Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower with Frederic Morrow the first African American to serve on the executive staff of the white house. After his re election, Eisenhower continued his civil rights efforts, but both the House and Senate were in Democratic control. In 1957, he proposed a bold civil rights bill to increase black voting rights and protections proposals promptly blocked by Democratic Senator James Eastland of Mississippi, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In fact, Eastland is credited with killing every civil rights bill that came before his committee in the 1950s, and his committee was literally known as the burial ground for civil rights legislation in the U. S. Senate. When Senate Republicans sought to keep Eisenhower’s civil rights bill from going to Eastland’s burial ground, only 10 Senate Democrats joined in that effort. Nevertheless, those few Democrats combined with the strong Republican numbers were sufficient; they were able to prevent Eisenhower’s bill from going to Eastland’s committee.
With Eastland unable to kill the bill in his committee, other Senate Democrats responded with a filibuster against the civil rights bill. In fact, South Carolina’s Senator Strom Thurmond, still a Democrat at that time, set the record in the U. S. Senate for the longest individual filibuster speech ever given in Senate history over twenty four hours of continual speaking in his attempts to block Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Bill. The stiff Democratic opposition in the Senate resulted in a very watered down version of Eisenhower’s original bill.
Yet, despite the fact that the bill was much weaker than introduced, Eisenhower did succeed in creating a Civil Rights Division within the U. S. Justice Department, as had earlier been proposed by his predecessor, President Truman. This division subsequently played a prominent role in helping secure civil rights in the South during the 1960s and 1970s. That law also started a Civil Rights Commission that became instrumental in publicizing the effects of southern segregation and racial oppression.
So great were the gains of blacks through the Republican Party those Democrats begun to fight back not only as they had in Georgia through the manipulation of laws and election results, but also literally as in Louisiana. Recall that black Americans had made huge gains in Louisiana with the election of 127 black legislators and even a black lieutenant governor, P. B. S. Pinchback, who later served as State governor. To halt such progress, in 1866, Democrats – in conjunction with the city police and the Democratic mayor of New Orleans – physically attacked the Republican Convention in that city, killing 40 blacks, 20 whites, and wounding 150 others. Democrats later rushed the floor of the Louisiana Legislature to seize power by force away from the elected black Republicans, but federal troops arrived to restore peace and return African Americans to their lawfully elected positions. Similar violent and often deadly attacks by Democrats against Republicans also occurred in other States.
While much early Democratic opposition occurred on a State by State or local basis, in 1866 Democrats formed a group that became an 1868 report of democrats expelling black leaders’ P.B.S. Pinchback national. Its declared purpose was to break down the Republican government and pave the way for Democrats to regain control in the elections. What was the name of that group? The Ku Klux Klan. 146 democrats rushed the legislature to expel black republicans democrats attacked and killed both black and white republicans 1872 congressional documents irrefutably prove that democrats started the Ku Klux Klan.
Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party. In fact, a thirteen volume set of congressional investigations from 1872 conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact. Contributing to the evidences was the 1871 appearance before Congress of leading
South Carolina Democrat E. W. Seibels who testified that “they the Ku Klux Klan belong to the reform party – that is, to our party, the Democratic Party.”
The Klan terrorized black Americans through murders and public floggings; relief was granted only if individuals promised not to vote for Republican tickets, and violation of this oath was punishable by death. Since the Klan targeted Republicans in general, it did not limit its violence simply to black Republicans; white Republicans were also included. In 1871, Joseph Hayne
Rainey, a black U. S. Congressman from South Carolina, reported the klan hung republicans, white as well as black an incident concerning an elderly man named Dr. John Winsmith, a white Republican State Senator:
The doctor, a man nearly seventy years of age, had been to town during the day and was seen and talked with by many of our citizens. Returning home late, he soon afterward retired, worn out and exhausted by the labors of the day. A little after midnight he was aroused by someone knocking violently at his front door. The doctor arose, opened the door, and saw two men in disguise standing before him. The doctor immediately stepped back into the room, picked up two single-barreled pistols lying upon the bureau, and returned to the open door. At his reappearance the men retreated behind some cedar trees standing in the yard. The doctor, in his night clothes, boldly stepped out into the yard and followed them. He continued to advance, when twenty or thirty shots were fired at him by men crouched behind an orange hedge. He fired his remaining pistol and then attempted to return to the house. Before reaching it, however, he sank upon the ground exhausted by the loss of blood and pain, occasioned by seven wounds which he had received in various parts of his body. As soon as he fell, the assassins mounted their horses and rode away. He had joined the Republican Party in the fall of 1870; and for this alliance and this alone he has been vehemently assailed and murderously assaulted. Because he has dared become a Republican he has become the doomed victim of the murderous Ku Klux Klan
While Republicans were working to end slavery and secure civil rights, the new nation of southern Democrats was determined to head in an opposite direction. In fact, Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens delivered an 1861 speech entitled: “African Slavery: The Corner Stone of the Southern Confederacy.” In that speech, Stephens first correctly acknowledged that the Founding Fathers even those from the South had never intended for slavery to remain in America: 1864 freedmen’s bill, 1864 military pay bill democrat Alexander Stephens’ speech as vice president of the confederacy.
The prevailing ideas entertained by him Thomas Jefferson and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature that it was wrong in principle socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence the institution would be evanescent temporary and pass away.
So what did Vice President Stephens and the new Confederate nation think about these anti slavery ideas of the Founding Fathers? Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races.
This was an error. And the idea of a government built upon it. Our new government the Confederate States of America is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery subordination to the superior white race is his natural and moral condition. This our new Confederate government is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
There was indeed a clear difference between the philosophies of Republicans and Democrats on the issue of race and racial equality. Southern Democrats had been willing to form an entire nation on the foundation of white supremacy and there was no doubt that the South was strongly Democratic. As a leading South Carolina Democrat testified during an 1871 congressional hearing: democrat Alexander Stephens
Almost nine hundred and ninety nine out of every thousand of the decent people of South Carolina belong to the Democratic Party; the Republican Party is composed entirely of the colored people. When it came time for the presidential election of 1864, southern Democrats were still fighting against the Union; therefore, the presidential candidate for the Democrats that year was a Northern Democrat: Union General George B. McClellan. Although McClellan was actually running for president against his own commander-in-chief, there was a clear difference between the two. In fact, Abraham Lincoln had twice replaced McClellan for failing to obey Lincoln’s orders to launch aggressive attacks against the Confederacy.
The Constitution is a glorious liberty document. Read its preamble; consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? Or is it in the temple? It is neither. If the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slaveholding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it? Now, take the Constitution according to its plain reading and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. On the other hand, it will be found to contain principles and purposes entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.
But if the Constitution is not pro-slavery, then what about the Three-Fifths Clause? Had Douglass not read that clause? Yes, he had. Then how could he conclude what he did about the Constitution? Douglass understood that the Three-Fifths Clause dealt only with representation and not the worth of any individual. The Constitution had established that for every 30,000 inhabitants in a State, that State would receive one representative to Congress.
The southern States saw this as an opportunity to strengthen slavery since slaves accounted for much of the southern population. Therefore, slave owners could simply count their slaves as regular inhabitants, and by so doing could greatly increase the number of their pro-slavery representatives to Congress.
Of course, the anti-slavery Founders from the North strenuously objected to this plan. After all, slave owners did not consider their slaves to be persons but only property; these slave-owners were therefore using their “property” to increase the power of the slave States in Congress. The anti-slavery leaders wanted Free Blacks counted, but not slaves if counting slaves would increase the power of slave owners. They understood that the fewer the pro-slavery representatives to Congress, the sooner slavery could be eradicated from the nation. Governor Morris a signer of the Constitution and a strong opponent of slavery therefore argued:
Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them citizens and let them vote! .
But the admission of slaves into the representation comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and South Carolina who goes to the coast of Africa and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections and damns them to the most cruel bondage, shall have more votes in a government instituted for protection of the rights of mankind than the citizen of Pennsylvania or New Jersey who views with a laudable horror so nefarious wicked a practice.
Although the history of black Americans begins in 1619 with the arrival of the first slaves in America, the political history of black Americans actually begins much later, in 1787 – the year in which the American political system was constructed – the year in which the Constitution was written. Today, many critics assert that the Constitution was a pro-slavery document, and to prove this, they point to the Three-Fifths Clause, claiming that the Constitution says that blacks are only three-fifths of a person.
One of the earliest black Americans to investigate this claim was the famous abolitionist Frederick Douglass. Douglass had been born into slavery and remained a slave until he escaped to New York in 1838. Three years after his escape, he delivered an anti-slavery speech in Massachusetts. He was promptly hired to work for the State’s anti-slavery society, and he also served as a preacher at Zion Methodist Church.
During the Civil War, Douglass helped recruit the first black regiment to fight for the Union, and he advised Abraham Lincoln on the Emancipation Proclamation Frederick Douglass fleeing from slavery and other important issues. Following the Civil War, Douglass received Presidential appointments from Republican Presidents Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, and James A. Garfield. Democratic President Grover Cleveland removed Frederick Douglass from office but Republican President Benjamin Harrison reappointed him.
During Douglass’s first years of freedom, he studied at the feet of abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, who taught him that the Constitution was a pro-slavery document. 19 Douglass accepted this claim, and his early speeches and writings reflected that belief. However, Douglass later began to research the subject for him; he read the Constitution; he read the writings of those who wrote the Constitution; and what he found revolutionized his thinking. He concluded that the Constitution was not a pro-slavery but an anti-slavery document.
He explained: I was, on the anti-slavery question . . . fully committed to doctrine touching the pro-slavery character of the Constitution. . . . I advocated it with pen and tongue, according to the best of my ability. . . . Upon a reconsideration of the whole subject, I became convinced . . . that the Constitution of the United States not only contained no guarantees in favor of slavery but, on the contrary, it is in its letter and spirit an anti-slavery instrument, demanding the abolition of slavery as a condition of its own existence as the supreme law of the land. Here was a radical change in my opinions. . . . Brought directly, when I escaped from slavery, into contact with a class of abolitionists regarding the Constitution as a slaveholding instrument . . . it is not strange that I assumed the Constitution to be just what their interpretation made it. . . . But I was now conducted to the conclusion that the Constitution of the United States . . . was not designed . . . to maintain and perpetuate a system of . . . slavery – especially as not one word can be found in the Constitution to authorize such a belief.
Roger Sherman, a distinguished Founding Father and a signer of the Constitution, was also a Christian theologian! His contributions to America were so great that he is one of those honored with a statue at the Capitol, located in East Central Hall.
William Samuel Johnson is also seated at the table in the painting. In addition to signing the Constitution, he was also a leading educator of his day, becoming the first president of Columbia (formerly King’s) College. In an exercise which we still practice today, Johnson was a speaker at a public graduation. Notice his words to the graduates:
David Barton tells us that this day. . . . have, by the favor of Providence and the attention of friends, received a public education, the purpose whereof hath been to qualify you the better to serve your Creator and your country. You have this day invited this audience to witness the progress you have made. . . . Thus you assume the character of scholars, of men, and of citizens. . . . Go, then, . . . and exercise them with diligence, fidelity, and zeal. . . . Your first great duties, you are sensible, are those you owe to Heaven, to your Creator and Redeemer. Let these be ever present to your minds, and exemplified in your lives and conduct. Imprint deep upon your minds the principles of piety towards God, and a reverence and fear of His holy name. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and its [practice] is everlasting [happiness]. . . . Reflect deeply and often upon [your] relations [with God]. Remember that it is in God you live and move and have your being, – that, in the language of David, He is about your bed and about your path and spieth out all your ways, – that there is not a thought in your hearts, nor a word upon your tongues, but lo! He knoweth them altogether, and that He will one day call you to a strict account for all your conduct in this mortal life.
Over the landing of the second-floor steps leading up to the Visitors’ Gallery for the House of Representatives is a huge painting (20’by 30’) of the signing of the Constitution on September 17, 1787. gov. jonathan trumbull
A GUIDE TO IDENTIFYING SIGNERS OF THE CONSTITUTION
1. george washington, va
2. benjamin franklin, pa
3. james madison, va
4. alexander hamilton, ny
5. gouverneur morris, pa
6. robert morris, pa
7. james wilson, pa
8. charles cotesworth pinckney, sc
9. charles pinckney, sc
10. john rutledge, sc
11. pierce butler, sc
12. roger sherman, ct
13. william samuel johnson, ct
14. james mchenry, md
15. george read, de
16. richard bassett, de
17. richard dobbs spaight, nc
18. william blout, nc
19. hugh williamson, nc
20. daniel genifer of st. thomas, md
21. rufus king, ma
22. nathaniel gorham, ma
23. jonathan dayton, nj
24. daniel carroll, md
25. william few, ga
26. abraham baldwin, ga
27. john langdon, nh
28. nicholas gilman, nh
29. william livingston, nj
30. william paterson, nj
31. thomas mifflin, pa
32. george clymer, pa
33. thomas fitzsimmons, pa
34. jared ingersoll, pa
35. gunning bedford, jr. de
36. david brearley, nj
37. john dickinson, de
38. john blair, va
39. jacob broom, de
40. william jackson, sc, secretary
were mentioned, that would not be the complete story; on the other hand, if only David and his victories were listed, neither would that be the complete story. It takes all sides of a story to see the full, accurate picture. So the Bible (and early writers in black history) illustrate the principle that the good, the bad, and the ugly must be presented in order to transmit the full story not only of history in general but of African American political history in particular – which is the policy that will be pursued in this work. In this chronological journey through many momentous events in black political history, both the people and the issues involved in those early events will be examined.
Political science professors believed that this question could be answered by examining a broad spectrum of writings from the Founding Era with the goal of identifying the sources cited in those writings. The researchers assembled 15,000 representative writings from that period and isolated 3,154 direct quotes in those writings. At the end of ten years, they had traced the quotes back to their original sources, thereby identifying the most frequently-cited sources of the Founding Era. (The results of that study may be found in the book The Origins of American Constitutionalism)
The individual who was cited most often in the writings of the Founding Era was political philosopher Charles Montesquieu, with 8.3 percent of the quotes being taken from his writings. 46 Legal scholar William Blackstone was next, with 7.9 percent of the quotes; 47 and political philosopher and theologian John Locke was third, with 2.9 percent. 48 These were the three most frequently-cited individuals during the Founding Era, but the single most-cited source was the Bible, with 34 percent of the quotes coming from the Scriptures.
Significantly, that percentage is even higher when the source of the ideas used by individuals such as Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Locke are identified and included. Consider, for example, a primary source of Blackstone’s ideas.
montesquieu (left), blackstone (middle), and locke (right)
Blackstone’s most famous work was his Commentaries on the Laws. First introduced in 1766, it became the final word in American courts and remained a primary legal authority until well into the twentieth century: it was quoted to define words, establish procedure, and settle disputes. A primary source of Blackstone’s ideas is evident even through a superficial examination of his writings, but the testimony of Charles Finney (1792-1875) also provides a clear confirmation. Finney, a university president, educator, and civil rights leader, was probably best known as a famous revivalist during America’s Second Great Awakening of the early 1800s. In his autobiography, Finney recounted his early desire to become an attorney, so like all other law students at that time, he commenced a study of Blackstone’s Commentaries. As Blackstone covered the various legal concepts, he frequently presented the Biblical ideas on which the laws were based. Finney stated that in the process of studying Blackstone, he read so much of the Bible that he became a Christian and received his call to the ministry.
Clearly, then, a primary source of Blackstone’s ideas was the Bible; and a survey of the writings of Montesquieu and Locke confirms a similar (and sometime even stronger) Biblical influence on their writings. Therefore, while thirty-four percent of the quotes in the representative writings of the Founding Era came directly from the Bible, many of the other quotes were taken from writers who, like Blackstone, had used the Bible to help arrive at their own conclusions. The Bible therefore was far and away the most influential source of ideas in the Founding Era.
Consequently, it is not surprising that the Constitution reflects many Biblical principles. For example, Isaiah 33:22 sets forth three distinct branches of government; the logic for the separation of powers was based on teachings derived from Jeremiah 17:9; the basis of tax exemptions for churches (exemptions originated by the Founding Fathers 51) can be found in Ezra 7:24; and there are many other examples of American government applying Biblical patterns and precedents.
The Biblical underpinnings of America were so obvious to previous generations that in 1892, even the U. S. Supreme Court had no difficulty in rendering a unanimous decision declaring:
No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. . . . This is a Christian nation.
What would lead the U. S. Supreme Court to conclude that America was a Christian nation? The simple answer is, America’s own history.
The Court’s decision was only sixteen pages long, but even in that short span, the Court provided almost eighty different historical precedents. The Court cited statements of the Founding Fathers, acts of Congress and state governments, and numerous others official documents, even noting that there were many additional volumes of historical precedents also proving that America was a Christian nation. Eighty precedents in a case is not only impressive but it is also important, for courts seek to base their decisions on precedent; this enables them to be consistent from ruling to ruling, thus contributing to a stable society.
Significantly, that 1892 Court decision was by no means the only Supreme Court decision that recognized and preserved America’s Biblical heritage; similar decisions were rendered both before and after that ruling. For example, in 1844, a school run by the city of Philadelphia adopted a policy prohibiting Christian ministers from setting foot on campus. That school, originally founded by a wealthy French immigrant, was operated on the philosophy dominant in France during the French Enlightenment (and embraced by many public schools today) that students could successfully learn morality apart from Christianity or the Bible.
This policy, perceived as an attempt to keep the Bible from students, became an issue at the U. S. Supreme Court. The Court’s ruling on that subject was animous and was delivered by Justice Joseph Story, called a “Father of American jurisprudence” and placed on the Court by President James Madison. In that decision, the Court declared:
Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament . . . be read and taught as a divine revelation in the school – its general precepts expounded . . . and its glorious principles of morality inculcated? . . . Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?
One early textbook of great influence was The New England Primer. First introduced in Boston in 1690, it was a schoolbook from which Americans learned to read until 1930; it is what would today be described as a first grade textbook. Not only were many of the Founding Fathers raised on this textbook but they even reprinted it to make sure that it was available for children in their generation. (For example, Samuel Adams reprinted the Primer for students in Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin for students in Pennsylvania, and Noah Webster for students in Connecticut.
After introducing students to the alphabet, the Primer presented a special section to be memorized – a section in which each letter of the alphabet was accompanied by a Bible verse:
A – A wise son makes a glad father, but a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother [Proverbs 10:1].
B – Better is little with the fear of the Lord than great treasure and trouble therewith [Proverbs 15:16].
C – Come unto Christ all ye that labor and are heavy laden and He will give you rest [Matthew 11:28].
In the back of this first grade book were over a hundred questions, including:
samuel adams (left), benjamin franklin (middle), and noah webster (right)
each reprinted THE NEW ENGLAND PRIMER for students in their states. Which is the fifth commandment? What is forbidden in the fifth commandment? What is required in the sixth commandment? What is forbidden in the sixth commandment?
There were dozens of similar Bible-oriented questions. Students educated under this system were frequently characterized by what many today would consider exceptional achievements at a very young age. For example, when John Quincy Adams was only eleven years old, he was assigned to be the official secretary to his father, John Adams, America’s Ambassador to the British Court of Saint James; and at the still tender age of fourteen, he was appointed as the official diplomatic secretary to Francis Dana, America’s Ambassador to Russia. (For many similar examples of achievement, see Four Centuries of American Education, available at www.wallbuilders.com.)
John Quincy Adams’ distinguished political career spanned seven decades. Following his service in the American Revolution, he was a foreign ambassador under Presidents George Washington, John Adams, and James Madison. In fact, Washington said that he was “the most valuable public character we have abroad, and will prove himself to be the ablest of all our Diplomatic Corps.” Adams was also a U. S. Senator under President Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State under President James Monroe, and then was elected the nation’s sixth President before finishing his career with an additional seventeen years in the U. S. House of Representatives.
On July 4, 1837 (sixty-one years after the Declaration had been signed), a very elderly John Quincy Adams delivered a patriotic oration to a large gathering in Massachusetts. Having been an eye-witness and a participant in the birth of America, he had been selected as the keynote speaker at the celebration. Adams began by asking the assembled crowd a rhetorical question – and then answering it:
Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [i.e., on the Fourth of July]? Is it not that in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?
According to John Quincy Adams, on the Fourth of July, 1776, the Founders had taken the principles that came into the world through the birth of Christ and used those principles to birth a nation, thus joining together Christian principles and civil government in an “indissoluble” bond.
Ironically, today’s ivory tower elites assert just the opposite – they wrongly claim that the Founders did not want an indissoluble bond but rather that they wanted a so-called “separation” in order to keep Biblical principles out of civil government. Fortunately, however, the Founding Fathers’ own records document their steadfast conviction that Christian principles were to be preserved in the civil arena. John Jay provides a clear example.
As word of God’s Divine protection of Washington spread across the colonies, the Rev. Samuel Davies even referred to the incident in a sermon only a few weeks after the momentous battle. (Davies was a leader in the American revival known as the Great Awakening and was considered the greatest pulpit preacher in America.) Significantly, the devastating defeat of the British troops left American settlers on the frontier completely unprotected. They therefore banded together into volunteer military companies to defend their homes
the rev. samuel davies
against impending French and Indian attack; the special sermon by the Rev. Davies was delivered to a group of these citizens just before they marched out. In that sermon, Davies told the brave volunteers:
He [God] that sent out Paul nations with the gentler weapons of plain truth, miracles, and the love of a crucified Savior, He – even that same Gracious Power – has formed and raised up . . . a William and a Marlborough [courageous military leaders in English history] and inspired them with this enterprising, intrepid [courageous] spirit . . . to save nations on the brink of ruin. . . . Our continent is like[ly] to become the seat of war, and we, for the future . . . have no other way left to defend our rights and privileges. And has God been pleased to diffuse some sparks of this martial [military] fire through our country? I hope He has; and . . . may I not produce you – my brethren who are engaged in this expedition – as instances of it? As a remarkable instance of this, I may point out to the public that heroic youth Col. Washington, whom I cannot but hope Providence has hitherto preserved in so signal [remarkable] a manner for some important service to his country.
Davies’ expectant hope for the young Washington proved to be quite accurate. Twenty years later, it was apparent that God definitely had selected Washington for an “important service to his country,” and the entire nation has benefited as a result. In fact, nearly two centuries later President Calvin Coolidge confirmed:
He [Washington] was the directing spirit without which there would have been no independence, no Union, no Constitution, and no Republic. . . . We cannot yet estimate him. We can only indicate our reverence for him and thank the Divine Providence which kept him to serve and inspire his fellow man.
Significantly, Washington himself recognized that the critical role he had played in America’s formation was not the result of his own skills but rather the favor of God. As he openly acknowledged, “I have only been an instrument in the hands of Providence.”
Additional evidence of just how miraculous had been Washington’s preservation in 1755 was provided fifteen years later in 1770 when Washington had occasion to return to the same Pennsylvania woods where he had earlier battled the French and Indians. An old Indian chief, hearing that Washington had come back to that area, traveled to meet with him. The ancient leather-faced chief sat down with him over a council fire and announced that he had been a leader in the battle against Washington fifteen years earlier.
The chief recounted that during the battle, he had instructed his braves to single out the officers and shoot them down, knowing that if they could slaughter the officers, they could scatter the remaining troops and then easily destroy them later. Like the other officers, Washington had been specifically singled out. In fact, the chief proudly explained that his rifle had never before been known to miss, but after having personally fired at Washington seventeen different times without effect, he concluded that Washington was under the care of the Great Spirit and therefore instructed his braves to stop firing at him. He then told Washington:
I have traveled a long and weary path that I might see the young warrior of the great battle. 27 [I am] come to pay homage to the man who is the particular favorite of Heaven, and who [can] never die in battle. This remarkable account of God’s direct intervention in the life of one of our national heroes appeared in American history textbooks for nearly a century and a half; it is a well-documented part of our Godly heritage but is an account virtually unknown today. In fact, now we are regularly told just the opposite – that America had no Godly heritage and that our Founding Fathers were atheists, agnostics, and deists who formed a completely secular government. However, a clear pronouncement by Founding Father John Adams proves otherwise. Adams forcefully declared:
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were . . . the general principles of Christianity. 29 Founding Fathers such as John Adams emphatically refute the claims of today’s secularists and revisionists. Furthermore, abundant documentary evidence proves that the general principles of Christianity were indeed firmly embraced by the vast majority of our Founding Fathers, and that those principles formed the foundation of American government. In fact, in addition to the proof that is readily evident in the Founders’ own writings and public acts, additional confirmation is also found in what many today might consider a surprising source: the publications of the American Tract Society. That organization, noted for publishing Gospel tracts and literature, was formed in the early 1800s; and significantly, several of its published tracts were penned by famous Founding Fathers.
Yet, considering the educational system and textbooks that produced our great Founding Fathers, it is not surprising that so many were Christians and were outspoken about the importance of Christian principles in American government.