For example, when Ohio territory applied for statehood in 1802, its enabling act required that Ohio form its government in a manner “not repugnant to the Ordinance.” Consequently, the Ohio constitution declared: Religion, morality, and knowledge being essentially necessary to the good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of instruction shall forever be encouraged by legislative provision. While this requirement originally applied to all the territorial holdings of the United States in 1789 the Northwest Territory Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, as more territory was gradually ceded to the United States the Southern Territory Mississippi and Alabama, Congress applied the requirements of the Ordinance to that new territory.
Therefore, when Mississippi applied for statehood in 1817, Congress required that it form its government in a manner “not repugnant to the principles of the Ordinance.” Hence, the Mississippi constitution declared: Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged in this State.
Congress later extended the same requirements to the Missouri Territory Missouri and Arkansas and then on to subsequent territories. Consequently, the provision coupling religion and schools continued to appear in State constitutions for decades. For example, the 1858 Kansas constitution required: Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the legislature to make suitable provisions for the encouragement of schools and the means of instruction.
Similarly, the 1875 Nebraska constitution required: Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the legislature to pass suitable laws to encourage schools and the means of instruction.
Numerous other territorial papers and State constitutions past and present make it clear that the Founding Fathers never intended to separate religious instruction or religious activities from the public or official life of America. Yet today the Courts have misinterpreted the First Amendment and Article VI to prohibit exactly what the Founders intended to protect. The dilemma outlined in this chapter was succinctly described by Justice William Rehnquist in Wallace v. Jaffree: History must judge whether it was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court today, which has strayed from the meaning of the First Amendment.
Leave a Reply