George Washington’s Religious World: Providence, Pluralism, and the Politics of Faith

In the vast and contested landscape of early American religion, few figures have generated as much interpretive complexity as George Washington. More than any other founder, Washington’s religious life resists easy classification.   This is not simply because his private beliefs were opaque, but because his practice and rhetoric reveal a distinctive religious posture that helped to shape American religious pluralism itself.

Washington’s own religious identity was rooted in the Anglican tradition: baptized as an infant in the Church of England and later a committed vestryman and churchwarden, he remained at least nominally within the fold of what became the Episcopal Church in the post-Revolutionary era. Yet in practice his religious behavior was enigmatic: he attended services with no real level of regularity, he supported the construction and maintenance of local churches near Mount Vernon, but seldom, it seems, partook in communion rites that were central to orthodox Christian identity.

Washington's "god talk," which has long been a topic of debate for scholars, has only muddied the waters. In both his private and public correspondence, the choice of language that Washington selected reveals a man who was, at the very least, extremely hesitant to invoke traditional Christian terms.  He rarely invoked “Jesus Christ” by name, instead favoring terms such as “Providence,” “the Deity,” or “the Supreme Being.”

However, to focus solely on Washington’s personal belief system risks overlooking a deeper and more historically consequential dimension of his religious influence: his active role in shaping American religious pluralism. Washington’s religious public theology was remarkably inclusive for its time. During the Revolution he encouraged soldiers of many denominations to worship the god of their choosing and arranged for chaplains from a variety of Protestant traditions in the Continental Army. 

As President, he repeatedly reaffirmed that the new republic would not adopt an established church. In correspondence with Baptist, Catholic, Jewish, and other religious communities, Washington articulated a bold vision of religious freedom that went beyond toleration to equal civic standing for all faiths. In his famous 1790 letter to the Hebrew congregations of Newport, Rhode Island, he wrote that the government “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance,” marking a foundational moment in the pursuit of religious liberty in the American project.

This commitment was not done merely out of political expediency.  In fact, it reflects a theological commitment to the moral and civic value of religious diversity. Washington’s vision did not envision religion as a monolithic public identity, but rather as a constellation of individual consciences grounded in a framework that respected the dignity and autonomy of varied religious expressions.

In this respect, Washington’s religion was not simply a reflection of his inner spiritual life but a living architecture of civic religion --- a set of practices and principles that helped define the relationship between faith and the fledgling republic. He helped inaugurate a civic ethos where the moral force of religion could be acknowledged without imposing sectarian dominance, and where religious liberty was understood as integral to national cohesion rather than a mere afterthought.

Thus, the uniqueness of Washington’s religious legacy lies not in the secret contours of his private belief, but in the public theological grammar he helped to institutionalize: a grammar that acknowledged Providence without sectarian entanglement, affirmed religious expression without establishment, and envisioned a republic in which many traditions could flourish under a shared political covenant.

In the history of early American religion, therefore, Washington stands as a figure whose religious impact is best understood not only through what he believed privately, but through how he shaped the public space in which religion and freedom could co-exist.

The Night Watch in Colonial American Society

In recent years, a tremendous number of subfields within the study of history have gained a great deal of attention by scholars of all stripes.  The development of social, cultural, economic history, along with the study of women, slaves and other groups of people, have added dramatically to the overall corpus that is our understanding of the past.  By endeavoring to better understand these specific subgroups, historians can more fully uncover the mysteries of the past.

One important but neglected subfield has been the arena of “crime studies” particularly in early Colonial America.  As an umbrella term, crime studies encapsulates the study of crime, law enforcement, justice and punishment.  Despite some recent developments, this subfield has gone ignored and neglected by scholars.  As the Late Historian Douglas Greenberg pointed out:

American historiography has ordinarily been nothing if not responsive to the past dimensions of current problems.  Yet when crime remains among the most pressing issues of contemporary public concern, the field of American criminal justice history is only beginning to develop…We Americanists have only infrequently applied new methodologies to the history of crime.  In short, the history of criminal justice in the United States ought to be booming, much as other fields of social history are.  Instead, however, it is moving ahead rather fitfully, and one wonders why this should be so. Why is it that subjects as black history, women’s history, labor history, and a variety of other sub-fields have made great strides in recent years and have produced a considerable body of distinguished scholarship while the history of crime in this country is still in its infancy?[1]

It is important to note that Greenberg made these observations forty years ago, and to this day the subfield of crime studies remains on the outskirts of the historical horizon. 

My endeavor is to attempt to "fill the void" of this historical subfield, and in particular, the subfield of crime studies in early America, by focusing on the night watch systems of both Philadelphia and Boston.  For people of Colonial America, the night watch system was the most obvious form of law enforcement/crime prevention in their daily lives and is the precursor to modern policing. By studying how the night watch impacted people on a daily basis will allow us greater insight into the origins of American policing but also how the earliest generations of Americans understood and dealt with crime prevention methods.  

MY research will focus primarily on the many legal documents that are to be found in both Philadelphia and Boston libraries.  I intend to visit both cities in the near future to study these documents, which include court records, night watch registers and ligers, broadsides, newspapers and other town records.  These documents will provide me with the necessary information from which I hope to "flesh out" how the night watch was effective and ineffective in meeting the needs of the people.  

Several questions are likely to arise in the course of my studies.  For example, was the night watch a welcomed presence for people, or a nuisance?  One should also consider how the night watch dealt with issues of race and gender.  In addition, the night watch dealt almost exclusively with the daily minutia of the common citizen, so how did those of the upper gentry class experience the law enforcement of the night watch (if at all)?  I have decided to juxtapose the cities of Philadelphia and Boston not only due to their size and importance in Colonial America but to see how each system succeeded and failed when compared to one another.  As the largest and arguably most important cities in their respective colony, both Philadelphia and Boston serve as a litmus test for the colonies of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, and since both colonies were founded for different reasons and motivations, a comparison between their night watch systems will be quite revealing.  

Since little to nothing has been produced on the night watch systems of Colonial American cities and colonies, I believe my dissertation is well positioned to potentially (hopefully) make a splash in the overall historiography of crime studies.  A detailed look into the night watch systems of Philadelphia and Boston is both overdue and potentially open for harvest.  It is my hope that this dissertation might shed light on how everyday Americans in colonial society experienced law enforcement measures.  In short, the night watch is the closest and most intimate way in which we can see where the rubber met the road.  It is my contention that the night watch systems of Colonial America best represent how early Americans experienced crime (since watchmen were oftentimes the primary investigators), how they dealt with enforcement (both good and bad) and how the law was actually carried out (since the process of passing laws and enforcing laws is oftentimes quite different). By endeavoring to better understand the relationship of the night watch to their Colonial American citizenry we will be better positioned to see the evolution of American policing, the struggle between crime and enforcement and the way these earliest of Americans chose to interpret the tug-o-war between personal freedom and communal responsibility.

[1] Douglas Greenberg, "Crime, Law Enforcement, and Social Control in Colonial America." The American Journal of    Legal History vol. 26, no. 4 (1982).  Pp. 293.  JSTOR doi:10.2307/844939

John Maynard Keynes and the Great Depression

 

The Great Depression is a hallmark event in American history that has long been a source of debate by economists, politicians and historians.  When attempting to answer the question, “What caused the Great Depression?” the student and scholar alike must look inward to assess what biases, or preconceived notions, are being brought to the table. After all, the historiography of the Great Depression is riddled with copious amounts of partisan sway meant to twist the causes of the Great Depression in order to avoid assuming blame or responsibility.  For this reason, determining the ultimate causes of the Great Depression is no simple task. 

Of the many economic theories that have been presented over the years, the Keynesian theory/model seems to have caused the most controversy.  This model, created by British economist John Maynard Keynes, was an attempt to better understand the origins of the Great Depression by demonstrating how economies, when in depression/recession, are best remedied through increased government intervention and expenditures while simultaneously lowering the tax burden on the working class.[1]  In Keynes’ mind, the value of all money and goods had been rendered virtually worthless since the market had lost all trust in the debt/credit structure of world markets.  Or as Keynes himself put it: 

The immediate causes of the world financial panic—for that is what it is—are obvious. They are to be found in a catastrophic fall in the money value, not only of commodities, but of practically every kind of asset. The 'margins,' as we call them, upon confidence in the maintenance of which the debt and credit structure of the modern world depends, have 'run off.' In many countries the assets of the banks are no longer equal, conservatively valued, to their liabilities to their depositors. Debtors of all kinds find that their securities are no longer the equal of their debts. Few governments still have revenues sufficient to cover the fixed money charges for which they have made themselves liable.[2] 

 In Keynes’ estimation, the key to restoring trust in world markets was for government to take a more active role in “stimulating” the economy, especially since it had done little to prevent the depression in the first place.  The government had a duty to ensure that workers had jobs, even in tough economic circumstances, and to not ensure employment was “capitalism’s greatest cause of inefficiency and human suffering.”[3]  In addition, Keynes argued that it was inappropriate and irresponsible to blame workers for the Great Depression, since the blame (in Keynes’ mind) rested squarely on the inefficiency of governments to prevent the crisis in the first place.  As Keynes himself stated:

It is not very plausible to assert that unemployment in the United States in 1932 was due either to labour obstinately refusing to accept a reduction of money-wages or to its obstinately demanding a real wage beyond what the productivity of the economic machine was capable of furnishing...Labour is not more truculent in the depression than in the boom—far from it. Nor is its physical productivity less. These facts from experience are a prima facie ground for questioning the adequacy of the classical analysis.[4]

For Keynes, the answer was simple.  First, the government needed to spend more money and create more of a “presence” in the struggling economy, and second, cut taxes to relive pressure on the working class.[5] 

In the United States, Keynes’ economic theory was met with mixed reviews.  President Hoover, who clearly elected to take a different approach to solving the crisis, did not put much stock into government intervention in the American economy.  President Roosevelt, however, had a different perspective.  While he too fell short of embracing all of Keynes’ ideas, Roosevelt was a proponent of greater government intervention that took an active role in shaping and assisting the downtrodden economy.  Roosevelt’s “New Deal” certainly drew on many of Keynes’ ideas for greater government presence, but FDR never did accept Keynes’ second suggestion, which was to cut taxes.[6] 

In retrospect, it is easy to pass judgement on Keynes’ economic theory with the advantage of hindsight.  One can easily find evidence to both support and to criticize Keynes’ views and opinions.  As stated earlier, such has been the case with much of the history surrounding the origins of the Great Depression.  But Keynes’ views and suggestions should not be judged from the vantagepoint of 21^st century economists and historians.  Instead, it should be seen in the light of 1930s post-depression experience, based on what was known to the people, at the time, living in the moment.  Seen from that angle, John Maynard Keynes’ economic perspective was extremely valuable, for it placed importance on government giving immediate assistance to the working class. 

  

---

[1] Jahan, Sarwat, Ahmed Saber Mahmud, and Chris Papageorgiou. "What is Keynesian Economics?: Finance and Development." Finance & Development, vol. 51, no. 3 (September, 2014): Pp.53-54, http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fdocview%2F1561748797%3Faccountid%3D12085.

[2] John Maynard Keynes, “The World's Economic Outlook” The Atlantic (May, 1932).  https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1932/05/the-worlds-economic-outlook/307879/

[3] KAUFMAN, BRUCE E. "Wage Theory, New Deal Labor Policy and the Great Depression: Were Government and Unions to Blame?" Industrial and Labor Relations Review vol, 65, no. 3 (2012): Pp. 504.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/24368882.

[4] John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money By John Maynard Keynes (February, 1936).  International Relations and Security Network: Primary Sources. Pp. 13-14. https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/125515/1366_KeynesTheoryofEmployment.pdf

[5] Aspromourgos, Tony.  “Keynes’s General Theory After 75 Years” Economic Record, vol. 88, no. s1 (June, 2012).  Pp. 149-157.

[6] John Maynard Keynes to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, December 16, 1933.  http://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/368/368KeynesOpenLetFDRtable.pdf

Thomas Edison: Business Mogul

 

All of us are familiar with Thomas Edison, the inventor and scientist.  Edison's name is virtually synonymous with invention.  Whether it be the (alleged) creation of the lightbulb, the telegraph, his motion camera or alkaline battery, Edison is forever etched into history as one of America's most successful and accomplished inventors and scientists.  His achievements remain with us and bless our lives even today.  And while these numerous accomplishments should continue to be hailed by historians for generations to come, one aspect of Edison's life is oftentimes ignored: his status as an important American businessman who left a definite and unique impression upon the era in which he lived.  

When studying Edison's life and business prowess, author Neil Baldwin makes some important observations.  First, Edison's brilliance as a marketer, who used his own name in all his ventures.  This gave Edison's businesses, which were not as well-known as his inventions, instant credibility in the eyes of consumers.[1]  Historian Edmund Morris also notes that Edison’s marketing was a stroke of genius, especially when one considers the fact that his competitors often had a better product.  For example, as a proponent of DC (Direct Current) electricity, Edison was forced to construct numerous power stations to supply the necessary electricity to his customers, since DC current loses its power when transported long distances by wire.  Edison’s competitors, who used AC (Alternating Current) electricity did not have to deal with this impediment, and thus had an advantage.  Edison reacted by labeling his competitors as dangerous and offering a service that was less reliable than his own.[2]  Edison himself recognized this strategy when he wrote, “Just as certain as death, Westinghouse will kill a customer within 6 months after he puts in a system of any size.”[3]

Eventually, Edison’s infatuation with DC current would fail as the superiority of AC current became abundantly clear to consumers.  As a result, Edison had to adapt yet another business tactic.  Instead of simply admitting defeat or continuing in a futile battle with a competitor who already has a far superior product, Edison elected to unite his forces with those of his foe.  Edison’s merger with Thomas-Houston Electric, which used AC, allowed Edison to continue operating his business as the new General Electric, which would last long into the subsequent decades. 

This merger cannot be seen purely as a victory for Edison, however.  As author Tom McNichol points out in his book, AC/DC: The Savage Tale of the First Standards War, Edison may have been the public face of the new General Electric, but he had suffered a massive loss.  McNichol writes:

Although Edison was the public face of the company, he owned only about 10 percent of the firm’s stock. The rest was controlled by Wall Street bankers, among them J.P. Morgan. Henry Villard was a financier himself; he had organized the highly profitable Northern Pacific Railroad, and like Westinghouse, was more a dealmaker[4] 

Electricity became a booming industry during the early years of the twentieth century and remained one of the few businesses that remained relatively untouched by the Great Depression.  As Gene Smiley, historian from Marquette University points out, the electricity industry began a mad rush to earn the services of their customers.  Westinghouse, General Electric and other companies began producing not just electricity coverage, but various appliances to help make life for everyday Americans easier and more efficient.^[5]  As can be seen from the charts below, electricity, during the early years of the twentieth century, was a booming business that had tons of promise: 

 

 

Historians note that Edison’s loss in the business arena that was electricity left him at a substantial disadvantage.  Edison was no longer a heavy hitter in the industry but instead had been reduced to a mere side note.  And while their observations are sound, they ignore Edison’s tenacity to remain a part of the game.  Edison did not simply die away, he had to evolve and change, which is why his experience as an entrepreneur is worthy of taking note.  Though Edison could have remained simply a scientific figure, known for his many amazing inventions, he elected to be more.  Edison remained inside a booming American industry that he had not only helped to create, but had seen evolve, even beyond himself.  And while that evolution took electricity to newer heights that even Edison could not imagine or reach, he still managed to remain a relevant and important figure within the business world.     

---

[1] Niel Baldwin, Edison: Inventing the Century University of Chicago Press edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.

[2] Edmund Morris, Edison (New York: Random House Publishing, 2019) Pp. 238-242.

[3] Thomas Edison, in George Westinghouse, Westinghouse Electric Co., October 6^th, 1892.                  http://edison.rutgers.edu/digital/document/SC92085a1

[4] Tom McNichol, AC/DC: The Savage Tale of the First Standards War (San Francisco: Jossey-Boss Publishing, 2006). Pp. 133.

[5] Gene Smiley, “The U.S. Economy in the 1920s.”  EH.net.  Economic History Association.                  https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-u-s-economy-in-the-1920s/

The Transcontinental Railroad and the Dawn of Modern America

On a beautiful spring day in May of 1869, workers and representatives of both the Union Pacific Railroad and the Central Pacific Railroad met in the barren high ground of Promontory, Utah to celebrate the completion of a six-year project meant to join a continent together.  The completion of the first Transcontinental Railroad was more than just a feat of engineering but also a means of spreading economic prosperity and opportunity to remote western lands.  This economic expansion helped to create new opportunities for both individuals, particularly immigrants, and for the United States, whose legitimized federal power in the wake of the Civil War had little opposition to its growth. 

There are numerous sources that help to shed light on how the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad impacted economic growth in the west.   One of the most interesting sources comes from various newspapers of the time immediately following the completion of the railroad.  A plethora of articles on the economic opportunities to be found in the west demonstrate how Americans of the time understood what the Transcontinental Railroad had brought to their nations.  This was particularly true for immigrants.  As one newspaper of the time noted, not only were immigrant workers fundamental to the construction of the Transcontinental Railroad, and to the budding industries that grew in towns along its route, but even foreign investors found opportunities to increase their capital by investing in this grand American expansion west.  “German, Dutch and Austrian bankers [have] left Europe…for the purpose of examining the condition of the work and financial prospects of the railway.”[1]  In his book, The Filth of Progress, historian Ryan Dearinger notes that immigrants, along with Mormons already living in the Utah territory, benefited tremendously from the new railroad.  “In the Utah Territory…the construction of the transcontinental railroad accelerated a new peopling of immigrants and emigrants on a wageworkers’ frontier…These groups, whose brains and brawn built the railroad, would test the litmus of racial democracy in the American West, that place of endless opportunities, a proving ground for national progress.”[2]

In addition to immigrants benefiting from expansion west, the American government found new opportunities to strengthen its control over the republic.  In the wake of the Civil War, western expansion brought with it ample opportunities to influence how expansion westward was to be achieved.  In what became the main stage in a heated political battle, western expansion, and the construction of the Transcontinental Railroad itself, became a heated topic in the halls of government.[3]  Historian Xavier Duran notes that almost every aspect of the Transcontinental Railroad was controlled and oversaw by a nee federal government that was determined to be involved in as many aspects of western expansion as possible.  “Government intervened, although high private profits were expected, because the project involved high political risk.  Competition in Congress over the location of the route and appropriation of the gains of the project caused political deadlock…Subsidies acted to ameliorate the negative long-term effects of political risk – not market failure – on private investment.[4] 

When one compares how the Transcontinental Railroad improved economic opportunities for both immigrants and for the growing United States federal government, it is important to understand how western expansion transformed American economics.  As Historian Richard White points out, “The idea that railroads remade North America and in doing so created the modern corporate world is hardly new…All of the possibilities that arose with railroads seemed magnified in the transcontinentals, which came to epitomize progress, nationalism and civilization itself…All I would change is that they created modernity as much by their failure as their success.”[5]  Historian Robert Fogel emphasizes these points when he discusses how the rise of railroads coincided with the rise of other industries like coal, iron, etc.^[6]

In short, western expansion and the dawn of the modern American economy that accompanied, were the incubators which gave rise to the emerging immigrant working class and the newly legitimized post-Civil War federal government, both of which found new opportunities for growth, expansion and legitimization in the American West.  As America moved west, it also moved into the future.  The archaic models of an American economy, devoted primarily to agriculture and small communities, was replaced with iron, steel coal and rails, carrying on its back a modern interpretation of capitalist economics in which a strong working force, along with an even stronger federal government, existed in a symbiotic relationship that brought with it greater prosperity than ever before. 

---

[1] “Northern Railways to the Pacific.”  The Missouri Republican (St. Louis, MO.: July 25, 1871). Pp. 1.  Newspapers: Publisher Extra.  https://www.newspapers.com/image/666862675/?terms=transcontinental%2Brailroad%2Bjobs

[2] Ryan Dearinger, “Hell (and Heaven) on Wheels”: Mormons, Immigrants and the Reconstruction of American Progress and Masculinity on the Transcontinental Railroad.”  From, The Filth of Progress: Immigrants, Americans, and the Building of Canals and Railroads in the West (University of California Press, 2016).  Pp. 109.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt196331g.8.

[3] “Fight in Both Houses Over Railroad Land Jobs.”  The New York Daily Herald (New York: May 6, 1870).  Pp. 3.  Newspapers: Publisher Extra.  https://www.newspapers.com/image/329421318/?terms=transcontinental%2Brailroad%2Bjobs

[4] Xavier Duran,  "The First U.S. Transcontinental Railroad: Expected Profits and Government Intervention." The Journal of Economic History vol. 73, no. 1 (March, 2013).  Pp. 180.            http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fdocview%2F1326735764%3Faccountid%3D12085.

[5] Richard White, Railroaded: The Transcontinentals and the Making of Modern America (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2011).  Pp. xxi.

[6] Robert W. Fogel, Railroads and American Economic Growth: Essays in Econometric History. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1964). Pp. 296.

B.B. Warfield and "Christless Christianity": A Rorschach Test of Faith

In October of 1912, Princeton Theologian B.B. Warfield penned an important treatise he entitled "Christless Christianity" in which Warfield essentially took to task two groups he believed pose a legitimate threat to the true Christian faith.  The first group, which Warfield characterizes as “the dissidents from Christianity of the most incongruous types,” are summarily rejected for their “philosophy of the unconsciousness.”[1]  The second group, which emerge are the primary target of Warfield’s essay, are the more liberal-minded Christians, who Warfield claims “assert…that Christianity is separate from Jesus” and historical criticism “seriously shatter[s] the very foundations of Christianity.”[2]   

               

This ongoing tug-o-war of theology vs. history; the mystical vs. the palpable; Christianity vs. science, is nothing new.  For centuries scholars and theologians of all stripes have attempted to reconcile (or expose) what appear to be incompatible discrepancies between the historical record and the assertions of scripture.   For Christians devoted to the inerrancy of the Bible and a fundamentalist mindset determined to defend the faith against all enemies, the arrows and sword wounds delivered by the hands of the non-believer are to be expected.  But when the arrows and swords are in the hands of a professing Christian, whose faith and conviction are built upon a desire to bridge the chasm dividing historical data and pious discipleship, the fundamentalist believer might esteem his brother as his foe. 

               

Such is the case with B.B. Warfield.  In his extremely valiant effort to defend Christian orthodoxy as he sees it, the great Princeton theologian sacrifices those who ask sincere questions regarding legitimate historical issues upon the altar of heresy.  He does so, knowing that the world around him is changing.  As science, Darwinism, and other factors threaten to tear down the walls that had sustained orthodox Christianity for centuries, Warfield believed that doubling down on the Christian message would be the correct prescription to help remedy what he believed was an infected Body of Christ. 

And though certainly noble in his intentions, Warfield overstates the crisis at hand by applying European examples of heresy to an American problem.  A quick glance over the footnotes of Warfield's essay reveals that the overwhelming majority of the sources cited to expose liberal Christian theology are German authors.  Rarely does he provide any modern American source material to support his argument.  This does not mean that some liberal American theologians were not thinking in the same light as their German brethren.  However, Warfield does ignore many of the specific and unique differences between Christianity as manifested in Europe (particularly Germany) and in the United States.  Though some similarities existed, and are certainly worthy of note, the differences are equally important to mention.  As historian Susanne Calhoun points out in her article, "Christian Fundamentalism in America: A Cultural History:

Christian Fundamentalism is a distinctly American innovation...The Great Awakenings were perceived as the prelude to God’s millennial kingdom on earth, stirring expectations of Christ’s imminent second coming  New then explores how liberal Christians threatened this worldview through the spread of biblical criticism and the secularization of public education. Millennial thought was defended and furthered by three conservative movements: Millerism (William Miller, 1782-1849), Princeton theology (Charles Hodge, 1797-1878; A.A. Hodge, 1823-86; and B.B. Warfield, 1851-1921), and Dispensationalism (John Nelson Darby, 1800-82). These movements encouraged a literal interpretation of Scripture and fanned the flame of America’s fascination with the Bible’s end-time prophecies.[3]  

In addition to Calhoun’s accurate assessment, American religious historian George Marsden offers a concurring opinion on how Fundamentalist movement had unique American origins that made the American religious experience different from other places on earth.  He writes, “To understand fundamentalism we must also see it as a distinct version of evangelical Christianity uniquely shaped by circumstances of America.”[4]

               

To be certain, the changes to Christianity taking place in Germany were, to some degree, present in the United States as well.  Warfield is to be commended for his desire to protect Jesus the Christ from simply becoming Jesus the historical man from Nazareth.  Or as Warfield himself put it, “It is greater nonsense…to pretend to retain Christ when the historical Jesus has been set aside by science, and faith in Christ has no further personal interest…abandoning the one and retaining the other is nothing but a miserable product of opportunism.”[5]  Yet this quest to safeguard traditional orthodox Christianity cannot dismiss the fact that not all of America was infected with the stain of liberal Christianity.  Historian Sydney Ahlstrom points to this fact when he writes, “The resultant Fundamentalist controversy occurred to a degree in all churches, though it was minor where liberalism was weak or nonexistent…In some denominations the intellectual life had been so neglected by conservatives that the need for a new apologetic was very tardily recognized.”  [6]

               

Keeping Ahlstrom’s comments in mind, B.B. Warfield’s impassioned attack on liberal Christianity is also a reflection of the fact that traditional orthodox Christianity was in desperate need of better arguments to defend the faith, especially in the emerging 20^th century.  Ultimately this is where the divide between Warfield and his fellow conservative Christians differed from their more liberal brethren, and this division has persisted (if not grown) all the way to the current age. 

---

[1] Warfield, Benjamin B. "Christless Christianity." The Harvard Theological Review 5, no. 4 (1912): 423-73. Accessed April 28, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/1507229.  Pp. 423

[2] Ibid, 424, 431.

[3] Susanne Calhoun.  “Christian Fundamentalism in America: A Cultural History.”  The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 65(3): Pp. 706-708.

[4] George Marsden, Fundamentalism in American Culture (New York: Oxford University Press: 2006).  Pp. 3.

[5] Warfield, “Christless Christianity,” Pp. 440.

[6] Sydney Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People (London: Yale University Press, 2004).  Pp. 813. 

My Great-Great Grandmother: Mary Ethel Jones

I have long been a fan of genealogy, so when I saw this assignment for week #6, I was extremely excited to say the least.  And since we are currently living in a pandemic, I thought the following story would be more than appropriate. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

On the surface, the life of Mary Jones probably seems insignificant.  She wasn’t born into money or prestige, and her tragic early death at the age of 25, due to sickness caused by the Spanish Influenza, made her just another lonely statistic of a time long forgotten.  Mary Jones’ life and story probably would not matter to most people, but it matters a great deal to me for one particularly important reason: she is my great-great grandmother. 

As a child, I recall spending time at my grandmother’s house, which was always full of unique keepsakes (my grandmother was a bit of a hoarder).  One of the many items that caught my attentions was an old grave marker which read “Mary Jones Looney.”  I remember asking my grandmother why she kept a gravestone in her home, to which she replied, “It is my grandmother’s, and one day I plan to place it on her grave.”  Apparently, a typo had been made on the grave marker, which is why the marker had never been placed on the grave itself.  My grandma told me of her plan to one day travel to Mary Jones’ grave where she could have an appropriate gravestone placed where her grandmother laid. 

Years went by and eventually my grandmother, who lived a long and wonderful life, passed away. While going through her home, my mother found a box containing the only remaining possessions of my great-great grandmother.  Inside the box were several old post cards from 1907, a handkerchief, a book collecting notes from family and friends, and a small Bible.  Knowing that I was interested in genealogy, my mother elected to give the box and its contents to me, which I consider to be a treasure.  I have spent a great deal of time trying to piece together Mary Jones’ life story. Thankfully I have been able to piece together the major events of her life through genealogical records and family histories. 

Born July 5, 1893 in Fort Morgan, Colorado, Mary Ethel Jones was the 9^th of 11 children.  Her parents, John and Alice Jones, had moved to Colorado from Canada in the hopes of finding better prospects for their family.  Based on family stories, I have learned that Mary’s father (John) was probably a railroad man which would make sense, since Fort Morgan (where they settled) was an important stop at that time for the Union Pacific Railroad. 

Mary Jones’ life was, unfortunately, short and full of tragedy.  Her older brother, Bert (born just 17 months before Mary) died in 1914.  Her Father, John, passed away just two years later, on Christmas Day, 1918.  Family history reports that the family was unable to bury their father for several months, due to the ground being hard and cold. As a result, John’s body was kept in a barn until the spring. 

Death was not the only tragedy to beset Mary Jones.  Her marriage to Lloyd Looney in 1910 proved to be a disaster.  Unbeknownst to Mary, Lloyd was married to another woman in a neighboring city.  When she discovered the betrayal, Mary immediately packed up her two young children (ages 6 and 2) and returned to Colorado, where shortly thereafter Mary contracted Spanish Flu.  Family history tells of how Mary’s oldest child, Ivonne, remembered her mother being removed from the home due to her illness.  Mary grabbed hold of the door frame as the men tried to forcibly escort from the home.  Her nail marks remained in that door frame for several years. It was shortly thereafter that Mary Looney succumbed to the flu and died at the age of 25, on December 18, 2018. 

Unfortunately, my grandmother was unable to fulfill her wish of placing a marker on Mary Jones’ lonely grave.  For 100 years, Mary’s grave remained vacant of any marker or stone and appeared as just a patch of lonely grass in the Brush, Colorado Cemetery. 

Just a couple years ago, I had the unique opportunity of fulfilling a promise made by my   On the 100^th anniversary of her passing, I traveled the two-hour distance to Brush, Colorado where we placed a marker on Mary Jones’ grave.  I marked the occasion by bringing with me the small box of Mary Jones’ possessions I had been given by my mother.  Inside her little Bible, given to her by her Sunday School teacher, I found a handwritten message to Mary which read:

grandmother, to her grandmother.

This is a good book to play by:

to work by:

to live by,

and to die by.

In addition, I found the following note, written to Mary by her mother, Alice, in 1907:

God grant you many and happy years

Till when the last has crowned you

The dawn of endless day appears

And Heaven is opened to you.

Though her life was short and seemingly insignificant, the history of Mary Jones matters not just because she was my great-great grandmother, but because God has given all lives value.  Mary Jones may have endured a great deal of tragedy, sadness and betrayal in her short 25 years on this earth, but as her mother’s wise words remind us all, “the dawn of endless day appears, and heaven is open” to all.  The life of Mary Jones is a powerful reminder to all who wish to study, research and teach history.  All lives, even those which seem insignificant and uneventful, have value and deserve our sincere attention and best effort.  As historians, this should be our commission.  Never forget the "little people" of the past.