journalist. Humanity has been restored to at least one group that had been marginalized.
There would still be prejudices and fears that would spring from our understandings or misunderstandings of religion, but that will always be the case while we do not have perfect knowledge. Religion would still be the cause of division and just as surely it would be a factor that motivated union. It was a part of the moral fabric of society. It was often equated with culture and civilization. It was considered necessary for positive social interaction and a tool that could be used either towards liberty or oppression. It offered a framework within which people could be judged or accepted. It was a necessary and ever present reminder of our frailty in the midst of a growing individualism.
y coming together in respect and love. He drew a parrallel from these two stories to the brief statement of the first commandment that Jesus made: You shall love the Lord your God with all you heart, mind and strength. You shall love your neighbor as yourself.