Let us not celebrate Presbyterians

Tue Aug 1 09:36:48 PDT 2006

From: Calvin Johnson 
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 11:33 AM
To: 'Hamilton02 at aol.com'
Subject: RE: Let us inflate Presbyterians 

Madison and Wilson hated what you call the Presbyterian representative
system, under which lower level sends delegates to higher authority, as
in the Articles and in the Senate.   James Wilson had been savage in his
condemnation of the principle, ultimately adopted in the Articles of
Confederation, that votes and representation were by states. It was
"magic and not reason," he said, that "annexing the name of 'State' to
ten thousand men, should give them equal right with forty thousand."
Madison's plan for the Constitution struck at the heart of the Articles
by ending the representation of the states.  The true principle, Madison
explained to the Convention, was that "where the Genl. Governt. is to
act on the people, let the people be represented and the votes be
proportional [and] where the Governt. is to act on the States as such,
in like manner as Congs. now act" let the votes be proportional to
states.  The new government was supposed to represent people.  Indeed,
Wilson and Madison, the most "Presbyterian" of your major thinkers
(although they were in fact both Anglican) are consistently in favor of
a democracy in which Congress rests on people not on lower Presbyrs,
when other Anglican thinkers want to limit the influence of direct
representation  of the demos.   Talk about "Presbyterian" representative
systems and your Madison and Wilson are the most anti-Presbyterian on
the continent. 

            You need to look harder for contrary evidence to your
thesis.  You are vacuuming in anything on one side, without
discrimination, and nothing on the contrary. 

Also not everything Presbyterian is worthy of celebration.   They were
terrible in Pennsylvania, disenfranchising Quakers, Mennonites and
artisans in Philadelphia while they held power.  They are the
pro-slavery group when the Quakers fought for freeing the Pa. slaves.
And Calvin burned people in Geneva just for thinking wrong

Calvin H. Johnson 
Andrews & Kurth Centennial Professor of Law 
The University of  Texas  School of Law 
727 E. Dean Keeton (26th) St. 
Austin, TX 78705 
(512) 232-1306 (voice) 
FAX: (512) 232-2399 
Website: http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/cvs/chj7107_cv.pdf 
For reviews, chapters, discounts and news on Johnson, Righteous Anger at
the Wicked States: The Meaning of the Founders Constitution (Cambridge
University Press 2005) see
http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/calvinjohnson/RighteousAnger/

________________________________

From: Hamilton02 at aol.com [mailto:Hamilton02 at aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 11:10 AM
To: Calvin Johnson; Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Let us be reasonable about Presybeterians 

The fact that Madison sought the middle ground in the bill of rights
does not yield your conclusion that he backed an unchecked federal
government.  It only shows he distrusted all government, state or
federal.  If we are going to pursue constitutional interpretation
through "unstated assumptions" we can all cobble together our favorite
interpretations and then pull from history the existing sources at the
time.  Not very reliable scholarship in my book.  

But if we might want to proceed on the basis of fact, it is a fact that
Witherspoon was a Scotch Common Sensist at the core and that these views
were transmitted to his students through his lectures, and deeply
impressed upon Madison.  And again, his public influence was tremendous.
He preached many a sermon (for many the entertainment of the day) to
large crowds around the country.  It does not matter that he was not a
terribly original thinker; what matters is that he synthesized existing
sources in a way that provided an influential and usable template for
government creation.  And he was present at the forefront of the country
from before the Declaration, through its drafting, through the Articles,
and the Continental Congress.  True, his importance has been undervalued
by contemporary thinkers, but that is a result of a failure to pay
attention to the facts, not a lack of facts.

Setting aside Witherspoon, Presbyterianism also was important, because
it held within it a philosophy of governance, which favorted a
representative form of government and differed from the
Congregationalists, who were far more inclined to believe in direct
democracy.  Federalist 10 is a classic rejection of "pure democracy" and
embrace of representative democracy.  Madison says the need for
representative democracy lies in the fact that men's passions, when they
gain a majority, are all too likely to conflict with the public good.
Factions are generated first and foremost by differences in property
ownership, but also by different religious sects and political aims
(paper money, abolition of debts).   The problem was "the nature of
man," which led ineluctably to factions.  The answer was a
well-constructed government.  This reasoning runs straight through
Presbyterianism back to Calvin's answer to the Catholic Church's
failures  -- fallen man/deterrence of the inevitable evil impulses
through a better-constructed government.  

To be sure, the Presbyterian influence at this particular juncture in
history is a small flare in the history of the country.  On the whole,
the Presbyterians cannot claim much more than this, but one must give
them their due.  (They also were critical in introducing the concept
that government should treat religions equally, at least when it comes
to government financial support.) You have yet to respond to the fact
that the Presbyterian constitution is so similar in principle to the
United States' Constitution, both drafted simultaneously in
Philadelphia.  The Presbyterian influence brought to the table a world
view that distrusted humans and an approach toward governance creation
through pragmatic experimentation.  By the way, a fact I did not mention
earlier is that 10 Framers attended the College of NJ, but a number of
others were Presbyterian by faith, including a Presbyterian minister.
If we focus on who was at the Convention, it is quite remarkable that
the Presbyterians had such a showing.  Which is to say I do not
necessarily disagree with your generalizations about other religions in
the larger culture (though I would say that the more influential
religion, which was most powerful at the most powerful universities was
Deism).  The focus here is on the Convention and what influences were
present within this closed-door gathering.  

Now, having said that, I would never say that the Presbyterians
constituted the only influence, religious or otherwise, present at the
Convention.  Also important was the classical education some of the
Framers enjoyed, which led them to make conscious comparisons with
Greece and Rome and every Framers' existential knowledge at some level
of governance in Europe and especially Britain.  Locke, Hume, and Hobbes
would have been part of the reading for those Framers who were most
well-educated, but the Constitution is a document derived from a
combination of the well-educated and the not-so-educated.  A gathering
of demi-gods it was not.

Marci

In a message dated 7/31/2006 6:27:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
CJohnson at law.utexas.edu writes:

	Our Bill of Rights comes from Madison's draft for the Kentucky
Constitution and of course there were lots of similar things before
that.  But the Anti-Federalists' "Bill of Rights" is filled with lots of
anti-tax restrictions, and empowerment of state governments that Madison
ignored.  Melancton Smith's Address to the Citizens of NY is an anti-tax
document:" "Ratify this Constitution and they will raise your taxes"
(duh)   Lansing and Yates say that every amendment must re-empower the
states.  Madison's Constitution is a sop thrown to North Carolina and
RI, but North Carolina needed only something called a Bill of Rights,
and not much was going to be given to evil RI.  Virginia AF found the
thing to be worthless and they defeated ratification of the BR in
Virginia in the first round.  If you find Madison not all that
sympathetic to individual rights then read that into the first 10
amendments because they are his work.   

	            I think the  Locke, Hume, Hobbseian skeptical
tradition is an unstated foundation for much of what they say.  Paine is
right that we did not need a king, but state of nature philosophers
taught him we could reinvent government on the consent of the governed.
When Wilson celebrates to the Pennsylvania Convention that not since the
creation 6000 years ago have men been able to sit down and create their
government by reason, he is within that tradition.  (and of his times
both on the "6000 years" and "men").    We don't need Witherspoon to get
him there.  We do need Hobbes, Locke and Paine.  Witherspoon may have
been a school teacher helping to transmit the skeptical tradition, but
he didn't add to it. 

	            All of Federalist 10, the best philosophizing on
this continent, is based on religion.  To paraphrase Voltaire, one
religion you have tyranny; two you have civil war; but 13 and all live
in peace with each other and each man can pursue his own conscience.
The Presbyterians were a minority religion abused by Patrick Henry's
government and they needed the Federal protection.  The Presbyterians
are most important as a fine victim. 

	         If you must decide by denominations, then Anglican has
to come first, then Puritan.  I suspect that Quaker at the time is still
larger than Presbyterian, but I am willing to call Quakers
quasi-Puritans.  If you must cite denominations, then do cite
Presbyterians as 3rd or 4th, and give better attention to the leading
religious thinking.  Sectarian histories are different animals.  I am
also perfectly willing to read a biography of say "Oliver Wolcott,
Savior of the Nation"  but I do suspect the biographer is pumping up his
case a bit.   

	Calvin H. Johnson 
	Andrews & Kurth Centennial Professor of Law 
	The University of  Texas  School of Law 
	727 E. Dean Keeton (26th) St. 
	Austin, TX 78705 
	(512) 232-1306 (voice) 
	FAX: (512) 232-2399 
	Website: http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/cvs/chj7107_cv.pdf 
	For reviews, chapters, discounts and news on Johnson, Righteous
Anger at the Wicked 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20060801/99a8b892/attachment.html