Over 200 years ago the Founding Fathers clearly established the United States of America as a Christian nation—a land where faith played a vital role in our government and in the preservation of “liberty and justice for all.” Unfortunately, despite the abundance of documented evidence of the Founders’ personal beliefs and religious intentions, including the Declaration of Independence and, in turn, the Constitution, many modern American leaders and even ordinary citizens have erroneously denied, distorted, or forgotten our country’s Christian heritage. Consequently, plenty of conflict has ensued, pitting traditionalists against revisionists, conservatives against liberals, Christians against unbelievers, and so on. Carol V. Hamilton, a graduate of the University of California, Berkley, with a Ph.D. in English, and David Barton, the Founder and President of WallBuilders, a national pro-family organization that preserves our moral, religious, and constitutional heritage by presenting America’s oft-forgotten history, have enthusiastically joined the fray, hoping to provide some much-needed clarity to opposing sides of the issue. Hamilton and Barton have written starkly divergent articles that clearly articulate their opposing views on the subject of our nation’s Christian heritage, but Barton has presented the most accurate description of the Founding Fathers’ intentions in establishing this magnificent country.

In her article, “A Christian Nation?,” Hamilton primarily refers to the lives and writings of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison to support her belief that the Founding Fathers did not establish the United States upon the principles of Christianity, but she fails to make any effective arguments. Citing Franklin’s rejection of Calvinism and church services as evidence of his supposed anti-religion views, Hamilton nevertheless admits that Franklin “believed in a God and in an afterlife in which evil would be punished and good rewarded” and “was agnostic on the subject” of Jesus Christ’s divinity.  Similarly, Hamilton affirms that the “skeptical” and “unorthodox” Jefferson “was not an atheist either,” and although she resorts to Jefferson’s personal lack of spiritual beliefs as perhaps her most convincing argument, Hamilton only includes findings from two of his letters, neglecting to provide any evidence of secular sentiment from any of Jefferson’s official writings or dealings. Even when she finally references the seemingly non-Christian views of James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” Hamilton fails to deliver any crippling blows. Referring to, among other things, Madison’s praise for a 1786 Virginia statute of religious liberty and his warning of “the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government,” Hamilton makes some seemingly good points, but she fails to mention that Madison’s “Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments,” from which she draws most of her quotes, comes from his “Detached Memoranda,” a work he wrote late in life that often contradicts the beliefs he held during the establishment of the United States. Though her attempts are admirable, Hamilton simply fails to prove that Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, let alone the rest of the Founding Fathers, intended to establish the United States as a secular country.

On the other hand, in his article, “James Madison and Religion in Public,” Barton gives sound examples of the Christian heritage of our nation, drawing from the lives of James Madison, George Washington, and the other Founding Fathers. Barton begins his article by astutely pointing out that Madison “was publicly outspoken about his personal Christian beliefs and convictions” and revealing that only later in life did the “Father of the Constitution” “[retreat] from many of these positions” and “[declare] in his ‘Detached Memoranda’ his belief that having paid chaplains and issuing presidential prayer proclamations were [sic] unconstitutional.” In addition, Barton recognizes the folly of attributing too much influence and power to Madison, who was only one of “one hundred and twenty-six individual participants in the framing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,” and makes sure to examine the views of the other Founders, many of which “unequivocally contradict the image portrayed by the one-sided picture of Madison given by those who cite his ‘Detached Memoranda.’” One of the most outspokenly religious of the Founding Fathers, George Washington “provides a succinct illustration” of a Founder deeply motivated by his personal faith. During his inauguration Washington even “added several religious components” to the oath of office, including the use of a Bible upon which to take the oath and the now-iconic concluding phrase “So help me God!” Similarly, Washington reminded his countrymen of the nation’s Christian heritage in his “Farewell Address,” declaring:

 

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensible supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness…The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.

 

After detailing Washington’s profound faith, Barton goes on to “cite the actions of the entire body of Founding Fathers,” which included the approval of the “use of the Capitol building as a church building for Christian worship services.” As Barton points out, the Founding Fathers’ words and actions clearly reveal an inherent religious intent and purpose.

Despite her best efforts, Hamilton fails where Barton succeeds: accurately interpreting and describing the Founding Fathers ideology and intentions in establishing the United States. Unfortunately, Hamilton writes with a rather limited view of James Madison and apparently believes his “Detached Memoranda” to be the absolute authority on the Constitution and the formation of this country, claiming that his words alone reveal the anti-religious sentiment of all the Founders. Hamilton’s other flimsy and half-hearted examples simply do not prove any conclusive points. Conversely, Barton supports his position with solid, well-articulated examples of the Founding Fathers’ beliefs, writings, and public actions, refusing to accept Madison’s one-sided, narrow, and often contradictory “Detached Memoranda” as all-encompassing. Ultimately Barton makes the stronger arguments in his detailed article, which puts Hamilton’s editorial to bed.

According to Noah Webster’s legendary 1828 dictionary (the only one that really matters), the word “blessed,” used as a past participle, means, “Made happy or prosperous; extolled; pronounced happy.” Conversely, Webster defines the word “spoiled,” a past participle, as “Plundered; pillaged; corrupted; rendered useless,” and defines “spoilful,” an adjective, as “Wasteful; rapacious.” Where am I going with this? Well, seeing as today is Thanksgiving, I believe a fitting article—an article of appreciation—is in order, and my use of Webster’s definitions will (hopefully) make sense shortly.

I’ve recently noticed an increasingly disturbing amount of cynicism among my peers—a sort of pessimistic outlook that translates into a negative view of the United States. Voicing their apparent disappointment in American prosperity, these “perspectivemongers” consistently slam themselves and their fellow citizens by calling us all “spoiled” just because God has blessed the United States of America. “After all,” they say, “people all over the world die of hunger and disease every day.” Yes, that’s true—just like the many other declarations of desolation that these people love to make. However, the “perspectivemongers” don’t realize that they are no better off than those of us who “take our blessings for granted.” After all, we “spoiled Americans” aren’t the only ones griping when they’re the ones complaining about complainers.

As Americans, we are fortunate to live in the greatest nation on earth. God has truly blessed us with this opportunity; he has not, as some would have you believe, spoiled us by allowing the United States to prosper. You see, the word “spoiled,” as in “spoiled brat,” describes either someone corrupted by too much good fortune, someone who squanders their wealth, or someone who, despite great prosperity, is not grateful for God’s blessings. Nowadays, most people also use the term “spoiled” to refer to a person “born with a silver spoon in his or her mouth” who does not have to work hard to get ahead in life. Yes, many Americans are clearly spoiled (mostly celebrities come to mind), but no one can credibly make the claim that the United States of America is a spoiled country in general; on the contrary, it is a blessed country. God has chosen to bless us, or “make us happy and prosperous”; he inspired the Founding Fathers to establish a nation with a Republican form of government where any man can worship freely, raise a family, enjoy his life, and simply work hard to earn an honest wage. In response, we can do our part by thanking God for his gifts—especially on Thanksgiving, a special day we set apart to “praise our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens,” as Abraham Lincoln once so eloquently declared.

So rather than mope around, questioning God’s decision to bless us incalculably, let’s rejoice in our prosperity and always remember to give thanks to our heavenly Father! God doesn’t want us to feel burdened or guilty because of His blessings; instead, He wants us to delight in Him and simply voice our gratitude. After all, feeling bad won’t help the oppressed.

I’ll leave you with I Thessalonians 5:16-18: “Rejoice evermore. Pray without ceasing. In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you” (KJV).

Prosperity Verses for Future Reading

Psalm 23:1, Psalm 112:1-3, Proverbs 3:10, Proverbs 10:4, Proverbs 10:22, Isaiah 48:17, Isaiah 62:7, Malachi 3:10-11, John 10:10, Romans 3:16, Romans 5:16-17, Romans 8:15-17, II Corinthians 8:9, II Corinthians 9:6-11, Galatians 3:1-29, Galatians 4:1-6, Galatians 6:7-8, Ephesians 1:12-21, Ephesians 2:10, Hebrews 4:3-11, I Peter 5:7

 

"Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

~George Washington

 

I’m sure you remember it all very well: John McCain and Sarah Palin, citing their extensive records of bi-partisan reform, ran as self-proclaimed “mavericks” in their quest to gain the White House this year. Unfortunately, the two nonconformists failed to win the support of the people, who left them in the dust on Election Day. As a staunch admirer and advocate of Governor Palin, I would normally attribute the unpopularity of the GOP ticket to the “oh so moderate” Senator McCain, but this year proved particularly challenging for the struggling Republican Party because of someone else: George W. Bush. After eight years the American people have finally had enough and, notwithstanding the remnant of survivors, have decided to essentially banish Republicans from Washington. Ironically, Barack Obama seemingly “out-mavericked” the mavericks, basing his ticket on “change in which Americans could believe.” Well, they took the bait—hook, line, and sinker. Apparently the majority of Americans weren’t ready for another Republican president; John McCain’s promises of change fell on deaf ears, and his record of reform didn’t convince the obdurate Bush haters to vote for him. However, just give President-elect Obama and his liberal pals the chance to subject the country to their leftist policies, and most of the American people will come crawling back to Senator McCain on their hands and knees. Actually, let’s hope they crawl back to Sarah Palin instead; come 2012, I’m sure they’ll be flocking to her side. Governor Palin’s record of bi-partisan reform now gives her the unique opportunity to rally the troops, return with a vengeance, and bring Washington the change it really needs. In fact, I believe Sarah’s ready to take up the mantle of the original maverick of the GOP: Chester A. Arthur.

You see, despite all of the hype about John McCain’s “maverick” tendencies, politicians like him are by no means a new breed. Don’t get me wrong—John McCain and Sarah Palin have displayed impressive leadership skills by rising above partisan politics, “reaching across the aisle,” and even taking on members of their own party, but previous politicians paved the way for them. Everyone remembers the larger-than-life Democratic reformers—visionaries like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt—but everyone forgets the original American maverick: Chester A. Arthur. Most people like to dismiss “The Gentleman Boss” as one of the many footnotes of American history, but in doing so, they jettison the valuable opportunity to study the private life and career of a superlative politician and learn many insightful political lessons along the way.

I must confess that my introduction to President Arthur had nothing to do with history or politics. Truth be told, I simply admired his sideburns. Even as a callow youth of 15 years, I could grow chops just like his—my facial hair growth hormones kicked in rather early. Two years later my “side whiskers” continues to flourish, and I remain the novelty of my church youth group, even with the addition of an accompanying handlebar mustache. In the beginning I simply knew Arthur as my stylistic inspiration, but as time wore on, I became more and more interested in the man behind the mask—facial hair, that is. At the time, I served as vice president of the local honor society, where I supported a good friend of mine in his role as president. After giving a speech in which I mentioned my sideburned hero, I discovered that my friend was a direct descendent of Arthur and quickly decided to learn more about the famously fashionable 21^st president whose facial hair I esteemed so highly. Not surprisingly, I learned a lot more about Arthur than I had anticipated, and he soon became one of my favorite presidents.

The son of an ardent abolitionist preacher, “Elegant Arthur” attended Union College in Schenectady, New York, from 1845-1848. After graduating, he taught at a local school and studied law, passing his bar exam in 1854 and gaining a clerkship in a New York legal firm headed by Erastus D. Culver. Arthur’s involvement in two civil rights cases, one ensuring the freedom of a group of slaves brought to New York by their master and the other leading to the integration of the New York streetcar system, greatly advanced Arthur’s public profile, but the Civil War interrupted his law career.

Evidently God had other plans for Arthur; in 1861 Edwin D. Morgan, the Republican governor of New York, appointed the young lawyer to be the engineer-in-chief of the state militia with the rank of quartermaster general and later brigadier general in the New York Volunteers. Gaining a reputation for efficiency, genius administrative abilities, and reliability, Arthur resumed his law practice in 1863, soon earning a small fortune and a position as one of Senator Roscoe Conkling’s (R-NY) top lieutenants. In 1869 and 1870 Arthur served as the chief consul to the New York City Tax Commission, lining his pockets with a princely annual salary of $10,000.

One year later President Ulysses S. Grant appointed Chester A. Arthur to the position of Collector of the Port of New York. Serving in this capacity until 1878, Arthur supervised nearly 1,300 agents responsible for collecting approximately 75% of the country’s import duties. In this station, taking into account various “perks,” Arthur grossed $50,000 a year—the same salary as the President of the United States. Despite the tremendous responsibility of overseeing so many agents and so much money, Arthur always performed his duties with honesty, avoiding the graft so common in the New York Customs House. In fact, he once declared, “If I had misappropriated five cents, and on walking down-town saw two men talking on the street together, I would imagine they were talking of my dishonesty, and the very thought would drive me mad.”

When President Rutherford B. Hayes was inaugurated in 1877, he sought to reform the New York customs office in order to distance himself from the scandals of the Grant Administration. After establishing a special commission to investigate corruption in the customs office, President Hayes ousted Chester A. Arthur, despite a complete lack of evidence that “The Gentleman Boss” ever partook in graft of any kind. During the presidential election of 1880 Arthur and his boss, Roscoe Conkling, determined to take control of the port again by attempting to draft Ulysses S. Grant as Haye’s successor in the White House.

However, after a fierce struggle between the Stalwart and the Half-Breed factions of the Republican Party at the 1880 Republican National Convention, the GOP finally compromised and selected James A. Garfield, a moderate Ohio politician and the Republican minority leader in the House of Representatives, as their presidential candidate. In order to console the resentful Stalwarts, Garfield unexpectedly asked Chester A. Arthur to be his running mate. In spite of the urgings of Roscoe Conkling, Arthur gleefully accepted Garfield’s offer, declaring that “the office of the Vice-President is a greater honor than I ever dreamed of attaining.”

On Election Day Garfield and Arthur beat the Democrats Winfield S. Hancock and William H. English in the popular vote by less than 0.01% but dominated the Electoral College with 214 votes to 155 votes. After the election, Arthur, who remained firmly in the Stalwart camp, shared a mutual animosity with President Garfield, with whom he openly broke. Seemingly destined to become a powerless and obscure figure in the Garfield Administration, Arthur’s career suddenly changed forever when a deranged Stalwart office-seeker named Charles Guiteau shot the President, claiming he wanted to see Arthur in the White House instead.

Ascending to the Presidency on the heels of James A. Garfield’s assassination, Arthur, a highly unpopular vice president, quickly and eagerly distanced himself from his former political associates, determining to run his administration as he pleased. As few men in public life could match his administrative skills, no President has ever been better equipped to manage a federal bureaucracy than Chester A. Arthur. From the beginning of his presidency, Arthur clearly demonstrated that no one controlled him by severing his ties with his old Stalwart cronies and refusing to fully embrace the “reformer” image of his predecessor. Instead, Arthur chose to do exactly what Arthur believed he should do, regardless of political repercussions. This is critical! Although I may not have agreed with Chester A. Arthur on every issue, his dedication to his scruples will continue to set an example for our future Presidents. This country desperately needs more leaders of principle who, like Arthur, make decisions based on their inherent belief systems—preferably conservative belief systems that correspond with the Founding Fathers’ vision for this nation.

As President, Chester A. Arthur accomplished many important domestic tasks that we so often overlook:

 

Ø  To the great dismay of his former Stalwart pals, he actively championed civil service reform and signed the Pendleton Act, which attempted to put an end to patronage and cronyism by banning salary kickbacks and federal appointments among the states and implementing merit exams by which new employees could advance.

 

Ø  Although Congress defied him, Arthur bucked his own party by appointing a special tariff commission that called for a 20 to 25 percent tariff reduction.

 

Ø  He vetoed the notorious $18,000,000 “pork barrel” Rivers and Harbors Act of 1882 and the proposed Chinese Exclusion Act, both of which he deemed highly unreasonable; unfortunately, Congress overran the former veto, and Arthur later signed the latter act when Congress lowered the duration to ten years.

 

Ø   Known as the “Father of the Steel Navy,” Arthur took the crucial first steps in constructing a modern, post-Civil War navy.

Chester A. Arthur frequently bucked his own party (perhaps more than any other president), refusing to trouble himself with partisan politics. In fact, Arthur singlehandedly demonstrated that he worked outside and above not only factions within the relatively new Republican Party but even the GOP itself. If any president may truly be called a maverick, Chester A. Arthur may; he continually pushed aside his own political interests in order to do what he believed to be right. Unfortunately, most modern presidents lack this dedication to principle, instead opting to work the political machine in an attempt to score high approval ratings. On the other hand, Arthur, no stranger to disapproval, realized that popularity didn’t matter in the long run. However, despite his fiercely independent presidency, Arthur still managed to become one of the most admired presidents of all time. Publisher Alexander K. McClure once said of Arthur, “No man ever entered the Presidency so profoundly and widely distrusted, and no one ever retired … more generally respected.” Even author Mark Twain, despite his deeply cynical view of politicians, famously declared, “It would be hard indeed to better President Arthur’s administration.”

From the beginning of his presidency Chester A. Arthur knew that he was dying of the dreaded Bright’s Disease, a then-fatal kidney disorder, but he never told anyone. Instead, he often threw elaborate parties at the White House, inviting friends, family, and the Washington elite to his home for their enjoyment. Arthur understood that the last precious years of his life would matter the most, so he chose to work hard and play hard. When it came down to it, President Arthur realized that his choices, not his image, would affect the lives of the American people for years to come. Fortunately for him, his image needed no improvement, and few presidents before or after him could claim a similar dedication to making choices so firmly based on personal conviction rather than political expedience.

As Republicans, we so often name Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan as the three icons and symbolic standard-bearers of our party, and we do so for good reason. However, I suggest we adopt a fourth ideal leader into the legendary fold: Chester A. Arthur. His dedication to making wise, principled choices should serve as a model for all future presidents.

So what do you say? Let’s elect the next Arthur in 2012—namely Sarah Palin. But that topic will have to wait for a future article…

 

Palin/Jindal ‘12

 

REFERENCES

“Chester A. Arthur.” American Eras, Volume 8: Development of the Industrial United States, 1878-1899. Gale Research, 1997. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2008. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC

“Chester A. Arthur.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ca21.html

“Chester Alan Arthur.” Dictionary of American Biography Base Set. American Council of Learned Societies, 1928-1936. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2008. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC

“Chester Alan Arthur.” http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/arthur/essays/biography