Violent Leftist Activists stormed a NY City bank this afternoon and took over the lobby.The leftist anti-capitalist group stormed the bank, shut down operations, started chanting in the lobby and demanded homes and union jobs.For some odd reason the state-run media does not report this as a “violent protest.”(AP)
The AP whitewashed reported:
Noisy protesters with signs took over two bank building lobbies on Thursday in a prelude to a Wall Street rally by workers and union leaders angry over lost jobs, the taxpayer-funded bailout of financial institutions and questionable lending practices by big banks. Hours before the scheduled rally, more than 100 people entered a midtown Manhattan building housing JPMorgan Chase offices. They handed a bank executive a letter requesting a meeting with the CEO, and chanted “Bust up! Big banks!” and “People power!” A half-hour later, they were calmly escorted outside by officers, who remained expressionless as the protesters chanted, “The police need a raise.” They then walked a few blocks up Park Avenue and crowded into the lobby of the Seagram Building, where Wells Fargo and the bank it merged with in 2008, Wachovia, have offices. The protesters held up signs reading, “Save Our Jobs” and “Save Our Homes.” One included a Great Depression-era photograph. Police arrived on horseback as curious office workers watched the scene unfold from their windows. “We’re here today to stop the corporate greed that is ruining our neighborhoods,” said Andrea Goldman, 59, of Springfield, Mass., who’s part of a group called Alliance to Develop Power.
Noisy protesters with signs took over two bank building lobbies on Thursday in a prelude to a Wall Street rally by workers and union leaders angry over lost jobs, the taxpayer-funded bailout of financial institutions and questionable lending practices by big banks.
Hours before the scheduled rally, more than 100 people entered a midtown Manhattan building housing JPMorgan Chase offices. They handed a bank executive a letter requesting a meeting with the CEO, and chanted “Bust up! Big banks!” and “People power!”
A half-hour later, they were calmly escorted outside by officers, who remained expressionless as the protesters chanted, “The police need a raise.”
They then walked a few blocks up Park Avenue and crowded into the lobby of the Seagram Building, where Wells Fargo and the bank it merged with in 2008, Wachovia, have offices.
The protesters held up signs reading, “Save Our Jobs” and “Save Our Homes.” One included a Great Depression-era photograph. Police arrived on horseback as curious office workers watched the scene unfold from their windows.
“We’re here today to stop the corporate greed that is ruining our neighborhoods,” said Andrea Goldman, 59, of Springfield, Mass., who’s part of a group called Alliance to Develop Power.
Andrea Goldman is a co-chair of the shakedown group – Alliance to Develop Power. The Alliance to Develop Power/ADP of Springfield, MA has been successful at reclaiming social and economic power through cooperative economic development, resulting in the creation of business and capital holdings collectively valued at over $50 million.
JWF added: “Of course as we predicted earlier today nowhere is it mentioned this “diverse mixture” was organized primarily by an Obama “economic adviser” and assorted Obama-supporting groups.”
"B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION."
"B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)."
Apparently there is to be a vote later today on a bill regarding Puerto Rican statehood. They are calling it “non-binding” but it is not non-binding! It is a trap. The bill makes eventual Puerto Rican statehood a virtual certainty. This is despite the fact that statehood has been voted down repeatedly. The Puerto Rican people don’t want it!
But since when has that stopped the Left from ramming what they want down people’s throats? And why do they want this? The same reason they want everything, to further entrench their power. Statehood would mean two new senators, six or seven new representatives, a whole slew of new voters and tons of opportunities to spend more of your money. As Examiner.com’s Robert Moon points out:
Due to its dense population of poverty-stricken minorities, Puerto Rico can be counted on to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats and all their handouts, and their representation will also consequently outnumber that of 25 other existing U.S. states. Meanwhile, with Puerto Ricans having an average income of less than half that of our poorest state, they will instantly become eligible for dozens of our welfare programs. Truckloads of taxpayer dollars will also have to be perpetually dumped into the territory, by federal law, to bring it up to American infrastructure and environmental standards.
Due to its dense population of poverty-stricken minorities, Puerto Rico can be counted on to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats and all their handouts, and their representation will also consequently outnumber that of 25 other existing U.S. states.
Meanwhile, with Puerto Ricans having an average income of less than half that of our poorest state, they will instantly become eligible for dozens of our welfare programs. Truckloads of taxpayer dollars will also have to be perpetually dumped into the territory, by federal law, to bring it up to American infrastructure and environmental standards.
Oh, and never mind us. We don’t get a say in this either. Puerto Rico, which doesn’t want statehood, is being forced to vote, while we American citizens, who have a vested interest in the outcome, will not be given the opportunity to vote! Simply incredible!
HR 2499, titled “A Bill, to provide for a federally sanctioned self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico” follows a very devious, underhanded multi-step path to essentially force Puerto Rican voters to eventually adopt statehood. Here’s how.
The bill first authorizes Puerto Rico to hold a vote where they are given the following two choices only:
So citizens get to choose 1 or 2. Period, no ifs, ands or buts. Then the bill stipulates what comes next:
If the people pick option 1 – which they have chosen multiple times already – then the Puerto Rican government is directed to conduct more plebiscites every eight years for the foreseeable future. So in other words, Mr. Puerto Rican citizen, we are going to keep cramming this down your throat until a majority of you choose option 2.
Once the people choose option 2, then there will be a second vote with the following three options:
For the record, the first two options will not get much support. So the entire structure of the bill is designed to funnel Puerto Rican voters into a predetermined outcome: Statehood. This despite the fact that Puerto Ricans have voted against statehood over and over again!
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, a senior Democrat Congressman no less, just posted his views on this bill at Huffington Post. Here is what he has to say about it:
I am a senior Democratic Member of Congress, whose parents were born in Puerto Rico, and for whom Puerto Rico self-determination has been – and remains – a central issue of my congressional career. This statehood bill is the opposite of self-determination. It is designed to craft an artificial majority for statehood where none exists now. Every time the people of Puerto Rico have been consulted on this issue through a plebiscite they’ve said NO to Statehood. NO to Statehood in 1967. NO to Statehood in 1993. NO to Statehood in 1998. This should be called the “Don’t you dare say NO to Statehood Bill”.
I am a senior Democratic Member of Congress, whose parents were born in Puerto Rico, and for whom Puerto Rico self-determination has been – and remains – a central issue of my congressional career. This statehood bill is the opposite of self-determination.
It is designed to craft an artificial majority for statehood where none exists now. Every time the people of Puerto Rico have been consulted on this issue through a plebiscite they’ve said NO to Statehood. NO to Statehood in 1967. NO to Statehood in 1993. NO to Statehood in 1998. This should be called the “Don’t you dare say NO to Statehood Bill”.
But he is just getting going. Listen to this:
When a similar Puerto Rico bill came up under Speaker Newt Gingrich’s Republican controlled Congress a decade ago, it was the product of lengthy and thorough hearings and an open and fair process. Then, I was given time to offer seven amendments. Then I was able to clarify the bill for the Puerto Rican people. Then, each of my seven amendments got 30 minutes of floor time for debate. Flash forward to now. Now a Democratic Majority Congress is only allowing me two of the 16 amendments I offered in the Rules Committee on Wednesday. Now I only have 10 minutes to debate each one. Now, under Democratic Leadership, we get one hearing, no forewarning, no companion Senate bill, and a debate only a few seconds longer than a NASCAR pit-stop…I get more time to debate renaming a Post Office than I will get to debate a bill that could make Puerto Rico the fifty-first state. In my opinion, this bill is the political equivalent of a shady Goldman Sachs derivative: It’s secretive. It lacks transparency. It’s likely to blow up down the road and cause systemic risk to out democracy. And those who put this political derivative together don’t really tell you what this is really about and will play dumb when it explodes.
When a similar Puerto Rico bill came up under Speaker Newt Gingrich’s Republican controlled Congress a decade ago, it was the product of lengthy and thorough hearings and an open and fair process. Then, I was given time to offer seven amendments. Then I was able to clarify the bill for the Puerto Rican people. Then, each of my seven amendments got 30 minutes of floor time for debate.
Flash forward to now. Now a Democratic Majority Congress is only allowing me two of the 16 amendments I offered in the Rules Committee on Wednesday. Now I only have 10 minutes to debate each one.
Now, under Democratic Leadership, we get one hearing, no forewarning, no companion Senate bill, and a debate only a few seconds longer than a NASCAR pit-stop…I get more time to debate renaming a Post Office than I will get to debate a bill that could make Puerto Rico the fifty-first state.
In my opinion, this bill is the political equivalent of a shady Goldman Sachs derivative: It’s secretive. It lacks transparency. It’s likely to blow up down the road and cause systemic risk to out democracy. And those who put this political derivative together don’t really tell you what this is really about and will play dumb when it explodes.
We all know now from the outrageous experience of Obamacare that leftists could care less what the will of the people is. For those of you who traditionally vote Democrat this should serve as a warning: that includes you! Even if it’s those poor, downtrodden Puerto Ricans the Left claims to want to help so much. Ram Obamacare down Americas’ throat; ram statehood down Puerto Rico’s throat.
Do I detect a pattern here?
This information needs to go viral. Congress needs to be shut down with phone calls and faxes starting first thing in the morning. That is today, April 29, 2010.
All this is going on while everyone is distracted by the monstrous financial bailout bill coming out of the Senate. The timing was deliberate! And we now hear that despite losing support from lone RINO Republican Lindsey Graham, the Democrats are going to go ahead with illegal immigrant amnesty.
So now we see a pretty comprehensive electoral strategy mapped out:
If you’re not sufficiently angry and alarmed now, there is no hope for you. These people are demonstrating right to our faces their willingness to trample our rights and defy our will. If they are willing to do this now, what will they do if they get the permanent majorities they want?
The ACLU went down in defeat today. The Supreme Court ruled that the Mojave Cross can stay.(Why this had to go so far in the first place is beyond belief.)Via FOX News:
US Supreme Court rules Mojave cross can stay, rejecting the church-state challenge by the ACLU.This was a huge defeat for American communists.The AP reported:
The Supreme Court has said a federal court went too far in ordering the removal of a congressionally endorsed war memorial cross from its longtime home in California. The justices said Wednesday that federal judges in California did not take sufficient notice of the government’s decision to transfer the land in a remote area of California to private ownership to eliminate any constitutional concern about a religious symbol on public land.
The Supreme Court has said a federal court went too far in ordering the removal of a congressionally endorsed war memorial cross from its longtime home in California.
The justices said Wednesday that federal judges in California did not take sufficient notice of the government’s decision to transfer the land in a remote area of California to private ownership to eliminate any constitutional concern about a religious symbol on public land.
Beck warns of a vote tomorrow that will pave the way for Puerto Rico becoming a 51st state. According to Heritage, it will give Puerto Rico 3 options to vote on:
“Independence: Puerto Rico should become fully independent from the United States;”“Sovereignty in Association with the United States: Puerto Rico and the United States should form a political association between sovereign nations that will not be subject to the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution;” and,“Statehood: Puerto Rico should be admitted as a State of the Union.”
This way instead of having a yes or no vote on statehood which would provide a clear majority, this tactic will allow for a plurality of people to perhaps vote for statehood without it being a true majority of the people. This is important because Puerto Rico has rejected statehood 4 times and without this type of tactic it would seem that they would vote again to reject statehood. There’s a provision in the bill that would allow Puerto Ricans who live in the US to vote on this as well, despite the fact that they are no longer residents of Puerto Rico, and I believe they number around 2.5 million.
So if Puerto Rico becomes a state, they must pay taxes (increased revenue for the US) and there’s a whole new voting population right there waiting to be exploited.
And all of it under our noses. This sounds like change we can believe in.
From Hotair
Hey, maybe Henry Waxman can demand that his own Democratic colleagues in the House appear before his Oversight committee to explain why they have corroborated those eeeeeeeeeeevil corporations who announced writedowns after ObamaCare passed. Waxman abruptly canceled his plans to subpoena CEOs from companies like AT&T and Caterpillar after they informed shareholders of massive losses over the last few weeks, thanks to tax-code changes in the bill. He apparently wanted to avoid the embarrassment of admitting what his staff now acknowledges:
When major companies declared that a provision of the new health care law would hurt earnings, Democrats were skeptical. But after investigating, House Democrats have concluded that the companies were right to tell investors and the government about the expected adverse effects of the law on their financial results. … In a memorandum summarizing its investigation, the Democratic staff of the committee said, “The companies acted properly and in accordance with accounting standards in submitting filings to the S.E.C. in March and April.” Moreover, it said, “these one-time charges were required by applicable accounting rules.” The committee staff said this view was confirmed by independent experts at the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the American Academy of Actuaries. Mr. Waxman, the chairman of the committee, and Mr. Stupak canceled a hearing at which they had planned to question executives on the effects of the law. A tabulation by the United States Chamber of Commerce shows that at least 40 companies have taken charges against earnings that total $3.4 billion since the law was signed.
When major companies declared that a provision of the new health care law would hurt earnings, Democrats were skeptical. But after investigating, House Democrats have concluded that the companies were right to tell investors and the government about the expected adverse effects of the law on their financial results. …
In a memorandum summarizing its investigation, the Democratic staff of the committee said, “The companies acted properly and in accordance with accounting standards in submitting filings to the S.E.C. in March and April.”
Moreover, it said, “these one-time charges were required by applicable accounting rules.” The committee staff said this view was confirmed by independent experts at the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the American Academy of Actuaries.
Mr. Waxman, the chairman of the committee, and Mr. Stupak canceled a hearing at which they had planned to question executives on the effects of the law.
A tabulation by the United States Chamber of Commerce shows that at least 40 companies have taken charges against earnings that total $3.4 billion since the law was signed.
As explained here repeatedly, Congress set the rules that required publicly-traded companies to make those statements. The Sarbanes-Oxley laws demand full and complete disclosure of changes to financial positions, especially negative changes. The CEOs would have broken SEC laws had they not announced the writedowns as soon as they were calculated and substantiated.
To some extent, though, this entire episode was a farce. Democrats knew full well that they had ended the tax credit for the subsidy that keeps retirees on private, employer-based prescription coverage. They did that deliberately in order to gain $5.4 billion in revenue to close the gap for the CBO analysis of ObamaCare. That money comes right off of the balance sheets of private industry — in fact, Democrats counted on it.
Now the private sector has $3.4 billion less to invest in new jobs and expansion (with more writedowns coming), plus Democrats have incentivized these companies to dump their retirees into the overextended Medicare Part D program. Small wonder Waxman’s colleagues convinced him to call off the hearing.
What you weren’t told was that GM was able to repay the money by drawing down on a line of credit that it had from TARP! In other words, GM took funds still available to it through TARP and used those funds to repay the loan it received from the government. Of course, it now owes $4.7 billion on its line of credit with TARP, but, that doesn’t make for good news, so it wasn’t reported.
DEMOCRATS HID DAMNING HEALTH CARE REPORT FROM PUBLIC UNTIL A MONTH AFTER VOTE
More hope and change–A damning health care report generated by actuaries at the Health and Human Services (HHS) Department was given to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the health care vote. She hid the report from the public until a month after democrats rammed their nationalized health care bill through Congress.
The results from the report were troubling. The report released by Medicare and Medicaid actuaries shows that medical costs will skyrocket rising $389 billion 10 years. 14 million will lose their employer-based coverage. Millions of Americans will be left without insurance. And, millions more may be dumped into the already overwhelmed Medicaid system. 4 million American families will be hit with tax penalties under this new law.
Of course, these were ALL things that President Obama and Democratic leaders assured us would not happen.
Via Special Report:
The American Spectator reported, via FOX Nation:
The economic report released last week by Health and Human Services, which indicated that President Barack Obama’s health care “reform” law would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on consumers, had been submitted to the office of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the Congressional votes on the bill, according to career HHS sources, who added that Sebelius’s staff refused to review the document before the vote was taken. “The reason we were given was that they did not want to influence the vote,” says an HHS source. “Which is actually the point of having a review like this, you would think.” The analysis, performed by Medicare’s Office of the Actuary, which in the past has been identified as a “nonpolitical” office, set off alarm bells when submitted. “We know a copy was sent to the White House via their legislative affairs staff,” says the HHS staffer, “and there were a number of meetings here almost right after the analysis was submitted to the secretary’s office. Everyone went into lockdown, and people here were too scared to go public with the report.” In the end, the report was released several weeks after the vote.
The economic report released last week by Health and Human Services, which indicated that President Barack Obama’s health care “reform” law would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on consumers, had been submitted to the office of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the Congressional votes on the bill, according to career HHS sources, who added that Sebelius’s staff refused to review the document before the vote was taken.
“The reason we were given was that they did not want to influence the vote,” says an HHS source. “Which is actually the point of having a review like this, you would think.”
The analysis, performed by Medicare’s Office of the Actuary, which in the past has been identified as a “nonpolitical” office, set off alarm bells when submitted. “We know a copy was sent to the White House via their legislative affairs staff,” says the HHS staffer, “and there were a number of meetings here almost right after the analysis was submitted to the secretary’s office. Everyone went into lockdown, and people here were too scared to go public with the report.”
In the end, the report was released several weeks after the vote.
When Nancy Pelosi told America, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,” she forgot to mention that democrats already knew what was in it. They just didn’t want the rest of the country to find out.
If we had a responsible media this would make headlines for about the next year and a half.
UPDATE: Here is a copy of that report.
By The Prowler on 4.26.10 @ 6:09AM
OFFICE POLITICSThe economic report released last week by Health and Human Services, which indicated that President Barack Obama's health care "reform" law would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on consumers, had been submitted to the office of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the Congressional votes on the bill, according to career HHS sources, who added that Sebelius's staff refused to review the document before the vote was taken.
"The reason we were given was that they did not want to influence the vote," says an HHS source. "Which is actually the point of having a review like this, you would think."
The analysis, performed by Medicare's Office of the Actuary, which in the past has been identified as a "nonpolitical" office, set off alarm bells when submitted. "We know a copy was sent to the White House via their legislative affairs staff," says the HHS staffer, "and there were a number of meetings here almost right after the analysis was submitted to the secretary's office. Everyone went into lockdown, and people here were too scared to go public with the report."
In the end, the report was released several weeks after the vote -- the review by the secretary's office reportedly took less than three days -- and bore a note that the analysis was not the official position of the Obama administration.
OBAMA'S MINESThe irony of President Barack Obama visiting Beckley, West Virginia, Sunday to read a eulogy at the memorial service for those who died in the Upper Big Branch Mine accident, has not been lost on some White House aides. "If we had our way we'd be mourning the mining industry, not miners," says a White House aide. "As an environmental issue, we want the majority of these mining related industries just to go away."
In fact, the White House and some Obama Administration staffers at the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency have been coordinating with left-wing environmental groups to launch protests in West Virginia over such techniques as "mountaintop removal mining." This enabled the EPA to cite such protests as support for their new rulemaking. Earlier this month, the agency imposed rules sharply curtailing that form of strip mining in such states as West Virginia. The rules may end up costing several hundred West Virginians their jobs.
Now the Obama Administration is looking for ways to reward those groups they coordinated with. According to sources inside the EPA, the agency is attempting to find ways to get funding to several organizations it worked with on the mountaintop mining and other efforts, including Appalachian Voices and Coal River Mountain Watch. Meanwhile, the administration is attempting to identify ways to fund a much more influential "pass through" organization, the Appalachian Community Fund, an organization run out of Knoxville, Tennessee.
"Appalachian Community Fund is like the ACORN of West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee," says a Commerce Department political employee. "If we can get it just a few hundred thousand dollars, it can organize for us down there in ways to help us politically, and it's done great things for us with the EPA and other entities."
MEAN MORRISSome California conservatives were scratching their heads over an email being sent around by longtime Democrat and Clinton adviser Dick Morris, telling California Republicans not to support Senate candidate Tom Campbell, who has been leading a number of different polls, and who has declined to sign the Americans for Tax Reform pledge to not support tax increases.
"Guess Campbell didn't take any of Morris's advice or a phone call," joked one California political consultant. Morris has gained the reputation for using his emailed newsletter and Fox News appearances to criticize candidates he has attempted to rope into any number of entities he consults for, including the League of American Voters organization. In his email, Morris encouraged Republicans to support either Chuck Devore or Carly Fiorina. Of the latter two, Devore appears to be the one candidate showing momentum leading into June 8 primary.
PAYBACK BIG TIMEOne of the reasons the Obama Administration has stepped up its public criticism of Wall Street isn't just its opposition to the regulatory reform legislation on Capitol Hill, say New York-based executives for such firms as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and Bank of America. It's because the firms have largely been pushing back against a number of requests from the White House in the past several months.
According to these executives White House political advisers, such as Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod, have been calling senior management of those and other firms demanding that the banks step up hiring. "They don't think we're hiring enough of their people or people in general while we're making profits," says one executive with Bank of America. "And for several months now, they've been pushing us to do more to help them on the employment front."
Jarrett and Axelrod's requests have been met with little enthusiasm from B of A CEO Brian Moynihan, J.P. Morgan Chase CEO James Dimon, and Goldman Sachs Chairman Lloyd Blankfein, among others, say the executives, in part, because they don't feel stepping up hiring and recruitment is wise. Other executives say that even as he has led the Capitol Hill lobbying effort for Wall Street regulation, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, has also been making calls to firm executives encouraging them to help the administration on its job creation and stimulus efforts.
REVOLVING TIMESOne hire that Goldman has made was former New York Times reporter Stephen Labaton, who covered economic issues and sometimes conservative politics for the paper. Labaton, who is married to Miriam Sapiro, a bundler for Obama's presidential campaign and now a senior official in Obama's U.S. Trade Representative office, took a buyout from the Times late last year and immediately began offering his services to many of the companies he previously had reported on, offering to assist them in gaining access to his friends in the media. At least one company, according to Labaton friends at the Times, took him up on the offer, paying him more than $7,500 a month for his advice, believing that his wife's close ties from her fundraising days to such Obama Administration officials as FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and Commodity Futures Trading Commissioner Chairman Gary Gensler, and special adviser on Afghanistan-Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, might help them. Now Labaton is a full-time consultant to the Wall Street firm on regulatory and legislative issues. Who says journalism isn't a profitable business any more?
Here's are some other articles about the increased costs from Associated Press and from healthform.gov and CBS News
Barack Obama worked the phones to try to get GOP senators to sign on to his radical amnesty bill. Discussions with Senators Scott Brown (R-MA), Lisa Murkowksi (R-AL), Richard Lugar (R-IN), George Lemieux (R-FL) and Judd Gregg (R-NH) fell flat. Only, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is willing to move forward on the unpopular bill.CNN reported:
Sources familiar with discussions about the issue say the White House is reluctant to move on the politically polarizing and divisive issue of immigration without bipartisan support. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina seems to be the only GOP senator on board, but he has told Democrats they will lose his support unless they find another Republican. Obama called Sen. Scott Brown, R-Massachusetts, to try to get him to sign on, as well as four other GOP senators: Lisa Murkowksi of Alaska, Richard Lugar of Indiana, George Lemieux of Florida and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. CNN contacted aides to those senators, and all said none gave the president a commitment to work with Democrats on immigration reform. Democratic sources say they will probably work to get GOP support for another few weeks and then weigh how to proceed. One likely scenario, according to the sources, is to craft legislation that has had bipartisan support in the past and try to bring it to the Senate floor in early summer. If they don’t succeed, Democratic sources say, they will at least be able to show key political constituencies like Latinos that they tried. The last major immigration reform efforts in Congress came in 2005, when Sens. John McCain, R-Arizona, and Ted Kennedy, Brown’s predecessor, introduced a bipartisan bill that aimed to implement guest-worker programs and ways for more illegal immigrants to become citizens. The McCain-Kennedy bill, however, never came up for a vote in the Senate.
Sources familiar with discussions about the issue say the White House is reluctant to move on the politically polarizing and divisive issue of immigration without bipartisan support.
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina seems to be the only GOP senator on board, but he has told Democrats they will lose his support unless they find another Republican.
Obama called Sen. Scott Brown, R-Massachusetts, to try to get him to sign on, as well as four other GOP senators: Lisa Murkowksi of Alaska, Richard Lugar of Indiana, George Lemieux of Florida and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire.
CNN contacted aides to those senators, and all said none gave the president a commitment to work with Democrats on immigration reform.
Democratic sources say they will probably work to get GOP support for another few weeks and then weigh how to proceed.
One likely scenario, according to the sources, is to craft legislation that has had bipartisan support in the past and try to bring it to the Senate floor in early summer. If they don’t succeed, Democratic sources say, they will at least be able to show key political constituencies like Latinos that they tried.
The last major immigration reform efforts in Congress came in 2005, when Sens. John McCain, R-Arizona, and Ted Kennedy, Brown’s predecessor, introduced a bipartisan bill that aimed to implement guest-worker programs and ways for more illegal immigrants to become citizens.
The McCain-Kennedy bill, however, never came up for a vote in the Senate.
More… Deportation? Sí, Se Puede!
US Senate RINO Lindsey Graham threatened Team Obama that he would pull his support for their cap-&-tax bill if the democrats proceeded with immigration legislation.What this has to do with cap-&-tax is anyone’s guess.Maybe Lindsey is feeling the heat from the nation’s conservatives who oppose the amnesty and gas tax proposed by the far left?The Hill reported:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Saturday that he will be “unable to move forward” with the upcoming climate and energy bill he’s crafting if Democratic leaders push ahead with plans to move immigration legislation. Graham’s declaration could halt or unravel the months-long effort to craft a compromise climate measure he has undertaken with Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). The measure is slated to be unveiled Monday. “I want to bring to your attention what appears to be a decision by the Obama Administration and Senate Democratic leadership to move immigration instead of energy,” Graham wrote in a letter Saturday. “Unless their plan substantially changes this weekend, I will be unable to move forward on energy independence legislation at this time. I will not allow our hard work to be rolled out in a manner that has no chance of success,” he added.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Saturday that he will be “unable to move forward” with the upcoming climate and energy bill he’s crafting if Democratic leaders push ahead with plans to move immigration legislation.
Graham’s declaration could halt or unravel the months-long effort to craft a compromise climate measure he has undertaken with Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). The measure is slated to be unveiled Monday.
“I want to bring to your attention what appears to be a decision by the Obama Administration and Senate Democratic leadership to move immigration instead of energy,” Graham wrote in a letter Saturday.
“Unless their plan substantially changes this weekend, I will be unable to move forward on energy independence legislation at this time. I will not allow our hard work to be rolled out in a manner that has no chance of success,” he added.
Lindsey Graham’s DC phone number is 202-224-5972.
It’s an Obama World–Good Question: So just to be clear, it’s constitutional to penalize someone for not showing proof of health insurance but not request proof of citizenship?
Only 23% of Arizona voters agree with Obama.
In addition, many states required tests to keep non-Christians or in some cases Catholics out of public office:
XIX. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect. who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.
ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:" I, A B. will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced."And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:" I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."And all officers shall also take an oath of office.
SECT. 10. A quorum of the house of representatives shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of members elected; and having met and chosen their speaker, shall each of them before they proceed to business take and subscribe, as well the oath or affirmation of fidelity and allegiance hereinafter directed, as the following oath or affirmation, viz:I do swear (or affirm) that as a member of this assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution, which stall appear to free injurious to the people; nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the constitution of this state; but will in all things conduct myself as a faithful honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of only judgment and abilities.And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.
LV. That every person, appointed to any office of profit or trust, shall, before he enters on the execution thereof, take the following oath; to wit :–"I, A. B., do swear, that I do not hold myself bound in allegiance to the King of Great Britain, and that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to the State of Maryland;" and shall also subscribe a declaration of his belief in the Christian religion.
32. That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall b e capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this State.
ART. VI. The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county, who shall have resided at least twelve months in this State, and three months in the county where they shall be elected; except the freeholders of the counties of Glynn and Camden, who are in a state of alarm, and who shall have the liberty of choosing one member each, as specified in the articles of this constitution, in any other county, until they have residents sufficient to qualify them for more; and they shall be of the Protestent religion, and of the age of twenty-one years, and shall be possessed in their own right of two hundred and fifty acres of land, or some property to the amount of two hundred and fifty pounds.
SECTION IX. A quorum of the house of representatives shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of members elected; and having met and chosen their speaker, shall, each of them, before they proceed to business, take and subscribe, as well the oath of fidelity and allegiance herein after directed, as the following oath or affirmation, viz." I ____ do solemnly swear, by the ever living God, (or, I do solemnly affirm in the presence of Almighty God) that as a member of this assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution, which shall appear to me injurious to the people; nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the Constitution of this State; but will, in all things' conduct myself as a faithful, honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of my judgment and abilities."And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz." I ____ do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Diverse, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion."And no further or other religious test shall ever, hereafter, be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.
III. That as soon as may be after the first meeting of the senate and house of representatives, and at every first meeting of the senate and house of representatives thereafter, to be elected by virtue of this constitution, they shall jointly in the house of representatives choose by ballot from among themselves or from the people at large a governor and commander-in-chief, a lieutenant-governor, both to continue for two years, and a privy council, all of the Protestant religion, and till such choice shall be made the former president or governor and commander-in-chief, and vice-president or lieutenant-governor, as the case may be, and privy council, shall continue to act as such.
Massachusetts Art. III. As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of the public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: Therefore, To promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subject an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend.Provided, notwithstanding, That the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, shall at all times have the exclusive right and electing their public teachers and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance.And all moneys paid by the subject to the support of public worship and of public teachers aforesaid shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; otherwise it may be paid toward the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said moneys are raised.And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.
New Hampshire VI. As morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to due subjection; and as the knowledge of these, is most likely to be propagated through a society by the institution of the public worship of the DEITY, and of public instruction in morality and religion; therefore, to promote those important purposes, the people of this state have a right to impower, and do hereby fully impower the legislature to authorize from time to time, the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies within this state, to make adequate provision at their own expence, for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality:Provided notwithstanding, That the several towns, parishes, bodies-corporate, or religious societies, shall at all times have the exclusive right of electing their own public teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance. And no portion of any one particular religious sect or denomination, shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of the teacher or teachers of another persuasion, sect or denomination.And every denomination of christians demeaning themselves quietly, and as good subjects of the state, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another, shall ever be established by law.And nothing herein shall be understood to affect any former contracts made for the support of the ministry; but all such contracts shall remain, and be in the same state as if this constitution had not been made.
SEC. 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.
Prior to the American Revolution, the only English Bibles in the colonies were imported either from Europe or England. Publication of the Bible was regulated by the British government, and required a special license. Robert Aitken's Bible was the first known English-language Bible to be printed in America, and also the only Bible to receive Congressional approval. Aitken's Bible, sometimes referred to as "The Bible of the Revolution," is one of the rarest books in the world, with few copies still in existence today.
History of the Aitken Bible
On January 21, 1781, Robert Aitken presented a "memorial" [petition] to Congress offering to print "a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools." This is the text of that memorial:
To the Honourable The Congressof the United States of AmericaThe Memorial of Robert Aitkenof the City of Philadelphia, Printer
Humbly Sheweth
That in every well regulated Government in Christendom The Sacred Books of the Old and New Testament, commonly called the Holy Bible, are printed and published under the Authority of the Sovereign Powers, in order to prevent the fatal confusion that would arise, and the alarming Injuries the Christian Faith might suffer from the Spurious and erroneous Editions of Divine Revelation. That your Memorialist has no doubt but this work is an Object worthy the attention of the Congress of the United States of America, who will not neglect spiritual security, while they are virtuously contending for temporal blessings. Under this persuasion your Memorialist begs leave to, inform your Honours That he both begun and made considerable progress in a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools, But being cautious of suffering his copy of the Bible to Issue forth without the sanction of Congress, Humbly prays that your Honours would take this important matter into serious consideration & would be pleased to appoint one Member or Members of your Honourable Body to inspect his work so that the same may be published under the Authority of Congress. And further, your Memorialist prays, that he may be commissioned or otherwise appointed & Authorized to print and vend Editions of, the Sacred Scriptures, in such manner and form as may best suit the wants and demands of the good people of these States, provided the same be in all things perfectly consonant to the Scriptures as heretofore Established and received amongst us.
After appointing a committee to study the project, Congress acted on September 12, 1782, by "highly approv[ing of] the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken." The endorsement by Congress was printed in the Aitken Bible:
The endorsement was signed by Charles Thomson, who was Secretary of the Continental Congress. Thomson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, is also famous for "Thomson's Bible," the first American translation of the Greek Septuagint, published in 1808 (Thomson was an accomplished theologian, publishing such works as "A Regular History of the Conception, Birth, Doctrine, Miracles, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus Christ.")
Robert Aitken printed three documents in the front of his Bible, the report of the committee established to review his memorial; the report of the Congressional Chaplains; and Congresses endorsement. Below is the text of these documents:
BY THE UNITED STATES IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED:
September 12th, 1782.
THE Committee to whom was referred a Memorial of Robert Aitken, printer, dated 21st January, 1781, respecting an edition of the Holy Scriptures, report, "That Mr. Aitken has, at a great expense, now finished an American edition of the Holy Scriptures in English; that the Committee have from time to time attended to his progress in the work; that they also recommended it to the two Chaplains of Congress to examine and give their opinion of the execution, who have accordingly reported thereon; the recommendation and report being as follows:
"Philadelphia, 1st September, 1782.
"Reverend Gentlemen,"Our knowledge of our piety and public spirit leads us without apology to recommend to your particular attention the edition of the Holy Scriptures publishing by Mr. Aitken. He undertook this expensive work at a time when, from the circumstances of the war, and English edition of the Bible could not be imported, nor any opinion formed how long the obstruction might continue. On this account particularly he deserves applause and encouragement. We therefore wish you, Reverend Gentlemen, to examine the execution of the work, and if approved, to give the sanction of our judgment, and the weigh of your recommendation.
We are, with very great respect,Your most obedient humble servants.(Sign'd) JAMES DUANE, Chairman in behalfof a Committee of Congress on Mr. Atken's Memorial.
Reverend Doct. White and Revd. Mr. Duffield,Chaplains of the United States in Congress assembled.
Report.
Gentlemen,AGREEABLY to your desire we have paid attention to Mr. Robert Aitken's impression of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. Having selected and examined a variety of passages throughout the work, we are of opinion that it is executed with great accuracy as to the sense, and with as few grammatical and typographical errors as could be expected in an undertaking of such magnitude. Being ourselves witnesses of the demand for this invaluable book, we rejoice in the present prospect of a supply; hoping that it will prove as advantageous as it is honorable to the Gentleman, who has exerted himself to furnish it, at the evident risk of private fortune. We are, Gentlemen,Your very respectful and humble servants,
(Sign'd) WILLIAM WHITE,GEORGE DUFFIELD.
Philadelphia, September 10th, 1782.
Honble James Duane, Esq. Chairman, and the otherHonble Gentlemen of the Committee of Congress onMr. Aitken's Memorial."
Whereupon,RESOLVED,THAT the United States in Congress assembled highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion, as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.
CHA. THOMSON, Sec'ry.
In 1968, the American Bible Society reprinted the Aitken Bible, this is the title page of that reprint:
The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.
Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.
The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."
George Duffield, Congressional ChaplainOn October 1, 1777, after Jacob Duché, Congress's first chaplain, defected to the British, Congress appointed joint chaplains: William White (1748-1836), Duché's successor at Christ Church, Philadelphia, and George Duffield (1732-1790), pastor of the Third Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia. By appointing chaplains of different denominations, Congress expressed a revolutionary egalitarianism in religion and its desire to prevent any single denomination from monopolizing government patronage. This policy was followed by the first Congress under the Constitution which on April 15, 1789, adopted a joint resolution requiring that the practice be continued.
Military Chaplains PayThis resolution directed that military chaplains, appointed in abundance by Congress during the Revolutionary War, were paid at the rate of a major in the Continental Army.
Proposed Seal for the United StatesOn July 4, 1776, Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams "to bring in a device for a seal for the United States of America." Franklin's proposal adapted the biblical story of the parting of the Red Sea (left). Jefferson first recommended the "Children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by Day, and a Pillar of Fire by night. . . ." He then embraced Franklin's proposal and rewrote it (right). Jefferson's revision of Franklin's proposal was presented by the committee to Congress on August 20. Although not accepted these drafts reveal the religious temper of the Revolutionary period. Franklin and Jefferson were among the most theologically liberal of the Founders, yet they used biblical imagery for this important task.
"Resolved, That Dr. Franklin, Mr. J. Adams and Mr. Jefferson, be a committee, to bring in a device for a seal for the United States of America." – July 4, 1776, Journals of Continental Congress
For the design team, Congress chose three of the five men who were on the committee that drafted the Declaration of Independence. Although these distinguished committee members were among the ablest minds in the new nation, they had little knowledge of heraldry. To help convey their vision, they chose the artist Pierre Eugène Du Simitière to work with them.
Skilled in portraiture and heraldry (the state seals of Delaware and New Jersey are his designs), Du Simitière was also an avid collector of all things American and founded the first history museum in the United States.
The four men consulted among themselves between July 4 and August 13, then each brought before the committee a suggestion for the design of the Great Seal.
Benjamin Franklin's proposal is preserved in a note of his own handwriting:
"Moses standing on the Shore, and extending his Hand over the Sea, thereby causing the same to overwhelm Pharaoh who is sitting in an open Chariot, a Crown on his Head and a Sword in his Hand. Rays from a Pillar of Fire in the Clouds reaching to Moses, to express that he acts by Command of the Deity."Motto, Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God."
"Motto, Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God."
Thomas Jefferson also suggested allegorical scenes. For the front of the seal: children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. For the reverse: Hengist and Horsa, the two brothers who were the legendary leaders of the first Anglo-Saxon settlers in Britain.
John Adams chose the allegorical painting known as the "Judgment of Hercules" where the young Hercules must choose to travel either on the flowery path of self-indulgence or ascend the rugged, uphill way of duty to others and honor to himself.
Du Simitière designed a proper heraldic seal that the committee liked and submitted to Congress on August 20, 1776:
"The shield has six Quarters... pointing out the Countries from which these States have been peopled."
Three British: Rose for England, Thistle for Scotland, Harp for IrelandThree European: Fleur-de-lis for France, Belgic Lion for Holland, Imperial (two-headed) Eagle for Germany
The shield is bordered with the initials for "each of the thirteen independent States of America."
"Crest The Eye of Providence in a radiant Triangle whose Glory extends over the Shield and beyond the Figures.""Motto "E PLURIBUS UNUM."
Du Simitière's Sketch of His First Design (retouched)
Supporting the Shield on its right side: "The Goddess of Liberty in a corslet of armour alluding to the present Times, holding in her right hand the Spear & Cap and with her left supporting the Shield of the states."On its left side: "The Goddess of Justice bearing a Sword in her right hand, and in her left a Balance."
Below left is an 1856 realization of the first committee's design. (The states' initials should be around the shield, not the outside of the seal.) On the right is the reverse side (also drawn in 1856).
The Reverse Side of the Great Seal(Jefferson's edit of Franklin's suggestion)
"Pharaoh sitting in an open Chariot, a Crown on his head and a Sword in his hand, passing through the divided Waters of the Red Sea in Pursuit of the Israelites: Rays from a Pillar of Fire in the Cloud, expressive of the divine Presence and Command, beaming on Moses who stands on the shore and extending his hand over the Sea causes it to overwhelm Pharaoh."
Motto: "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God"
The same day Congress received the committee's report, it was "Ordered, To lie on the table." In other words, Congress was unimpressed by their design.
Two of its design elements, however, were chosen for the final Great Seal: the eye of Providence and the motto E Pluribus Unum. Also, some of the meaning of Franklin's motto is seen in the one eventually used above the radiant eye on the reverse side of the Great Seal: Annuit Coeptis (Providence has Favored Our Undertakings).
Two of its design elements, however, were chosen for the final Great Seal: the eye of Providence and the motto E Pluribus Unum.
Also, some of the meaning of Franklin's motto is seen in the one eventually used above the radiant eye on the reverse side of the Great Seal: Annuit Coeptis (Providence has Favored Our Undertakings).
Congressional Fast Day ProclamationCongress proclaimed days of fasting and of thanksgiving annually throughout the Revolutionary War. This proclamation by Congress set May 17, 1776, as a "day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer" throughout the colonies. Congress urges its fellow citizens to "confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his [God's] righteous displeasure, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness." Massachusetts ordered a "suitable Number" of these proclamations be printed so "that each of the religious Assemblies in this Colony, may be furnished with a Copy of the same" and added the motto "God Save This People" as a substitute for "God Save the King."
Congressional Thanksgiving Day ProclamationCongress set December 18, 1777, as a day of thanksgiving on which the American people "may express the grateful feelings of their hearts and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor" and on which they might "join the penitent confession of their manifold sins . . . that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance." Congress also recommends that Americans petition God "to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.'"
The 1779 Fast Day ProclamationHere is the most eloquent of the Fast and Thanksgiving Day Proclamations.
Another Thanksgiving Day ProclamationCongress set November 28, 1782, as a day of thanksgiving on which Americans were "to testify their gratitude to God for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience to his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness."
Morality in the ArmyCongress was apprehensive about the moral condition of the American army and navy and took steps to see that Christian morality prevailed in both organizations. In the Articles of War, seen below, governing the conduct of the Continental Army (seen above) (adopted, June 30, 1775; revised, September 20, 1776), Congress devoted three of the four articles in the first section to the religious nurture of the troops. Article 2 "earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers to attend divine services." Punishment was prescribed for those who behaved "indecently or irreverently" in churches, including courts-martial, fines and imprisonments. Chaplains who deserted their troops were to be court-martialed.
Morality in the NavyCongress particularly feared the navy as a source of moral corruption and demanded that skippers of American ships make their men behave. The first article in Rules and Regulations of the Navy (below), adopted on November 28, 1775, ordered all commanders "to be very vigilant . . . to discountenance and suppress all dissolute, immoral and disorderly practices." The second article required those same commanders "to take care, that divine services be performed twice a day on board, and a sermon preached on Sundays." Article 3 prescribed punishments for swearers and blasphemers: officers were to be fined and common sailors were to be forced "to wear a wooden collar or some other shameful badge of distinction."
Commander-in-Chief of the American NavyEtched on this horn beaker is Esek Hopkins (1718-1802), a Rhode Islander, appointed by Congress, December 22, 1775, as the first commander-in-chief of the American Navy. Hopkins was dismissed, January 2, 1778, after a stormy tenure in which he achieved some notable successes in spite of almost insuperable problems in manning the tiny American fleet.
Aitken's Bible Endorsed by CongressThe war with Britain cut off the supply of Bibles to the United States with the result that on Sept. 11, 1777, Congress instructed its Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from "Scotland, Holland or elsewhere." On January 21, 1781, Philadelphia printer Robert Aitken (1734-1802) petitioned Congress to officially sanction a publication of the Old and New Testament which he was preparing at his own expense. Congress "highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion . . . in this country, and . . . they recommend this edition of the bible to the inhabitants of the United States." This resolution was a result of Aitken's successful accomplishment of his project.
Aitken's BibleAitken published Congress's recommendation of September 1782 and related documents (Item 115) as an imprimatur on the two pages following his title page. Aitken's Bible, published under Congressional patronage, was the first English language Bible published on the North American continent.
Settling the WestIn the spring of 1785 Congress debated regulations for settling the new western lands--stretching from the Alleghenies to the Mississippi--acquired from Great Britain in the Peace Treaty of 1783. It was proposed that the central section in each newly laid out township be reserved for the support of schools and "the Section immediately adjoining the same to the northward, for the support of religion. The profits arising there from in both instances, to be applied for ever according to the will of the majority." The proposal to establish religion in the traditional sense of granting state financial support to a church to be controlled by one denomination attracted support but was ultimately voted down.
Northwest OrdinanceIn the summer of 1787 Congress revisited the issue of religion in the new western territories and passed, July 13, 1787, the famous Northwest Ordinance. Article 3 of the Ordinance contained the following language: "Religion, Morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, Schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged." Scholars have been puzzled that, having declared religion and morality indispensable to good government, Congress did not, like some of the state governments that had written similar declarations into their constitutions, give financial assistance to the churches in the West.
Christianizing the DelawaresIn this resolution, Congress makes public lands available to a group for religious purposes. Responding to a plea from Bishop John Ettwein (1721-1802), Congress voted that 10,000 acres on the Muskingum River in the present state of Ohio "be set apart and the property thereof be vested in the Moravian Brethren . . . or a society of the said Brethren for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity." The Delaware Indians were the intended beneficiaries of this Congressional resolution.
A Delaware-English Spelling BookDavid Zeisberger (1721-1802) was a famous Moravian missionary who spent much of his life working with the Delaware Indians. His Spelling Book contains a "Short History of the Bible," in the English and Delaware languages, on facing pages.
In the case of Holy Trinity v. United States in 1892, after thoroughly researching volumes of founder's documents and citing an amazing 89 precedents, declared: "These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."[13]
After signing the American Declaration of Independence, the new Congress appointed a committee to design a great seal of the United States. Committeeman Thomas Jefferson suggested the seal should include the children of Israel in the wilderness, led day and night by cloud and fire. Committeeman Ben Franklin suggested a more fitting image would be Moses, dividing the red sea, and pharaoh in his chariot being swamped by the returning waters. And the motto: "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."[30]
The Continental Congress hired a chaplain — Rev. Jacob Duche, an Episcopal minister — to open their first meeting in 1774 with prayer. Rev. Duche read the Episcopal Church's assigned scripture reading for that day which just happened to be Psalm 35 that reads, in part, "Plead my cause, O LORD, with those who strive with me; Fight against those who fight against me. Take hold of shield and buckler, And stand up for my help. Also draw out the spear, And stop those who pursue me." (NKJV) Then Rev. Duche led them into a long and extemporaneous prayer. The Psalm and the prayer were very moving to the delegates. John Adams wrote his wife Abigail, "I never saw a greater effect upon [an] audience. It seemed as if Heaven had ordained that Psalm to read on that morning. I must beg you to read that Psalm."[45]
Congress has been opening with prayer ever since.[45]
The Continental Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, ... imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war.[16]
The Minutemen, so called because they could be called to fight a minute's notice had strong ties to Christianity. The Minutemen were largely deacons out of churches because it was people like the Rev Jonas Clark who rallied his church deacons to go out and defend their town from attack. One of the clear teachings they believed was that they had the God given right of self defense; that it was a Biblical right.[45]
Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration and member of Continental Congress: "Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure, which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." - The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry by Bernard C. Steiner 1907, from a letter from Charles Carroll, Nov. 4, 1800.[5]
"It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in the order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour [sic] of the Universe." — James Madison[39]
"... prior to 1789 (the year that eleven of the thirteen states ratified the Constitution), many of the states still had constitutional requirements that a man must be a Christian in order to hold public office."[26]
"The reason that Christianity is the best friend of Government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart." — President Thomas Jefferson[40]
From The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), Vol. IV, P. 36: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."[13]
"The Promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providences of one Almighty God; the responsibility to Him for all our actions, founded upon moral accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social and benevolent virtues — these can never be a matter of indifference in any well-ordered community. It is, indeed,difficult to conceive how any civilized society can well exist without them." — Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story[37]
To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness, which mankind now enjoys . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government - and all blessings which flow from them — must fall with them. — Jedediah Morse, Patriot, called "The Father of American Geography"[28]
James Wilson and William Patterson — placed on the Supreme Court by President George Washington, had prayer over juries in the U. S. Supreme Court room.[13]
We are a Christian people ... not because the law demands it, not to gain exclusive benefits or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education and in a land thus universally Christian, what is to be expected, what desired, but that we shall pay due regard to Christianity? — Senate Judiciary Committee Report, January 19, 1853[5]
The Continental Congress, in 1777, recommended and approved that the Committee of Commerce "import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere," because of the great need of the American people and the great shortage caused by the interruption of trade with England by the Revolutionary War.[14]
Under British law it had been illegal to print a Bible in the English Language in America; after Surrender of British at Yorktown 1781, Congress approved the plan and established a committee to oversee the printing of America's very first very own English Bible. The endorsement in the front of it read, "The United States and Congress assembled recommends this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States."[15]
Church services were held The Old House of Representatives in what is now called Statuary Hall from 1807 to 1857. The first services in the Capitol, held when the government moved to Washington in the fall of 1800, were conducted in the "hall" of the House in the north wing of the building. In 1801 the House moved to temporary quarters in the south wing, called the "Oven," which it vacated in 1804, returning to the north wing for three years. ... The Speaker's podium was used as the preacher's pulpit.[16]Manasseh Cutler, In his journal dated December 23, 1804, describes a four-hour communion service in the Treasury Building, conducted by a Presbyterian minister, the Reverend James Laurie: "Attended worship at the Treasury. Mr. Laurie alone. Sacrament. Full assembly. Three tables; service very solemn; nearly four hours."[16]
Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. . . . Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.[16]
John Quincy Adams, a US Senator in 1803, wrote in his diary, "Religious Service is usually performed on Sundays at the Treasury Office and at the Capitol. I went both forenoon and afternoon to the Treasury."[15]
Inside the Capitol, just off the rotunda, is a prayer and meditation room that was set aside by the 83rd Congress for members' use. The focal point of the room is a magnificent stained glass window depicting George Washington kneeling in prayer. Etched around him are the words from Psalm 16:1 "Preserve me, O God, for in thee do I put my trust."[17]
In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the necessity of a public religion . . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."[13]
Thomas Paine, in his discourse on "The Study of God," forcefully asserts that it is "the error of schools" to teach sciences without "reference to the Being who is author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin." He laments that "the evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching [science without God] has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism."[13]
The following five quotations are from "A Defense of the Use of the Bible in Schools" (1830) by Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration, member of Continental Congress, and founder of 5 universities."Let the children ... be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education.[36]"In Scotland and in parts of New England, where the Bible has been long used as a schoolbook, the inhabitants are among the most enlightened in religions and science, the most strict in morals, and the most intelligent in human affairs of any people whose history has come to my knowledge upon the surface of the globe."[36]"We err, not only in human affairs but in religion likewise, only because we do not "know the Scriptures" and obey their instructions. Immense truths, I believe, are concealed in them. The time, I have no doubt, will come when posterity will view and pity our ignorance of these truths as much as we do the ignorance sometimes manifested by the disciples of our Savior, who knew nothing of the meaning of those plain passages in the Old Testament which were daily fulfilling before their eyes.
"The perfect morality of the Gospel rests upon a doctrine which, though often controverted, has never been refuted; I mean the vicarious life and death of the Son of God … By withholding the knowledge of this doctrine from children, we deprive ourselves of the best means of awakening moral sensibility in their minds . . .I cannot but suspect that the present fashionable practice of rejecting the Bible from our schools has originated from deists. And they discovered great ingenuity in this new mode of attacking Christianity. If they proceed in it, they will do more in a half a century in extirpating our religion than Bolingbroke or Voltaire could have effected in a thousand years " — Benjamin Rush: A Defense of the Use of the Bible in Schools[36]
"Surely future generations wouldn't try to take the Bible out of schools. In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, if we were to remove the Bible from schools, I lament that we could be wasting so much time and money in punishing crime and would be taking so little pains to prevent them."[5]
Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration and member of Continental Congress: "Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure, which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry by Bernard C. Steiner 1907, from a letter from Charles Carroll, Nov. 4, 1800.[5]
Thomas Jefferson signed a bill to build a church at government expense for the Indians. He signed a bill to pay the salary of a missionary to the Indians. He recommended and signed treaties which gave federal government money to support a Roman Catholic priest in his priestly duties and to help build a Roman Catholic church. Jefferson, while president, was also the Chairman of the Board for education in Washington, DC, and he required that two books be taught in our schools — the Bible and Watt's Hymnal. "Thomas Jefferson, the guru of separation of church and state, whose name has been lifted up as a reason for snatching away Bibles from numerous little kids who have read them on recess or at their lunch break because they say Thomas Jefferson would never countenance having Bibles in the school. He mandated it!!"[3, 20]
Noah Webster, Founding Father, scholar, author of the first and still respected American Dictionary: "The religion which has introduced civil liberty, is the religion of Christ and His apostles, which enjoins humility, piety and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions of governments." 1832, History of the United States, Noah Webster, America's God and Country, William Federer, p.678[5]
John Marshal argued, by some to be our greatest Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: "The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it." - letter to Jasper Adams, May 9, 1833[5]
The words "In God We Trust" are inscribed in the House and Senate chambers.[21]
On the walls of the Capitol dome, these words appear: "The New Testament according to the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."[21]
The Capitol Rotunda contains eight massive oil paintings, each depicting a major event in history. Four of these paintings portray Jesus Christ and the Bible: 1) Columbus landing on the shores of the New World, and holding high the cross of Jesus Christ, 2) a group of Dutch pilgrims gathered around a large, opened Bible, 3) a cross being planted in the soil, commemorating the discovery of the Mississippi River by the Explorer DeSoto, and 4) the Christian baptism of the Indian convert Pocahontas.[14]
Also in the Rotunda is the figure of the crucified Christ.[21]
Statuary Hall contains life size statues of famous citizens that have been given by individual states. Medical missionary Marcus Whitman stands big as life, holding a Bible. Another statue is of missionary Junipero Serra, who founded the missions of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Monterey and San Diego. Illinois sent a statue of Francis Willard, an associate of the evangelist Dwight L. Moody.[14]
The Latin phrase Annuit Coeptis, "[God] has smiled on our undertaking," is inscribed on the Great Seal of the United States.[21]
Under the Seal is the phrase from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address: "This nation under God."[21]
President Eliot of Harvard chose Micah 6:8 for the walls of the Library of Congress: "He hath shown thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" (KJV).[21]
Also inscribed on the walls of the Library of Congress honoring the study of art, is "Nature is the art of God." A quote honoring Science says, "The heavens declare the glory of God."[14]
The lawmakers' library quotes the psalmist's acknowledgment of the beauty and order of creation: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork" Psalm 19:1 KJV).[21]
Engraved on the metal cap on the top of the Washington Monument are the words: "Praise be to God." Lining the walls of the stairwell are numerous Bible verses: "Search the Scriptures" (John 5:39 KJV), "Holiness to the Lord," and "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it" (Proverbs 22:6 KJV).[21]
At the opposite end of the Lincoln Memorial, words and phrases from Lincoln's second inaugural address allude to "God," the "Bible," "providence," "the Almighty," and "divine attributes."[21]
A plaque in the Dirksen Office Building has the words "IN GOD WE TRUST" in bronze relief.[21]
The Ten Commandments hang over the Supreme Court bench.[21]
The words "Separation of Church and State" are NOT FOUND in any American Founding Document.
"[In] the Congressional Records from June 7th through September 25th, 1789 (when they framed the first amendment) the founders explained clearly and succinctly that all they wanted to preclude what they had experienced in Great Britain. They did not want the establishment by the Federal Government of one single domination and the exclusion of all others. There is not going to be, by government decree, one national denomination in America. This is why the wording in the first amendment prevents Congress from the establishment of religion, or in the words proposed by James Madison, the chief architect of the constitution, "the establishment of a national religion."[48]
The records show a dozen or so iterations which they, themselves, proposed.[48]
The First Amendment denied Congress the power of establishing any particular religion or restricting the free exercise of any religion. The people and statesmen who gave us the First Amendment did not want a union of church and state in the sense of a national established church. But neither did they want to divorce Christianity from our national counsels, fundamental law, or laws made pursuant to the Constitution. ... They wanted a separation of church and state without a separation of Christianity and civil government, law or public life.[21]
The Separation of Church and State never meant to separate God from government — Chief Justice Roy Moore, Alabama[23]
"No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint, and each is permitted to worship his maker after his own judgment. The offices of government are open alike to all. The Mohammedan, if he will come to live among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political institutions." — John Tyler, 10th President of the US[22]
From a letter that John Adams wrote his wife Abigail on the day they approved the Declaration of Independence: "I am apt to believe that [this day] will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the 'Day of Deliverance' by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty!"[13]
Patrick Henry (Served in the Continental Congress from 1774 to 1776 and worked successfully to have first 10 amendments added to the US Constitution) stated: "Whether this [new government] will prove a blessing or a curse will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation [Proverbs 14:34]. Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this, and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself and encourage it in others."[41]
Fisher Ames: (A Founding Father who, according the congressional records on 9/20/1789, offered the final wording of the first amendment) wrote in an article written for a national magazine in 1801 expressing concern that as more and more textbooks were being introduced into the school classrooms, that the Bible might someday drift to the back of the classroom. "Why then, if these new books for children must be retained as they will be, why should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book?" Clearly the use of the Bible in schools did not violate his view of the first amendment.[48]
Noah Webster (Founding Father, an educator, a solider during the Revolution, a legislator in Connecticut and Massachusetts, a judge and the man responsible for article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution) writing in a textbook he authored for students, he identified the reasons that serious social problems might befall America. "All the miseries and evils that men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."[48]
In his first Inaugural Address, President Washington (President of the convention which framed the constitution, President of the United States who called for and oversaw the formation and the ratification of the Bill of Rights including the first amendment) stated, "It would be improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplication to that Almighty Being.... No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than people of the United States.... We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven cannot be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained." The Inaugural Ceremony concluded with a church service at Saint Paul's Chapel, led by the chaplains of Congress.[35]
George Washington's Farewell Address was printed as a separate text book for over a century because of its singular importance. Students were taught it was the most significant political speech ever delivered by an American President. Virtually unknown today, it has not been seen in most American History book for more than four decades. Clearly he understood the constitutional intent and the meaning of the first amendment. "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars . . .Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. . . .Where is the security for life, for reputation, for property if the sense for religious obligation desert?"[48]
Robert Winthorp, an early Speaker of the House of Representatives: "Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or a power without them. Either by the Word of God or the strong arm of man, either by the Bible or the bayonet."[48]
Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration and member of Continental Congress: "Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure, which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." — The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry by Bernard C. Steiner 1907, from a letter from Charles Carroll, Nov. 4, 1800.[5]
Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration, member of Continental Congress, founder of 5 universities: "The only foundation for … a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments." America's God and Country, William Federer, p.543[5]
John Witherspoon, signer of The Declaration of Independence: "He is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who set himself with the greatest firmness to bear down on profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country." - speech at the College of New Jersey (Princeton) , May 17,1776, America's God and Country, William Federer, pp. 703-704[5]
"The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the 'public prosperity' of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a 'spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens,' Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."[16]
Repeatedly in early congressional records, the Bible was used as the premise for discussions and law making as illustrated from this excerpt from the Congressional Record of September 25, 1789 asking President Washington to declare the first National Thanksgiving holiday. "Mr. [Elias] Boudinot (who was the President of Congress during the American Revolution) said he could not think of letting the congressional session pass over without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining with one voice in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings He had poured down upon them. With this view, therefore, he would move the following resolution: Resolved, That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God . . . Mr. [Roger] Sherman (a signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) justified the practice of thanksgiving on any signal event not only as a laudable one in itself, but as warranted by a number of precedents in Holy Writ . . . This example he thought worthy of a Christian imitation on the present occasion; and he would agree with the gentleman who moved the resolution . . . The question was put on the resolution and it was carried in the affirmative."[48]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Obviously, the words “separation,” “church,” or “state” are not found in the First Amendment. Furthermore, the phrase “separation of church and state” appears in NO founding document. While most people recognize the phrase “separation of church and state,” few know its source. But it is important to understand the origins of that phrase, as well as the history of the First Amendment.
The process of drafting the First Amendment made the intent of the Founders abundantly clear. Before they approved the final wording, the First Amendment went through nearly a dozen different revisions and intensive discussions. Those discussions, recorded in the U.S. Congressional Records, from June 7 to September 25, 1789, made clear their intent for the First Amendment.
By it, the Founders were saying that they did not want in America what they had had in Great Britain. They did not want one denomination running the nation. They did not want everybody to be Anglicans or Catholics or any single denomination. They wanted God’s principles to run the nation, not one denomination. This intent was well understood, as evidenced by court rulings after the First Amendment.
For instance, in the Runkel v. Winemiller case of 1799, a court made the following declaration:
By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing.
Thomas Jefferson, to whom the now-popular phrase “separation of church and state” is attributed, also believed (as did the other Founders) that the First Amendment simply prevented the federal establishment of a single denomination. He made this fact clear in a letter to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800. In that letter, Jefferson committed himself, as President, not to allow the Episcopalians, the Congregationalists, nor any other denomination to achieve what Jefferson called the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity.”
So what is the source of Jefferson’s now infamous phrase? On November 7, 1801, the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, wrote Jefferson. They were concerned that the guarantee of the “free exercise of religion” appeared in the First Amendment. To them, this suggested that the right to religious exercise was a government-granted, rather than a God-granted, right—thus implying that, some day, the government might try to regulate religious expression. They believed that the freedom of religion was a God-granted, unalienable right, and that government should be powerless to restrict religious activities unless, as the Baptists explained, those activities caused someone to “work ill to his neighbor.”
Jefferson understood their concern. In his response on January 1, 1802, he assured them that the free exercise of religion was, indeed, an unalienable right and would not be meddled with by the government. Jefferson pointed out to them that there was a “wall of separation between church and state,” to ensure that the government never would interfere with religious activities.
Today, all that is heard of Jefferson’s letter is the phrase, “a wall of separation between church and state,” without either the context or the explanation given in the letter, nor it’s application by earlier courts. The clear understanding of the First Amendment, for a century and a half, was that it prohibited the establishment of a single national denomination. In that century and a half, national policies always reflected that interpretation.
For example, in 1853, a group petitioned Congress to separate principles from government. They desired a so-called “separation of church and state,” with chaplains being turned out of Congress, the military, etc. Their petition was referred to House and the Senate Judiciary Committees, which investigated for almost a year to see if it would be possible to separate Christian principles from government. Eventually, both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees returned with their reports. Here are excerpts from the House report, delivered on March 27, 1854 (the Senate report was similar):
Had the people [the Founding Fathers], during the Revolution, a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. ... At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and its amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, but not any one sect [denomination]. ... In this age, there is no substitute for Christianity. ... That was the religion of the Founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.
The great vital and conservative element in our system [the thing that holds our system together] is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
During the 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s, there was another group which challenged, before the Supreme Court, specific Christian principles in government. Now, Jefferson’s letter had remained unused for years. As time had progressed after its use in 1802, and after no national denomination had been established, his letter had fallen into obscurity. But then, 75 years later, in the case of Reynolds v. the United States, the plaintiffs resurrected Jefferson’s letter, hoping to use it as an issue to their advantage.
At that time, the Court printed a lengthy segment of Jefferson’s letter. Then it used that letter on the “separation of church and state” to prove, again, that it was permissible to maintain Christian values, principles, and practices in official policy. For the next 15 years, during that legal controversy, the Supreme Court utilized Jefferson’s letter to ensure that Christian principles remained a part of government.
Following this controversy, Jefferson’s letter again fell into disuse. It remained silent for the next 70 years, until 1947 when, in the case of Everson v. Board of Education, the Court, for the first time, did not cite Jefferson’s entire letter but selected only eight words from it. The Court now announced,
The First Amendment has erected “a wall of separation between church and state.” That wall must be kept high and impregnable.
There is nothing so absurd but that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it.
The Court continued on this track so steadily that in 1958, in a case called Bael v. Kolmorgen, one of the judges was tired of hearing the “separation of church and state” phrase. He wrote a dissent warning that if this court did not stop talking about the “separation of church and state,” people were going to start thinking that it was part of the Constitution.
Nevertheless, the Court continued talking about “separation” until June 25, 1962, when in the case of Engel v. Vitale, the Court delivered its first ever ruling which completely separated Christian principles from education. The Court struck down school prayer. Even the World Book Encyclopedia, 1963 Yearbook, noted that this case had been the first time that there had been a “separation of church and state” in education.
In the 1962 case, the Court redefined the meaning and the application of a single word: “church.” For 170 years prior to that case, the Court had defined “church,” as used in the phrase “separation of church and state,” as being a federally established denomination. However, in 1962, the Court explained that the word “church” now would mean any religious activity performed in public. This was a turning point in the interpretation of the First Amendment.
No longer would the First Amendment simply prohibit the establishment of a federal denomination. It now would prohibit religious activities in public settings. The current doctrine defining “separation of church and state” is a brand new doctrine. It is not something from the Founding Fathers, and it is not in any founding document. Even outside observers recognize that this policy is a recent one. Yet notice how much has been relinquished in recent years under this new doctrine.
School prayer was the first casualty of the redefinition of the First Amendment in the early 1962 Engel case. School prayer never before had been challenged, for clearly school prayer never had established a national denomination and, therefore, always had been acceptable. But, under the new definition, school prayer was a religious activity in public and, therefore, was deemed to be “unconstitutional.”
That 1962 case, which first redefined the First Amendment, and then removed school prayer, was notable in a number of aspects. An 1892 Supreme Court case, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United states, had offered 87 precedents to maintain the inclusion of Christian principles in our laws and in our institutions. But the 1962 case, which removed school prayer, was just the opposite. It was the first case in court history to use zero precedents. The Court quoted zero previous legal cases; and without any historical or legal base, the Court essentially made this announcement: “We’ll not have prayers in school anymore. That violates the Constitution.”
A brand new direction had been taken in America. Within a twelve-month period of time, with two more cases in 1963 (Abington v. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett), the Court not only reaffirmed the ban on school prayer, but it but also removed Bible reading, religious classes, and religious instruction from schools. This was a radical reversal, since many school textbooks prior up to that time freely printed Christian and biblical information. A school textbook from 1946 illustrates this.
Remember, the Founders of this nation relied on the Bible, early textbooks quoted the Bible, and early Supreme Court cases ruled that a school must teach religion and the Bible. Therefore, on what possible basis could the 1963 Supreme Court have justified its rulings to stop the use of the Bible in public schools? The Court always explains its decisions in written form. In the decision for the 1963 cases, the Court wrote,
If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be and...had been psychologically harmful to the child.
The Court continued to extend the new boundary outward. In 1965, in the case Reed v. Van Hoven, the Court determined that it was possible for students to pray over their lunches in school, so long as no one knew they were praying. They couldn’t say words or move their lips, but they could pray if no one knew about it.
In DeKalb v. DeSpain, 1967, the Court declared a four-line nursery rhyme, used by a kindergarten class, to be “unconstitutional.” The Court explained that although the word “God” was not contained in this nursery rhyme, if someone were to hear the rhyme, someone might think that it was talking about God—and that would be “unconstitutional.” When the Court declares something unconstitutional, it is inferring that our Founding Fathers, the men who drafted the Constitution, would have opposed it.
Yet, notice what James Wilson—a signer of the Constitution, an original Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, and co-author of America’s first commentaries on the Constitution—had to say about this:
Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are “twin sisters.” Indeed, these two societies run into each other. The Divine law...forms an essential part of both.
This trend continued in case after case, year after year. Previously, the existence of the Ten Commandments on the walls of school classrooms was not a problem. It was assumed that students could look at them or not look at them, as they wished. However, in 1980, in Stone v. Graham, the Court determined,
If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey the Commandments...[which] is not a permissible...objective.
The entire controversy over God and religious activities and teachings in school had begun with a 22-word prayer in the Engel v. Vitale case (1962). That prayer, which led to the removal of all prayers from America’s schools, read as follows:
Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our Country.
That bland prayer had acknowledged God only one time—the same number of times that God is acknowledged in the Pledge of Allegiance and only one-fourth the number of times that God is acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence. Yet, the prayer had been declared “unconstitutional.”
Here are the four categories in that prayer on which God’s blessings were asked:
Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. ... Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
There are clear references to the Triune God and to Christian principles in state constitutions:
Every person appointed to public office shall say, “I do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration” (Delaware Constitution, 1776).
Each member [of the legislature], before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration: “I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good, and the punisher of the wicked” (Pennsylvania and Vermont Constitutions).
On the floor of the Constitutional Convention, in 1787, was explained the difference between individual accountability to God and national accountability to God. An individual answers to God in the future. However, when a nation dies, it is forever dead; it will not be resurrected in the future to answer for what it has done. Therefore, when does a nation answer to God?
George Mason, the Father of the Bill of Rights, explained,
As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, so they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities.
Perhaps the most famous speech ever delivered by Benjamin Franklin was on June 28, 1787, on the floor of the Constitutional Convention. He reminded the delegates that they needed God to be their friend, not their enemy, and their ally, not their adversary. He said that they needed to keep God’s “concurring aid.” Franklin warned,
If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, it is probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We’ve been assured in the sacred writing that “Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.”
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis—a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever.
Many people are surprised to learn that the United States Capitol regularly served as a church building; a practice that began even before Congress officially moved into the building and lasted until well after the Civil War. Below is a brief history of the Capitol's use as a church, and some of the prominent individuals who attended services there.
The approval of the Capitol for church was given by both the House and the Senate, with House approval being given by Speaker of the House, Theodore Sedgwick, and Senate approval being given by the President of the Senate, Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, Jefferson's approval came while he was still officially the Vice- President but after he had just been elected President.
City of Washington, June 19. It is with much pleasure that we discover the rising consequence of our infant city. Public worship is now regularly administered at the Capitol, every Sunday morning, at 11 o'clock by the Reverend Mr. Ralph. 2
The reason for the original use of the Capitol as a church might initially be explained by the fact that there were no churches in the city at that time. Even a decade later in 1803, U. S. Senator John Quincy Adams confirmed: "There is no church of any denomination in this city." 3 The absence of churches in Washington eventually changed, however. As one Washington citizen reported: "For several years after the seat of government was fixed at Washington, there were but two small [wooden] churches. . . . Now, in 1837 there are 22 churches of brick or stone." 4 Yet, even after churches began proliferating across the city, religious services still continued at the Capitol until well after the Civil War and Reconstruction.
In addition to Mary Bayard Smith and Congressman Manasseh Cutler, others kept diaries of the weekly Capitol church services "" including Congressman Abijah Bigelow and statesman John Quincy Adams. (Adams served in Washington first as a Senator, then a President, and then as a Representative; and his extensive diaries describe the numerous church services he attended at the Capitol across a span of decades.) Typical of Adams' diary entries while a U. S.
Attended public service at the Capitol where Mr. Rattoon, an Episcopalian clergyman from Baltimore, preached a sermon. 12 [R]eligious service is usually performed on Sundays at the Treasury office and at the Capitol. I went both forenoon and afternoon to the Treasury. 13
Attended public service at the Capitol where Mr. Rattoon, an Episcopalian clergyman from Baltimore, preached a sermon. 12
[R]eligious service is usually performed on Sundays at the Treasury office and at the Capitol. I went both forenoon and afternoon to the Treasury. 13
Jefferson was not the only President to attend church at the Capitol. His successor, James Madison, also attended church at the Capitol. 14 However, there was a difference in the way the two arrived for services. Observers noted that Jefferson arrived at church on horseback 15 (it was 1.6 miles from the White House to the Capitol). However, Madison arrived for church in a coach and four. In fact, British diplomat Augustus Foster, who attended services at the Capitol, gave an eloquent description of President Madison arriving at the Capitol for church in a carriage drawn by four white horses.
From Jefferson through Abraham Lincoln, many presidents attended church at the Capitol; and it was common practice for Members of Congress to attend those services. For example, in his diary entry of January 9, 1803, Congressman Cutler noted: "Attended in the morning at the Capitol. . . . Very full assembly. Many of the Members present." 16 The church was often full "so crowded, in fact, one attendee reported that since "the floor of the House offered insufficient space, the platform behind the Speaker's chair, and every spot where a chair could be wedged in" was filled. 17 U. S. Representative John Quincy Adams (although noting that occasionally the "House was full, but not crowded" 18) also commented numerous times on the overly-crowded conditions at the Capitol church. In his diary entry for February 28, 1841, he noted: "I rode with my wife, Elizabeth C. Adams, and Mary, to the Capitol, where the Hall of the House of Representatives was so excessively crowded that it was with extreme difficulty that we were enabled to obtain seats." 19 Why did so many Members attend Divine service in the Hall of the House? Adams explained why he attended: "I consider it as one of my public duties- as a representative of the people- to give my attendance every Sunday morning when Divine service is performed in the Hall." 20
From 1800 to 1801, the services were held in the north wing; from 1801 to 1804, they were held in the "oven" in the south wing, and then from 1804 to 1807, they were again held in the north wing. From 1807 to 1857, services were held in what is now Statuary Hall. By 1857 when the House moved into its new home in the extension, some 2,000 persons a week were attending services in the Hall of the House. 23 Significantly, even though the U. S. Congress began meeting in the extension on Wednesday, December 16, 1857, the first official use of the House Chamber had occurred three days earlier, when "on December 13, 1857, the Rev. Dr. George Cummins preached before a crowd of 2,000 worshipers in the first public use of the chamber. Soon thereafter, the committee recommended that the House convene in the new Hall on Wednesday, December 16, 1857." 24 However, regardless of the part of the building in which the church met, the rostrum of the Speaker of the House was used as the preacher's pulpit; and Congress purchased the hymnals used in the service.
The church services in the Hall of the House were interdenominational, overseen by the chaplains appointed by the House and Senate; sermons were preached by the chaplains on a rotating basis, or by visiting ministers approved by the Speaker of the House. As Margaret Bayard Smith, confirmed: "Not only the chaplains, but the most distinguished clergymen who visited the city, preached in the Capitol" 25 and "clergymen, who during the session of Congress visited the city, were invited by the chaplains to preach." 26
In addition to the non-denominational service held in the Hall of the House, several individual churches (such as Capitol Hill Presbyterian, the Unitarian Church of Washington, First Congregational Church, First Presbyterian Church, etc.) met in the Capitol each week for their own services; there could be up to four different church services at the Capitol each Sunday.
The Library of Congress provides an account of one of those churches that met weekly at the Capitol: "Charles Boynton (1806-1883) was in 1867 Chaplain of the House of Representatives and organizing pastor of the First Congregational Church in Washington, which was trying at that time to build its own sanctuary. In the meantime, the church, as Boynton informed potential donors, was holding services- ˜at the Hall of Representatives' where- ˜the audience is the largest in town. . . . nearly 2000 assembled every Sabbath' for services, making the congregation in the House the ˜largest Protestant Sabbath audience then in the United States.' The First Congregational Church met in the House from 1865 to 1868." 27
With so many services occurring, the Hall of the House was not the only location in the Capitol where church services were conducted. John Quincy Adams, in his February 2, 1806, diary entry, describes an overflow service held in the Supreme Court Chamber, 28 and Congressman Manasseh Cutler describes a similar service in 1804. 29 (At that time, the Supreme Court Chamber was located on the first floor of the Capitol.) Services were also held in the Senate Chamber as well as on the first floor of the south wing.
Church In The Capitol Milestones
* 1806. On January 12, 1806, Dorothy Ripley (1767-1832) became the first woman to preach before the House. One female attendee had noted: "Preachers of every sect and denomination of Christians were there admitted- Catholics, Unitarians, Quakers, with every intervening diversity of sect. Even women were allowed to display their pulpit eloquence in this national Hall." 30 In attendance at that service were President Thomas Jefferson and Vice President Aaron Burr. Ripley conducted the lengthy service in a fervent, evangelical, camp-meeting style.
* 1826. On January 8, 1826, Bishop John England (1786-1842) of Charleston, South Carolina (Bishop over North and South Carolina and Georgia) became the first Catholic to preach in the House of Representatives. Of that service, President John Quincy Adams (a regular attendee of church services in the Capitol) noted: Walked to the Capitol and heard the Bishop of Charleston, [John] England -" an Irishman. He read a few prayers and then delivered an extemporaneous discourse of nearly two hours' duration. . . . He closed by reading an admirable prayer. He came and spoke to me after the service and said he would call and take leave of me tomorrow. The house was overflowing, and it was with great difficulty that I obtained a seat. 31
* 1827. In January 1827, Harriet Livermore (1788-1868) became the second woman to preach in the House of Representatives. (Three of her immediate family members: " her father, grandfather, and uncle" had been Members of Congress. Her grandfather, Samuel Livermore, was a Member of the first federal Congress and a framer of the Bill of Rights; her uncle was a Member under Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison; her father was a Member under President James Monroe.) The service in which she preached was not only attended by President John Quincy Adams but was also filled with Members of Congress as well as the inquisitive from the city. As Margaret Bayard Smith noted, "curiosity rather than piety attracted throngs on such occasions." 32 Livermore spoke for an hour and a half, resulting in mixed reactions; some praised her and were even moved to tears by her preaching, some dismissed her. Harriet Livermore preached in the Capitol on four different occasions, each attended by a different President.
* 1865. On February 12, 1865, Henry Highland Garnet (1815- 1882) became the first African American to speak in Congress. Two weeks earlier, on January 31, 1865, Congress had passed the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, and Garnet was invited to preach a sermon in Congress to commemorate that event. In his sermon, Garnet described his beginnings: 'I was born among the cherished institutions of slavery. My earliest recollections of parents, friends, and the home of my childhood are clouded with its wrongs. The first sight that met my eyes was my Christian mother enslaved." 33 His family escaped to the North; he became a minister, abolitionist, temperance leader, and political activist. He recruited black regiments during the Civil War and served as chaplain to the black troops of New York. In 1864, he became the pastor of the Fifteenth Street Presbyterian Church in Washington, D. C. (where he served at the time of this sermon). He later became president of Avery College and was made Minister to Liberia by President Ulysses S. Grant.
(For more information on this topic please see "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic: Religion and the Federal Government (Part 2)" on the Library of Congress website.)
NOTES
[1] Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1853), p. 797, Sixth Congress, December 4, 1800.
[2] Federal Orrery, Boston, July 2, 1795, p. 2.
[3] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott and Company, 1874), Vol. I, p. 268, October 30, 1803.
[4] Mrs. Samuel Harrison Smith (Margaret Bayard), The First Forty Years of Washington Society, Galliard Hunt, editor (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1906), p. 16.
[5] Bishop Claggett's (Episcopal Bishop of Maryland) letter of February 18, 1801, reveals that, as vice- President, Jefferson went to church services in the House. Available in the Maryland Diocesan Archives.
[6] William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 66, letter to Joseph Torrey, January 4, 1802. Cutler meant that Jefferson attended church on January 3, 1802, for the first time as President. Bishop Claggett's letter of February 18, 1801, already revealed that as Vice-President, Jefferson went to church services in the House.
[7] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 12, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 113).
[8] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.
[9] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.
[10] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 26, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 114).
[11] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 114, December 26, 1802.
[12] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. I, p. 268, October 30, 1803.
[13] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. I, p. 265, October 23, 1803.
[14] Abijah Bigelow to Hannah Bigleow, December 28, 1812. "Letters of Abijah Bigleow, Member of Congress, to his Wife," Proceedings, 1810-1815, American Antiquarian Society (1930), p. 168.
[15] See, for example, Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, from a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803.
[16] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 116, January 9, 1803.
[17] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 14.
[18] See, for example, John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. VII, pp. 437-438, February 17, 1828; Vol. XI, pp. 160-161, May 22, 1842; and others.
[19] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. X, p. 434, February 28, 1841.
[20] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. XI, p. 169, June 5, 1842.
[21] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 14.
[22] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 16.
[23] James Hutson (Chief of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress), Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1998), p. 91.
[24] William C. Allen (Architectural Historian of the Capitol), A History of the United States Capitol, A Chronicle of Design, Construction, and Politics (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 2001), p. 271.
[25] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 14.
[26] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15.
[27] Fundraising brochure, Charles B. Boynton. Washington, D.C.: November 1, 1867, Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress; available at Library of Congress at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.
[28] Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, p. 90.
[29] From the Library of Congress, at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.
[30] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15.
[31] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. VII, p. 102, January 8, 1826.
[32] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15.
[33] Henry Highland Garnet, Memorial Discourse (Philadelphia: Joseph M. Wilson, 1865), p. 73.
