The Consummate American Holiday

Abraham Lincoln knew he was in tricky territory. It was the first week of October 1863, and the president was … Continued

Abraham Lincoln knew he was in tricky territory. It was the first week of October 1863, and the president was issuing a proclamation declaring Thanksgiving a national holiday. The culmination of a campaign led by the editor of Godey’s Lady’s Book, Lincoln’s words were calibrated to appeal to Americans of any religious inclination — and of none at all. Despite “the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field,” Lincoln wrote, the fields had been so fruitful and the mines so rich that they produced blessings of a scope that “cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of Almighty God. . . . No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.”

Lincoln wanted the country to render thanks “with one heart and one voice,” but in acknowledging that many hearts and voices were, as he put it, “habitually insensible” to religious feeling, he signaled his grasp of the elusive nature of what Benjamin Franklin had called America’s “public religion” — the broad belief in a God who created the world, who was attentive to history and to prayers, who intervened in the affairs of humankind through providence, and who would ultimately reward or punish men for their conduct. This was the “Creator” and the “Nature’s God” of the Declaration of Independence and the God whom George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson spoke of in their public remarks. In America such talk was (and is) complicated, for the nation was founded on the principle of religious liberty — that, at the federal level, no one’s civil or political rights could be affected by his faith or lack thereof. As Washington said in a letter to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport, R.I., in 1790, America “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.” And Jefferson approvingly wrote of “a wall of separation between Church & State” in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut.

How, then, do we reconcile matters when that same government, one pledged to defend the rights of nonbelievers, engages in essentially religious activity — the offering of prayers in legislative sessions; the employment, at public expense, of military chaplains; or, to bring things back to Lincoln’s proclamation, the appointment of days of Thanksgiving on explicitly religious grounds?

Chiefly by noting that Jefferson’s wall metaphor — one that the Supreme Court picked up again in the middle of the 20th century — is between church and state, not between religion and politics. Because politics is about people, religion will forever be a force in public life, for religion, like economics, is a factor in shaping ambitions, appetites, hopes and fears. History teaches us that the religious impulse is intrinsic. “All men have need of the gods,” said Homer, and John Adams remarked: “Religion always has and always will govern mankind. Man is constitutionally, essentially and unchangeably a religious animal. Neither philosophers nor politicians can ever govern him in any other way.”

The most fervent secularist, however, could justifiably argue that just because religion is prevalent does not mean that governments, particularly governments founded on liberty of conscience, should cater to the religious to the exclusion of the nonreligious. Why not have governments stay out of religious affairs altogether? The secular argument for this is obvious, and there is a strong theological argument for such a view. “Put not thy trust in princes,” advised the Psalmist, and Jesus told Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world.” The dissenter Roger Williams believed that “the garden of Christ’s church” should not be contaminated by “the wilderness of the world.”

But neither view has ever prevailed. The American habit, formed from the very beginning, when delegates to the Continental Congress prayed as a body for deliverance from the British, has been to choose to follow the forms of Franklin’s “public religion,” avoiding as much as possible sectarian references to the God of Abraham or to God the Father and keeping things as vague as possible. The ambiguity of exactly who or what we are referring to when we say “God bless America” or, as Lincoln called on us to do, when we thank “the Most High God,” makes the strictly religious uncomfortable, for to pray to an indistinct deity can feel idolatrous. Believers, however, must, as G.K. Chesterton said, “permit the twilight,” and most Americans have chosen to permit the twilight of public religion.

And so Americans have permitted Thanksgiving as well. The roots of the feast stretch back to 1619, to Berkeley Plantation in Virginia, and, more notably, to 1621 at Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts. By the time of the Civil War, Lincoln was convinced that a national day would promote unity — given the war, it certainly could not hurt — and he made the proclamation. To legal scholars, customs such as Thanksgiving fall under what is (infelicitously) known as “ceremonial deism” — long-standing, innocuous rituals. “It is an argument from history,” says John Witte Jr., director of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University. “The passage of time will show if this is a step along the way to establishment of religion or if it’s a ritual show of public spirit or patriotism.”

It is, admittedly, an odd argument to advance: Thanksgiving and its religious roots are acceptable precisely because the religious roots have proved benign, or at least so broadly inclusive that no single religious denomination can claim the day solely as its own. In its way, then, Thanksgiving is the ultimate American holiday: religious without being sectarian, with room for the nonreligious to simply pause and celebrate our common humanity. The origins of the day are inescapably theological, but there is much secular tradition on which to draw as well. Robert Ingersoll, the great 19th-century advocate of free thought, called secularism “the religion of humanity. . . . It does not believe in praying and receiving, but in earning and deserving. It regards work as worship, labor as prayer, and wisdom as the savior of mankind. It says to every human being, Take care of yourself so that you may be able to help others; adorn your life with the gems called good deeds; illumine your path with the sunlight called friendship and love.”

The American experiment in religious liberty goes on. Perhaps no one ever put the matter better than John Leland, a Baptist evangelist who worked with Jefferson and James Madison on religious freedom in Virginia: “Let every man speak freely without fear, maintain the principles that he believes, worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or 20 Gods; and let government protect him in so doing.” Madison took such sentiments to heart, and, late in his long life, at Montpelier, he continued to ponder the mysteries of religion and politics.

“The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion,” Madison wrote; he was debating whether the appointment of congressional chaplains was compatible with the First Amendment and with the ideal of religious liberty. “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative,” Madison acknowledged. Both pragmatic and wise, though, Madison concluded that “as the precedent is not likely to be rescinded, the best that can now be done may be to apply to the Constitution the maxim of the law, de minimis non curat” — Latin for “the law does not concern itself with trifles.”

Is, then, Thanksgiving a trifle, or the most solemn tribute a people can render to a God? The genius of America is that we are free to believe either — or something in between. Such freedom is something we should all give thanks for, today and always.

Jon Meacham
Written by

  • Will Rodger

    What a sensible commentary!Too bad so many “defenders of the constitution” want to drive all religion from the public stage.The ambiguity of “separation” remains. The rise of the evangelical right came about in large part because too much of the left wanted to destroy that ambiguity once and for all. Efforts to gain votes for the far left cannot succeed as long as anti-religious fanatics control so much of it.

  • Suedmeyer

    The premise of this article is correct! But; ….Jon, I don’t agree with your concept of historical facts about Thanksgiving. Yet; why would I expect anything else from a good Episcopalian? Almost think your intellectually hostile to the Pilgrims/Puritans/Congregationalists of New England, willing to re-write historical local congregational parish records. If I’d not read your “American Gospel”, been an Episcopalian, and a retired clergyman of the UCC (from the Evangelical Church), you could have slipped this one past me. Historical Fact: Congregationalists were practicing a form of the Thanksgiving Celebration many years prior to the 1860’s. The celebration was used as a local church activity in the late fall of each year, similar to Harvest Home Celebrations. Thanksgiving is an historical celebration in certain New England Congregational congregations which goes much deeper into American History than you give credit. I served a Parish near Bangor,Maine who had records of such an event dating prior to 1835. I find this topic interesting since it does find it’s roots in a historical debate you and I hold close. There are two issues I have not seen your comments on:1. If history had tilted slightly in the Continental Congress, the national religion of the USA would have been Congregationalist. True?2. The celebration of “Thanksgiving” is a historical celebration of the most liberal protestant denomination in the United States! God forbid! Jon, some of us just sit back and smile!

  • Tonio

    Excellent commentary! Suedmeyer, were the Congregationalists theocrats like the Pilgrims and Puritans? From what I’ve read about the latter two groups, religious freedom happened in Massachusetts in spite of them, not because of them. The Pilgrims made it illegal to criticize ministers, with the punishment being prison or exile.And Jerry, thanks for the background about the Anglican Church. Those states had no business passing such laws.

  • Jerry

    I agree with a previous post, the premise of this article is correct. However, I am writing to remind Mr. Meacham about some of America’s early religious history. He says “for the nation was founded on the principle of religious liberty- that, at the federal level, no one’s civil or political rights could be affected by his faith or lack thereof.” This is only half the story. For about fifty years after America’s origin as a nation, some states had laws requiring compulsory observance in the Anglican religion. For example, any child born would have to be baptized in the Anglican Church, regardless of the religion practiced by the family. And for a marriage to be recognized as legal, a couple would be required to marry in the Anglican Church. And all adult residents would be required to tithe a portion of their income to the Anglican Church. Regardless of what the U.S. Constitution said, the net effect for those living in states with this strict legal code was the same. They had to practice a government-sponsored religion or face punishment. The reality for many early Americans was not nearly the all-inclusive religious environment some of us may think was the case.

  • KFN

    Ah, I guess it’s lost innocence to think that the thanks given to the Creator or Great Earth by the Native Americans — who shared their abundance at harvest time and their thanks for it — with the early colonists would enter into modern conversations. Without reviewing the history to find out that all my childhood impressions are wrong or simply outdated, I can nonetheless decry a conversation that does not consider that we thank the corn itself and the turkey and the sun and the rains and our neighbors who helped grow and harvest it and who share in its cooking and enjoyment. We are thankful … whatever or whoever the “object” of our thanks, and I am thankful we are!

  • Thomas

    Tonio, the Congregationalists were the Puritans, and they maintained strong control of Massachusetts until about 1691. The Puritan minister Samuel Willard wrote in 1681 that the business “of our first Planters . . . was not Toleration; but were professed Enemies of it, and could leave the World professing they died no Libertines.” The Puritans exiled Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams. Mary Dyer, a Quaker, was hanged by the Massachusetts government. Puritanism lost its force through the eighteenth century and was divided into the Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Unitarians. Massachusetts, however, did have an established religion until the first half of the nineteenth century. Not until the ratificiation of the fourteenth amendment did the national government insist on disestablishment.

  • Tonio

    Thomas, thanks for the background information. I see the 14th Amendment as the federal government doing what the Constitution should have done a century before. I believe in the principle of disestablishment for all governments, meaning no government endorsement of any religious belief. From my reading, groups who insist that American law should be based in Biblical principles often point to the Pilgrims, or at least our national myth about the Pilgrims.

  • jonny2

    jonny14

  • vzgbu hmfq

    whvarmnox rnotgq amweih gquw slrg yxtkwc hmvasbguo