Alexander Hamilton was certainly no deist. For example, Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great: (1) Christianity, and (2) a Constitution formed under Christianity. Only Hamilton's death two months later thwarted his plan of starting a missionary society to promote Christian government. And at the time he did face his death in his duel with Aaron Burr, Hamilton met and prayed with the Rev. Mason and Bishop Moore, wherein he reaffirmed to him his readiness to face God should he die, having declared to them "a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of the death of Christ." At that time, he also partook of Holy Communion with Bishop Moore.
I’m aware of no evidence contrary to Hamilton’s Christianity. Anyone that claims Hamilton was a Deist is either privy to knowledge no one else in the world has, intellectually dishonest, or simply misinformed.
What should be made clear about Hamilton is the sheer radicalism of his views. No, not radical like Thomas Paine or Sam Adams. But in the other direction. For example, Hamilton supported instituting a president for life. Hamilton was the archconservative of the more-well-known founding fathers. But like Paine and Adams, he was generally respected as well. Common ground united them more than political divide. In the end, Hamilton fought fervently for the Constitution we now know. Even if he initially opposed much of it, he felt that opposing what he could not change could cripple the infant nation. In reference to the prayers before the duel, I doubt them not. He was quite a vocal Christian. However, Barton once again distorts a founding fathers’ position in his description of the Christian Constitutional Society. Nowhere does Hamilton support a “Constitution formed under Christianity.” The relevant portion of the letter written to Rev. Bayard can be found below. Notice how Barton once again twists words around:
“Let an association be formed to be denominated ``The Christian Constitutional Society.'' Its objects to be:
1st. The support of the Christian religion.
2d. The support of the Constitution of the United States.”
Notice the separation between the 2 causes of this group. Hamilton does not write “The support of the Constitution of the Untied States founded upon Christian principles.” This society fought for 2 separate issues. The rest of the letter makes no mention of Christianity.
To be completely fair (but to reveal the whole story would counter Barton’s assertions on Jefferson), the CCS was formed as opposition primarily to Jefferson. Hamilton called Jefferson “atheistic” on more than one occasion, and called him a “Jacobin” as well. Hamilton honestly thought that Jefferson was trying to overthrow the Christian religion. Hamilton wasn’t a vocal supporter of the separation of church and state. In fact, I sincerely doubt he supported the separation of church and state that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and Paine supported. If only Barton didn’t insist on exaggerating his positions, Hamilton was his one opportunity to provide a single point. Hamilton is no Deist, and his support of the separation of church and state is perhaps a bit feigning.
The reader, as do many others, claimed that Jefferson omitted all miraculous events of Jesus from his "Bible." Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a "Bible," but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth").
Jefferson entitled the book The Life and Moral of Jesus of Nazareth because he viewed Jesus’ philosophy as the purest philosophy the world has ever seen. To Jefferson, Jesus was not the Christ child. To Jefferson, Jesus was the greatest in a line of Philosophers such as Socrates and Plato. Jefferson writes in his “Syllabus of an Estimate of the Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus, Compared with Those of Others”:
“III. Jesus.
In this state of things among the Jews, Jesus appeared. His parentage was obscure; his condition poor; his education null; his natural endowments great; his life correct and innocent: he was meek, benevolent, patient, firm, disinterested, and of the sublimest eloquence.
The disadvantages under which his doctrines appear are remarkable.
1. Like Socrates and Epictetus, he wrote nothing himself.
2. But he had not, like them, a Xenophon or an Arrian to write for him. I name not Plato, who only used the name of Socrates to cover the whimsies of his own brain. On the contrary, all the learned of his country, entrenched in its power and riches, were opposed to him, lest his labors should undermine their advantages; and the committing to writing his life and doctrines fell on unlettered and ignorant men, who wrote, too, from memory, and not till long after the transactions had passed.
3. According to the ordinary fate of those who attempt to enlighten and reform mankind, he fell an early victim to the jealousy and combination of the altar and the throne, at about thirty-three years of age, his reason having not yet attained the maximum of its energy, nor the course of his preaching, which was but of three years at most, presented occasions for developing a complete system of morals.
4. Hence the doctrines he really delivered were defective as a whole, and fragments only of what he did deliver have come to us mutilated, misstated, and often unintelligible.
5. They have been still more disfigured by the corruptions of schismatizing followers, who have found an interest in sophisticating and perverting the simple doctrines he taught, by engrafting on them the mysticisms of a Grecian sophist, frittering them into subtleties, and obscuring them with jargon, until they have caused good men to reject the whole in disgust, and to view Jesus himself as an impostor.
Notwithstanding these disadvantages, a system of morals is presented to us which, if filled up in the style and spirit of the rich fragments he left us, would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man.
The question of his being a member of the Godhead, or in direct communication with it, claimed for him by some of his followers and denied by others, is foreign to the present view, which is merely an estimate of the intrinsic merits of his doctrines.
1. He corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of one only God, and giving them juster notions of His attributes and government.
2. His moral doctrines, relating to kindred and friends were more pure and perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews; and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others.
3. The precepts of philosophy, and of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only. He pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head.
4.He taught, emphatically, the doctrines of a future state, which was either doubted or disbelieved by the Jews, and wielded it with efficacy as an important incentive, supplementary to the other motives to moral conduct.”
As you can see, Jefferson specifically denies Jesus’ divinity. He praises Jesus for advocating the worship of a singular God and calls Jesus’ teachings that of Deism. He rejected the Trinity and his God bears little resemblance to the Christian God. Jefferson compares Jesus to the Greek philosophers and determines that Jesus’ teachings are more superior mostly for their increased emphasis on charity and kindness. Jefferson viewed Jesus’ teachings (the ones in the Jeffersonian Bible and not what he viewed as dogma added by followers) as the most superior philosophy of Western Civilization.
What Jefferson did was to take the "red letter" portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality.
Jefferson was not advocating “Christian morality”, at least not what Barton would call Christian morality. Jefferson was advocating Jesus of Nazareth morality, which removes all divinity to Christ. And no, Jefferson was not taking the “red letter” portions of the New Testament. In fact, Jefferson omits everything that occurs after the crucifixion and burial. There are significant red letter portions of the Gospels found after the crucifixion and burial that Jefferson omits. Why? Simply put, Jefferson did not believe in any of the supernatural portions of the Gospels. This includes the Resurrection and everything that proceeded after it.
It’s interesting that the Jeffersonian Bible was intended for use by the Indians. In fact, only Jefferson’s closest friends knew it existed while Jefferson was alive. Once again, Barton lies. You will find no primary source stating that the Jeffersonian Bible was intended for the Native Americans. The first evidence of the Jeffersonian Bible’s existence is found in a letter addressed to John Adams from 1813. However, it was never published in his lifetime and didn’t become common knowledge until late in the 19th century.
And as President of the United States, Jefferson negotiated treaties with the Kaskaskia, Cherokee, and Wyandotte tribes wherein he provided—at the government's expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians.
Dealing with Indian Tribes is different than establishing churches in America. At the time, the Tribes were viewed as part of America and yet separate from America. Jefferson opposed state funds being used to assist churches for the general population, but to establish churches that a majority of the tribe supported was a separate issue. The question before us then is whether or not Jefferson was active in converting the Natives. The answer is a resounding no. Let us look at the relevant segments of the treaties:
Treaty with Kaskaskia, 1803:
”And whereas, The greater part of the said tribe have been baptised and received into the Catholic church to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars towards the support of a priest of that religion, who will engage to perform for the said tribe the duties of his office and also to instruct as many of their children as possible in the rudiments of literature. And the United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church.”
Furthermore, it appears Barton is exaggerating his claim. No such sentiments exist in any treaties dealing with the Cherokee or the Wyandotte that I can find. Only the treaty with the Kaskaskia has any reference to religion.
In fact, Jefferson himself declared, "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, not a deist.
A quote taken out of context. This is found in a letter addressed to Charles Thomson from 1816. Let us examine the text surrounding the above:
”I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature. If I had time I would add to my little book the Greek, Latin and French texts, in columns side by side. And I wish I could subjoin a translation of Gosindi's Syntagma of the doctrines of Epicurus, which, notwithstanding the calumnies of the Stoics and caricatures of Cicero, is the most rational system remaining of the philosophy of the ancients, as frugal of vicious indulgence, and fruitful of virtue as the hyperbolical extravagances of his rival sects.” Jefferson not only promotes his secular approach to the teachings of Jesus in the letter, but criticizes what he views as the hypocrites of Christianity. His detractors. Who were his detractors? See Hamilton above. Though of course Hamilton was long dead when this letter was written, Jefferson is attacking those who follow Hamilton’s views.
As with every other founding father, the question of Jefferson’s religious beliefs is a red herring. The question is not what he believed on the spiritual, but what he believed on the political. Jefferson was the firmest believer on the separation of church and state amongst the Founding Fathers. His support of the separation of church and state is well documented.
Unlike Barton’s misleading mention of Franklin’s policy on a single school, Jefferson, in his Bill for Establishing a Public Education, dated October 24, 1817, sets up a system for true public schools in the state of Virginia. The document contains absolutely no references to religion. There is no mention of “religion”, “Jesus”, “Christian”, “Christ”, “god”, or “Lord”. On a slightly irrelevant tangent, there ARE six references to “science”. There is also one mention of the term “philosophy”. The education Jefferson advocates resembles what just about every Deist would want:
”34. I n the sd University shall be taught History and Geography antient and modern, natural philosophy, agriculture, chemistry & the theories of medecine; Anatomy, Zoology, Botany, Mineralogy and Geology; Mathematics pure and mixed, military and naval scien ce; Ideology, Ethics, the Law of nature and nations, Law municipal & foreign, the science of civil government and Political economy; Languages, Rhetoric Belles lettres, and the fine arts generally: which branches of science shall be so distributed, a nd under so many professorships, not exceeding ten, as the Visitors shall think most proper.”
Jefferson’s school is funded by the state. Franklin’s school is funded by the private sector.
In his Notes on Virginia 1781-1782, Jefferson writes while criticizing a law from the early 1700s:
”…if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of a God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more Gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold any office or employment ecclesiastical, civil, or military; on the second by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years imprisonment, without bail. A father's right to the custody of his own children being founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being taken away, they may of course be severed from him, and put, by the authority of a court, into more orthodox hands. This is a summary view of that religious slavery, under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of their civil freedom. The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said, his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them. Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.”
In Jefferson’s America, religion plays no role in one’s ability to be elected. In Jefferson’s America, religious liberty is demanded. In Jefferson’s America, pluralism is accepted. In Jefferson’s America, Atheists are as excepted as Polytheists or Monotheists.
Jefferson’s Notes to Virginia also contains perhaps the single most impassioned plea for a pure separation of church and state of all the founding fathers. Jefferson writes:
”It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desireable? No more than of face and stature. Introduce the bed of Procrustes then, and as there is danger that the large men may beat the small, make us all of a size, by lopping the former and stretching the latter. Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand. That if there be but one right, and ours that one, we should wish to see the 999 wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free enquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves. But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments? Our sister states of Pennsylvania and New York, however, have long subsisted without any establishment at all. The experiment was new and doubtful when they made it. It has answered beyond conception. They flourish infinitely.”
There is a very good reason that Jefferson is often considered the most intellectual and forward thinking of the founding fathers. He envisioned a time when certain elements of our society would try to overthrow the establishment clause. He envisioned the Christian Coalition. He envisioned Focus on the Family. He envisioned the 700 Club. He envisioned the Traditional Values Coalition. He faced enemies like them in his day. I must wonder if he envisioned his words being twisted by Barton to support a baseless claim.
