Discussion of a Disputed Madison Quote

Since at least the end of World War II, James Madison has been quoted as saying:

No one has yet been able to find this quotation in any of the preserved writings of James Madison. Is it possible that someone recorded these words after Madison uttered them in a speech? Some proponents of the "separation of church and state" would go so far as to say that these words are completely out of character with James Madison, who desired to transform America from a nation "under God" to a secular, atheistic nation. Who is correct?

Concerning a republican form of government, Madison spoke in the Federalist #39 of "that honourable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government." (emphasis added) [13]

The question then becomes, what was the moral standard by which we judge the behavior of self-governing people? Would Madison have expected Americans to govern themselves by the Ten Commandments, or would he rather have expected Americans to "be as gods" and govern themselves according to any standard they might invent?

Madison personally believed in the Christian system of morality, and believed that those outside this system "lived in darkness," because these other systems were "false religions." Thus, while the quote above cannot be found in any of Madison's preserved writings, it is not impossible that he uttered those words, and in any case they sum up Madison's thought.

This contested quote raises many issues about what Madison and the Founding Fathers really believed. I placed the quote on my web pages before I was warned by Barton that the quote had no primary source. But I have allowed the quote to remain on those pages in order to generate discussion. It is the purpose of this page to explore Madison's thought and the rhetoric of the "church-state" dispute.

Subject: Re: Fundynuts
From: KEVIN4VFT
To: Separation of Church & State
Date: 4/21/99

In article <19990419025230.22581.00002331@ng146.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>I have not concluded that all of the signers were not Christian. Clearly
>Madison was Christian, and probably the foremost among the signers.

This is terribly misleading. Cite an authority for this proposition. Madison still retained some of what he learned under the esteemed Presbyterian President of Princeton, John Witherspoon, but Madison was far from the most devout Christian in the Convention.

>This
>makes it all the more important that you recognize his views on religious
>freedom -- as a Christian, when Madison notes that it is not a Christian
>nation, we must pay attention to what he says.

Where did Madison EVER say this? Madison claimed that no legislation should ever be "adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity," because

Madison said the question every legislator should ask is before voting on a bill is, "Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion?" If the bill "discourages those who are strangers to the light of (revelation) from coming into the Region of it; and countenances, by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them," the legislation should be rejected. "Instead of levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of truth, [such a] Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it, with a wall of defence, against the encroachments of error." (Memorial and Remonstrance; read it here:

>
>So we give special credence to Madison's views that government should avoid
>entanglements with religion, and vice-versa.

Madison, as seen above, was quick to "entangle" government with Christianity, but rejected the idea that the government should be used to prop up dying ecclesiastical institutions. As soon as Ed and other Secular Humanists can make the distinction between Christianity and institutional churches, they will all be able to understand the Framers.

Madison was no fundamentalist, but neither was he an atheist, and he urged the passage of legislation based on Christian motivation and Christian content, two things the current Supreme Court has said are "unconstitutional," which merely shows that the current Supreme Court is unMadisonian.

>Kevin concludes one post:
>>>Madison, as seen above, was quick to "entangle" government with
>Christianity, but rejected the idea that the government should be used to
>prop up dying ecclesiastical institutions. As soon as Ed and other Secular
>Humanists can make the distinction between Christianity and institutional
>churches, they will all be able to understand the Framers.<<
>
>Dear Reader, all that is necessary for you to dispel such fantasies from your
>minds is to get a biography of the man and read it. Any biography. None
>support Kevin's claims.

That's because I quoted the primary source document, using the words of Madison himself. It's hard to find a biography of Madison these days which does not have an atheistic Secular Humanistic slant to it, so Ed is making a safe wager here.

>
>I highly recommend Ralph Ketcham's recent biography of Madison. I've cited
>it for Kevin many, many times, and do so again:
>
>Ketcham again (James Madison a biography, Press of the University of Virginia
>1990, pp. 165-166):
>
>"In fact, religious liberty stands out as the one subject upon which Madison
>took an extreme, absolute, undeviating position throughout his life.

Remember the Mayflower Compact. These Theocrats came here in search of "religious liberty." The concept was invented by Christians, for Christians. It never meant what the Supreme Court now says it means.

From our Nation's origin, prayer has been a prominent part of governmental ceremonies and proclamations. The Declaration of Independence, the document marking our birth as a separate people, "appeal[ed] to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions" and avowed "a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence." In his first inaugural address, after swearing his oath of office on a Bible, George Washington deliberately made a prayer a part of his first official act as President:

"[I]t would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes." Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. 101-10, p. 2, (1989).

Such supplications have been a characteristic feature of inaugural addresses ever since. Thomas Jefferson, for example, [505 U.S. 577, 634] prayed in his first inaugural address: "[M]ay that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity." Id., at 17. In his second inaugural address, Jefferson acknowledged his need for divine guidance and invited his audience to join his prayer:

"I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations. Id., at 22-23.

Similarly, James Madison, in his first inaugural address, placed his confidence

"in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best hopes for the future." Id., at 28.

Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 633-34 (1992) (JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE WHITE, and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting.)

Madison said "WE ARE BOUND," that is, obligated, to pray, which is why Madison made an official proclamation. Such official proclamations surely make atheists feel "left out," which the current Supreme Court says is "unconstitutional."
But according to the Founding Fathers, we still had "religious liberty" because we were not bound to pray according to the prescribed form of any Book of Prayer. Nor were we taxed to pay for clergy to pray for us.

>Kevin, there have been some grand hoaxes played out in recent years when some
>authors have invented quotes for James Madison that tend to suppor the idea
>that he was not the defender of religious liberty that history tells us he
>was. Don't fall prey to such hoaxes.

Thanks for the warning. Do you have any examples of such hoaxes?
I've never run across one.
Never.
Not once.

Madison clearly acted contrary to the "separation of church and state" by advocating the spread of Christianity into those nations which still practiced "false religions" and lived in "darkness." Don't read a Secular Humanist spin doctor. Read the man's own words:

I'm not saying he was a fundamentalist, only that he would recognize that the myth of "separation of church and state" is not only nowhere to be found in his constitution, but is responsible for shooting deaths in Godless public schools.

I pointed out that Madison favored belief over unbelief, and said things that would make atheists feel like "outsiders," which the modern Supreme Court has said is "unconstitutional."

In article <19990423160736.19390.00000604@ng-fx1.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>I said: >Dear Reader, all that is necessary for you to dispel such fantasies
>from your
>>minds is to get a biography of the man and read it. Any biography. None
>>support Kevin's claims.
>
>Kevin said: >>That's because I quoted the primary source document, using the
>words
>of Madison himself. It's hard to find a biography of Madison these
>days which does not have an atheistic Secular Humanistic slant to it,
>so Ed is making a safe wager here.<<<
>
>It's impossible to find ANY biography of Madison that is both accurate and
>does not paint him a champion of religious freedom.
>
>The words of Madison are true, even today. Which is why David Barton needed
>to concoct different words that Madison never said, to attribute to him.
>
>Dear Readers and Lurkers, which side in this discussion keeps urging you to
>read widely on these subjects? Why do you suppose that is?
>
>The truth can set us free. It could even help Kevin.
>
>Ed

I have proven that Barton never "concocted" anything regarding Madison. Ed knows his charge is inaccurate, but he keeps repeating it.

These Secular Humanist authors are as troubled as Ed is by the fact that Madison spoke favorably of religion in official governmental contexts. They would prefer to leave these references out of their biographies of Madison, and they often do.

Since Ed doesn't like to be reminded of what Madison REALLY said, I think he needs to hear it again. Madison claimed that no legislation should ever be "adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity," because

Madison said the question every legislator should ask "Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion?" If the bill "discourages those who are strangers to the light of (revelation) from coming into the Region of it; and countenances, by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them," the legislation should be rejected. "Instead of levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of truth, [such a] Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it, with a wall of defence, against the encroachments of error." (Memorial and Remonstrance; read it here:

[From Annals of Congress, Twelfth Congress, part 2, 2224.]
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
A PROCLAMATION.
Messages and Papers of the Presidents, James Madison, vol. 1, p.498

Yes, Madison was a "champion of religious freedom," as Ed so frequently wants to point out, but this means a freedom for Christians to worship God as they believe is Biblical, a freedom for communities to teach their students the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and other precepts of the Author of our Holy Religion, and NOT a freedom for the federal judiciary to amend state constitutions that speak of this religion, if the judiciary wants instead to establish the religion of Secular Humanism, and turn our Christian nation into an atheistic dictatorship.

In Ed's mind, "freedom of religion" does NOT mean the freedom of 29 out of 30 students in a classroom to begin their day with corporate prayer, but rather the freedom of one student to force all other students to act as atheists.

Madison would have strenuously opposed the modern myth of "church-state separation."

In article <19990425162429.03794.00001564@ng30.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>Barton's group put out an errata sheet to his first collection of quotes,
>noting that at least a dozen were highly suspect. Quoting directly from that
>original sheet, we find: >>4. "We have staked the whole future of American
>civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked
>the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and
>all of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of
>God." James Madison (unconfirmed) <<<
>
>Madison didn't say that,

Perhaps a little background is useful. It should be pointed out that Barton started out as a math teacher, and came across evidence that the Founders were more religious and less secular than his colleagues in the history department were letting on. He began bringing the evidence of America's Christian history to the attention of others. He ran across the quote from Madison in books which were written before Barton was even born. He cited those sources. There is nothing unethical about quoting someone and indicating where you got the quote. Barton never represented the quote as having been found in an original writing of Madison. He cited the secondary sources that carried that quote. As Barton began digging up the primary sources, and finding a whole lot more about America's Christian history which had been suppressed by the Secular Humanist regime, he was increasingly sure that his overall thesis was correct, but was unable to find that quote from Madison in any of Madison's preserved writings. Over the years Barton has attempted to purge his books of secondary sources and replace them with primary sources, which he has completely done in Original Intent.

If Ed has any evidence that anyone pointed out the absence of the Madison quote in any primary source BEFORE Barton posted his unconfirmed quotations sheet, I'd like to see that evidence. If Ed has any evidence that Barton has published a quote AFTER being shown that the quote was not in any primary source, I'd like to see that evidence as well.

Ed is engaging in pure slander, which can only come from non-Christian motivations.

>nor did he say anything close to it. Barton's
>errata sheet goes on to say that while the quote "can't be confirmed," surely
>a good Christian like Madison would have had such thoughts, and can't we cut
>Barton a little slack for just being overzealous in his assumptions, and very
>much underzealous in his fact checking?

That's not what the fact sheet says, and either Ed knows it because he actually has a copy of it, or he doesn't know it because he doesn't have the facts.

While these words have been the most controversial of all unconfirmed quotes, they are consistent with Madison's thoughts on religion and government. They are consistent because the key idea being communicated is self-government, not religious laws or establishments. Our future rests upon the ability of all to govern themselves according to a Biblical standard. Madison could have easily offered the thought.

Concerning a republican form of government, he spoke in the Federalist #39 of "that honourable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government." (emphasis added) [13]

Here we see an interesting similarity to the quote's wording, which may have led to a paraphrase that was erroneously attributed to Madison.

Speaking against direct religious taxation in his Memorial and Remonstrance, Madison wrote:

While we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe, the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to them whose minds have not yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.[14]

The religion of divine origin was obviously Christianity, of which Madison said he was convinced. Therefore, it would be appropriate for Madison to refer to the Ten Commandments as a foundation for self-government. Granted, he fought to abolish religious establishments much of his life, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether Madison could have made such a statement. He could have; the questionable quote is not out of character.

In the context of America's attitude toward religious establishments (which was a State's right witheld from federal cognizance), Madison responded to an essay/sermon by Reverend Jasper Adams with these words:

Waiving the rights of conscience, not included in the surrender implied by the social state, & more or less invaded by all Religious establishments, the simple question to be decided, is whether a support of the best & purest religion, the Christian religion itself ought not, so far at least as pecuniary means are involved, to be provided for by the Government, rather than be left to the voluntary provisions of those who profess it.[15] [emphasis added]

Obviously, Madison is referring to tax-supported, religious establishments. But it is well-understood that he was adamantly against establishments. The point to notice is Madison's thoughts on Christianity. He called it the "best and purest religion." As mentioned above, Christianity was the religion of which he was convinced. Therefore, in the context of self-government, he could have spoken the words in question.

Furthermore, referring again to Bishop Meade's analysis of Virginian families and churches, Meade stated:

Whatever may have been the private sentiments of Mr. Madison on the subject of religion, he was never known to declare any hostility to it. He always treated it with respect, attended public worship in his neighborhood, invited ministers of religion to his house, had family prayers on such occasions, -though he did not kneel himself at prayers. Episcopal ministers often went there to see his aged and pious mother and administer the Holy Communion to her. I was never at Mr. Madison's but once, and then our conversation took such a turn-though not designed on my part-as to call forth some expressions and arguments which left the impression on my mind that his creed was not strictly regulated by the Bible. At his death, some years after this, his minister-the Rev. Mr. Jones-and some of his neighbors openly expressed their conviction, that, from his conversation and bearing during the latter years of his life, he must be considered as receiving the Christian system to be divine. [16]

Thus we see that while Madison may not have been, in today's terms, a fundamentalist, he was known as a Christian and a faithful member of his church. The quote in question would be entirely consistent with the man's life and legacy. Nevertheless, we recommend that this quote be shelved.

As a final thought on Madison, the quote may have come from Madison's cousin, the Bishop James Madison, or from his father, James Madison, Sr. This is similar to Patrick Henry's situation, and is one of the problems we encounter in verifying quotations.

13. Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, The Federalist, on the New Constitution Written in 1788 (Philadelphia: Benjamin Warner, 1818), pp. 203-204, James Madison, Number 39.

14. James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance (Massachusetts: Isaiah Thomas, 1786). This can be found in numerous documentary histories and other resources.

15. Religion and Politics in the Early Republic: Jasper Adams and the Church- State Debate, Daniel L. Dreisbach, ed. (Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 1996), p. 117.

16. Meade, Old Churches, Vol. II, pp. 99-100.

That cannot be proven. All that can be said is that it is not found in any extant writings. Barton never claimed it was in any primary source. He cited those writers which quoted it.

>Barton couldn't bring himself to that level of integrity, so he concocts the
>cock-and-bull story that Madison's views are "sympathetic" with the false
>quote.

I'm not sure I understand the precise meaning of the reference to poultry and cattle, but judging from the quotes above, the unconfirmed quote is quite consistent with other things Madison said.

>You judge, Dear Reader. For myself, I will not take anything Barton says at
>face value, and I urge you to double check his stuff, too.

Having read nearly everything Barton has written, and having read piles of Secular Humanist works (and Ed's posts), and having read a fair amount of primary source material, I have a whole lot more confidence in the integrity of Barton than I do in Secular Humanists.

Ed's slanderous attacks on Barton's ethics will not persuade those who seek the facts.

Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinity.htm
---------------------------------------------

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

End The Wall of Separation Mailing List
Enter your e-mail address:

Browse the Theocracy Archive
An e-group hosted by eGroups.com

Discussion of a Disputed Madison Quote

The Christmas Conspiracy

Virtue

Vine & Fig Tree

Paradigm Shift

Theocracy