significance of the virginia statute for establishing religious freedom teaches far beyond the borders of the old dominion. its influence ultimately extended to the supreme court's interpretation of the separation of church and state. today'satest book, speaker tells the story of that statute, beginning with its background and the struggle of colonial dissenters with an oppressive church of england. displacing an established church by instituting religious freedom, the virginia statute divided the most substantial guarantees of religious freedom in any state of the new nation. the effort to implement jefferson's statute has even broader significance in anticipation of the conflict that would occupy the whole court after the supreme court nationalized the clause in the first amendment. buckley sj is

currently in the university of los angeles. he taught there for 22 years after receiving his doctorate from santa barbara in 1973. from 1996 until 2012, he was the professor of modern christian history at the jesuit school in berkeley. studied at boston college and bikini university in beijing. theresearch is focused on relationship of church and state in the united states. he is the author of church and state and revolutionary virginia and "the great catastrophe of my life: divorce and the old dominion." his latest book is "establishing religious freedom." vhs. an old friend of the

he described himself as a vhs and seek a few moments ago, which i think is somewhat self rep -- self-deprecating. he has spoken your in the past. it is a real treat to have him latest talk about his book. please join me in a warm vhs welcome for tom buckley. [applause] >> thank you very much, paul. it is really nice to be back here again. it is my home away from home when i am in richmond. in 1878, the chief justice of the united supreme court -- if i can make this thing work -- there he is. he looks like an antique there himself. [laughter] in 1878, this chief justice had a major case to decide.

congress had recently outlawed polygamy. the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints was asserting a right to practice later me on the grounds of the free exercise clause of the first amendment. for the first time the supreme court was going to roll on that amendment. the chief justice was concerned. he wanted to get it right. to whom would he look? where would he go yet go to history, of course. he consulted his old friend and neighbor in washington, d.c., george bancroft. george bancroft, the most distinguished american historian of the era. he should lookat to the works of thomas jefferson -- i was going to say alexander hamilton. [laughter] wrong state.

thomas jefferson and james madison. and especially the history of the passage of the statute for establishing religious freedom. he followed that advice. and his decision in reynolds versus the united states fixed to the course the supreme court has followed ever since in its reliance on the virginia statute. the relationship between church among the most enduring concerns of weston -- westernion civilization. but this is embraces the two subjects that my mother said i should never talk about in public -- religion and politics. [laughter] andother was a wise woman, she was absolutely right. but the topic was just too fascinating for me to pass up. church andstions of state, of religion and politics,

they embrace our deepest human concerns. how are we to live together as a place, if any,t will god hold in our society -- in our society? over the centuries various solutions have been attended. in america the most important resolution came right here, and virginia. it is the most important because the history and the documents of the virginia church state settlement became the basis for a way in which the supreme court would interpret the first amendment. recall how that amendment against. congress shall make no law. it did not apply to the states until the 1940's. , they had been

there in reynolds, but they came back to the virginia story in the 1940's to look at the history of the controversy again as a nationalized the first amendment. a virginia story. it is a virginia story. but it has national and now with ,eclarations of human rights international ramifications. the centerpiece is thomas jefferson's famous statute. the history of that statute from its colonial background, its passage through the general assembly, and the subsequent interpretation of the state is lived history. it is live to history in virginia. for a century and a half. that is the subject of this book. -- back up to the beginning

shortly after the foundation of 'smestown in 1607, virginia colonial government established the church of england in law. it became in time the strongest legal establishment in any of the british colonies. what does establishment mean? astutetshell, as one anglican clergyman explained at the time, the colonial church was incorporated and blended with the state. incorporated and blended with the state. church and state. but by the middle of the 18th this did not sit well with the growing ranks of religious dissenters. particularly be presbyterians and baptists.

establishedged that church's hegemony and they found an ally in enlightenment thought as embodied, for example, in the works of jefferson and madison. like jefferson and madison objected to the language .f toleration tolerating churches that were not part of the establishment. they didn't like toleration. it insisted instead on complete religious freedom. in 16language prevailed articles of the virginia declaration of rights in 1776 and found its fullest expression a decade later in jefferson's statute. by this time, most virginians accepted the principle that people were entitled to religious liberty, but they thought about its implications.

for example, a term like religion was susceptible to different meanings. pardon me, as- george mason wrote in the virginia declaration of rights, religion was the duty we owe to our creator. think about that. religion as duty. jefferson in the statute would speak about religion as opinion. most virginians believed that to have a republican system of government, you had to have virtuous citizenry. rested on the citizenry. so, they had to be people of virtue. but virginians disagreed on how you foster that virtue. patrick henry would say religion

and the church fostered virtue. jefferson preferred education and the schoolhouse. or then again, what was the state's role in all of this? a real contentious point was individuals have rights -- on this there was broad agreement. but did believers, believers who formed a church, did they have ? did theyate rights have any legal status? what if they wanted to be incorporated? [laughter] did, what was that church's relationship to the political community?

so, there are many issues at play here. after the american revolution, the established church of england reorganized itself into the protestant episcopal church in virginia. the state incorporated it as such in 7084 and reconfirmed its title to all of the colonial churches and property. at the same time, in 1784, the aneral assembly considered religious assessment, a bill that would tax everyone for the support of the religion of their choice. dissenters now cried foul. the saw in the corporations episcopal church and the assessment proposal as a packaged deal. in their mind, it was designed to revive the old established church, which had persecuted them and oppressed them. and after a massive petition

campaign -- a massive petition campaign -- this incredible online collection you can access , ledis incredible campaign by the baptists and the presbyterians and assisted by madison's famous memorial against religious assessment, after this campaign the legislature approved jefferson's statute by an overwhelming vote. so, it is in this context that the general assembly approved jefferson's statute in 1786. the next year, it repealed the episcopal incorporation act, and a dozen years later, after a relentless petition campaign, led this time by the baptists, the legislature responded by voiding all previous laws

dealing with religion, and there was a welter of them in virginia. repealed,laws were except jefferson's statute for establishing religious freedom. whoops, i did the wrong thing. imperfect world. there we go. that became the standard for interpreting virginia's bill of rights and constitution. , in the most02 remarkable socioeconomic revolution in revolutionary america, that is for any state in the new union -- the legislature reneged on its that theuarantees episcopal church would maintain all the churches and property of the colonial era. andeneged on those promises provided for the seizure and the property, alle

the farmland property held by that church. in enormous amount of land across virginia. no other state did that. this was a real revolutionary seizure of property that had been guaranteed. however, however, the legislature decided that the churches and the church plates and the burial vessels could be left in episcopalian hands. in a stunning burst of naïveté, the general assembly acclaimed that this law was designed "to reconcile all the good people of this commonwealth." [laughter] have theation did not chance of a snowball in hell. and a half, century

as evangelical protestantism becomes the dominant religious force, virginians wrangled over numerous church-state issues. how free was the church? , in civilbelievers society. jeffrey was the church? -- how free was the church gecko could hold property? on absolute separation of church and state, the legislature interpreted the statute to forbid the legal incorporation of churches and church sponsored institutions. numerous consequences that the legislature had not really thought through. so, for example -- here in richmond, joseph gallico of gallico mills died and left a bequest to the local catholic community to build a church. when he made the bequest in his

court voidedginia the bequest on the ground that while the request had been made, there was no into d in known law -- it could see in known law to receive the bequest. for a church to hold property without elaborate subterfuges to decades to achieve. and even then the amount of land the church could own was very carefully fixed by the legislature in the bill. again the voters of mathews county in tidewater elected humphrey bill is to the house of delegates in 1826. although no petition for mathews or elsewhere challenged his election, some legislatures -- legislators wanted to disqualify him on the grounds that he was a methodist preacher.

of 1776's constitution specifically excluded clergy from serving in the assembly. but 10 years later, in the same building, the legislature approved jefferson's statute for religious freedom. of preamble, the preamble jefferson's statute, proclaims that a religious test for holding public office violated natural rights and religious tests. violated natural rights. the clause concluded this way. religious opinion should not diminish, enlarge, or affect anyone's civil capacity. what about mr. billups? what about his rights and civil

capacity? in refusing to seat him in the legislature, the committee argued that "while our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinion, yet our ancestors intended to keep separate church and state." now an historian happening on that scene might have fairly inferred that the separation of church and state had not been the is simply's intent when it wrote the constitution in 1776. but rather that is the interpretation that jefferson, in 1802, gave the first amendment. and later virginians gave jefferson's statute. so, separation of church and state. that occurs for the first time in the danbury baptist letters. you can search the online collections of the library of

and all petitions. nobody talks about separation of church and state. that was jefferson's felicitous phrase and i'll virginians began to say, that is what the statute of religious freedom means. thanks to humphrey billups and the mathews county voters, the foundators in 1827 themselves entangled in church-state controversy. now surely we can sympathize with that. liberty andligious the respective claims of church and state have repeatedly divided our courts and our nation. the cases are familiar ones. church property, for example. how much? should it be tax-exempt? sabbath observance.

it is in the law of god. do we put the law of god into our human long? -- human law? legislature. some say we need more prayer for the legislature. [laughter] but prayer in the legislature. always knock the legislature. that is the safest way to get a laugh. we all know that. a chaplain -- should the legislature have a chaplain. if so, who should pay for the salaries? public funding for parochial education? observance. so forth. well over 150 cases have been litigated in the supreme court decision,1947 everson in which the supreme court

extended the first amendment's establishment clause to the states. speaking for the court, justice hugo black pointed out that the virginia statute had in effect offer the most in clad guarantee of religious liberty in the new united states. the first amendment, black concluded, intended to provide against protection government intrusion on religious liberty as the virginia statute had afforded. minority, justice rutledge embraced black's -- "noetive approach provision of the cost edition is more closely tied to or given contents by its generating history than the religion clause of the first amendment. indeed, the virginia statute belongs to the warp and woof of

our constitutional tradition." inm the court's perspective 1947, the first amendment stipulated strict separation of church and state. not just in terms of the federal government now, but in terms of all the states in the union. ,his was a wall of separation as the justices quoted jefferson's letter to the danbury baptist's. at the beginning of the 19th century, and even before the controversy over billups, virginians made similar claims. , virginia'sect church-state relationship differed notably from other states. but simply asserting separation language and invoking the first

amendment has not solved the church-state problem in america. nor does it appeal to the , settled church-state controversies in the old dominion. in his prize-winning study, a joseph ellisk, expressed the received, popular, and scholarly wisdom when he 's most that jefferson enduring legacy -- most enduring religious freedom defined as complete separation of church and state." but what did complete separation mean? ellis didn't say. so, establishing religious freedom, establishing religious livedm explores the

experience of the statute in the old dominion and its prolonged and exhausting arguments -- and they were exhausting -- four church-state separation. 19th century virginians were largely evangelical protestants who wanted their society to culture inchristian areas such as marriage and education. so should the state permit divorce? the bible forbids it. remarriagevorce and places the state in opposition to the express command of christ's in the new testament. and certainly at violated the anglican tradition embedded in virginia's colonial history. it required this explosive issue sex before the

legislature finally approved a single divorce, its first divorce, and the beginning of the 19th century. and not until the 1850's did these state constitution make provisions for the courts to handle divorce. church-state? explosive, the area of education. education was a huge battleground. the legislature became very methodists' the trustees of schools asked for charters. could the legislature do that? could you charter a church related school? crossed the boundary line between separation of church and state? now those universities would get their charters, but only with

the express proviso that as it was chartered by the state, it could never have on its faculty a professor of divinity or theology. have ifce did religion any then in secondary and elementary education? there is a great juxtaposition from mr. jefferson's university to the humble one-room schoolhouse. . place that religion has virginia did not even have a public school system, as you probably know, until after the civil war. , then the fight pitted two prep is there in -- presbyterian ministers against each other. wepner and dabney.

the legislature proposed william henry ruffner is the first superintendent of public instruction. ruffner resigned from the ministry before taking that position. , a robert lewis dabney presbyterian minister, argued van medley against public education on both racial and religious grounds. if you had public schools for everybody, they would have to educate then the newly emancipated slaves. for dabney, that was a waste of money. , dabneyortant though argued that the state could not have any religious teaching in the schools because they were public, and therefore fell under jefferson's statute. religionuld not have taught in the school, but

education without religion was blasphemy in his book. so virginia should not have any public schools. back -- ruffner fought back. his position on the schools was very careful. there was no need, he argued, to any any law or institute regulation that would surpass religious education or the bible into the curriculum. you do not pass any laws, you do not institute any regulations that require the bible or any aspect of religion to be part of the education. you don't need it, he said. you don't need it. religion will come in on its own , if the people want it. if the people want god in the schoolhouse, god will come in. the students and the teachers will bring god in.

lay downno need to laws or formal procedure. he called that the virginia system. later, this was not good enough for the richmond school authorities. there is that old song "fools rush in where angels fear to tread." the virginia school authority debated a resolution to require bible reading. it was being used informally in the virginia schools. but someone at it specified. some wanted it specified. the forces lined up on either side. those in favor of specifying the bible in education included most protestantens' clergy. the two chief opponents were very interesting. the first major opponent was the rabbi --

he said there is no place to have religion required in the schools. the school should be completely secular. his was a very lonely voice. of first pastor baptist came back from vacation and got up on the pulpit and said the same thing. upholding the baptist tradition of church-state separation. the reverend mcdaniel agreed with rabbi calisch. there was no need to tinker with s for genius system, they are cute. and the school board eventually sided with them. matters ofdebated church and state and legislative petitions, courthouse arguments,

in the newspapers, and assembly sessions, church meetings, and for conventions. , theyirginia convention drafted a new constitution. the church-state issues come dragging up again. establishing religious freedom -- this book traces that history. it explores how and why the revolutionary generation of virginians rejected the established model in favor of jefferson's statute. how they and the later generations of virginians are perceived to use and abuse that statute. the revolving understandings of church-state separation and the ever changing and shifting cultural context that determines the settlements. you know, history is wonderfully instructive. --sider virginia's history

consider virginia's history as a dry run for what happens in america since the supreme court nationalize the first amendment and took over the interpretation , applying it to the states. as the last session of the court demonstrated, the session which just concluded, the struggle to find a balance between the competing claims that church and state, religion and politics -- that struggle is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. disturbs mr.f it jefferson. how often does he roll over in his grave as he tries to a reverendbetween robertson and a reverend falwell, for example? isn't it funny between virginia lynchburg, they buried

thomas jefferson. [laughter] movenk those bones must quite a bit. but his work indoors. his work indoors. it has been a triumph in many ways in virginia history. it has been a model for the and now it ishole fascinating to see this thing move in international law. thank you very much. [applause] sent on now, there may be some questions. yes, sir. yes, sir. thank you very much. the statute was 1886 and shortly thereafter it was in the constitution. what were some of the sociological and economic

factors that drove the nation toward this religious freedom? freedom,the religious it was not just the nation, i mean it wasn't just virginia. those colonies that had already had religious freedom, places like pennsylvania and rhode island. other placese where the churches were established in different ways, like massachusetts. amendment, in many ways, when the constitution was drafted, they knew they were going to have to deal with the subject of religion, but the country was so pluralistic, you a single have required religion. nationally, it would not have worked. if you want to have the country work economically, politically, socially, you couldn't have a one church. so, the first amendment comes out of that.

the constitution of virginia that not embody that statute until 1830. but the rest of the country looked to the virginia model and thought, it seems to work pretty well down there. that had after state places, there were places where they had a church-state relationship, like massachusetts for example, and connecticut, and new hampshire. they got rid of those. so, the virginia model becomes national in the states. i don't know if i answered your question. i probably didn't. [laughter] but there were several parts to it. start -- sir? please. anything more? >> other questions? we have a microphone year and a microphone here.

>> thank you. the everson decision -- what was the legal basis for the court to extend the first amendment to the states? ,> what was the legal basis since the first amendment itself says congress shall make no law. >> had a date extend that to the states? >> i think they'd already done that. do not know the justification , extendingson case it to the states. i think it was a mistake. [laughter] i think the supreme court got himself involved in a whole mess by trying to decide every single state's issues. i think it was an issue best left to the states. that is just my opinion, and it is a little late. [laughter] it is a little late. i don't know. maybe there was a bases. there are some lawyers present

that can clarify -- hal in the world did they get into this mess? i think they just asserted it. in the middle. >> do you feel the recent decision allowing sectarian prayer at political or legislative meetings is consonant with jefferson's statute? casee way they made that -- i have read that case. that seems to be ok with me. i think it would be very offensive if they did not allow prayer. i think continually trying to push religion out of the public marketplace is a mistake. the question is, how does it get in? how do you allow it in? do you would allow it in on a nonstick terry and basis? sectarian basis? you rouse the series if you try to kick god out of the public

square in america. because god is going to be there. [applause] thei think that is because people want religion to have a place in our political society. you know what is fascinating about that? that is a great question. that is a great issue. what is fascinating about that is when you see how this works in france. -- lazy day system -- really rigid separation. is beginning, it to come apart at the seams. ever so gently in a very, very secular society like france. it is beginning to crack. >> it is very interesting and you have raised a side comment jefferson'ss

religious freedom being put into international law. in thinking about the establishment of democracies and republican form of government, we fight over religion and government, but the two go pretty well together. and government, do they go well together? in democracies -- yeah, i think pretty well. if you look at the model we have in the united states and canada and western europe or europe in now.al -- i mean, africa i think they kind of go together. the trouble is the politicians will often try to use religion to get into office and so forth. but you know, you have to

balance all of that off. i think some of the best things america has ever done in our history has been done with a strong underlying strain of religion. whether it is abraham lincoln trying to explain the civil war to the american people in the second inaugural address -- magnificent. abraham lincoln, the greatest theologian ever to sit in the white house. or whether it is lyndon johnson talking about civil rights in religious terms. i mean, i think -- some of the greatest achievements in this country have been founded on religious principles. and why is that so? it is so because the american people share those. you know. how do you appeal? have you get a person to go off

to war and die for one's country ? unless somehow he or she knows that god has a role to play in all of this? i don't know if that answers your question. >> [indiscernible] there -- n back >> please. come to you from matthews. first, i want to thank the historical society for doing these events. i have been a member for many years, and i can tell you, the little cost is far outweighed by the education and entertainment of the events put on here, and i appreciate that. the question i had, the three churches you showed, i believe were christchurch and weems and abington gloucester. othernot recognize the one, so i'd appreciate knowing

that. i think it very interesting that mr. jefferson and mr. lincoln are two presidents that belong to no organized religion, and yet their impact on religion is far outweighed by that fact. thank you. >> you know, i think yorktown was the other church. and you must know mr. billups' family. [laughter] pardon me? i know the billups family. and also mr. john cook, one of the greatest speakers we ever had in the legislature of virginia, too. >> if i could get a picture of humphrey billups, i would love it. can't find him anywhere. sir, please. >> thank you. how would we handle the

muslims in the sharia law they want to bring in? >> that is a great question. [laughter] all, i think of many muslims, muslims who come to the united states want to come to this country on our terms. they don't want to bring in sharia law. certainly the women don't want it. we have to worry about that. you know, what i would suggest we do is take a hard look at how europe deals with this. look at our forebears over there. see how europe deals with it. i think we're ok. >> excuse me. i thought the british had a community around birmingham that permitted this -- >> not sharia law. sharia law does not supersede

english law, british law. >> the thomas jefferson or any of the subsequent courts delineate between spirituality and religion? >> not that i know of. not that i know of. is aold term spirituality relatively new term you know. we would have called it aesthetic goal theology. spirituality is kind of a new thing. i'm not religious, i'm spiritual. that way of talking. that is a new kind of thing. >> yes, i recently heard on public radio and offer -- an author discussing a book on a similar subject and he made reference in the 19th century to a significant group of americans

, i think, who supported separation of church and state based on an anti-catholic interpretation of that, in the anse that they did not want religion that had a pope, if you will or a political head who headed up the entire religion. can you address that? >> sure. you know, that was one of the great fears of letting catholics into this country. the question about sharia law and the muslim population imagine thean you terror it struck and the hearts of americans to think that the catholics would come in in great numbers? and the next thing coming over was the pope. [laughter] well, they thought that. in fact there is a wonderful book written a clergyman in the 1850's about how the pope was going to move into the omesissippi river for and r was going to be replaced by

cincinnati. [laughter] somehow i don't think that would cut it. but he might have one at southern california. wanted southern california. that is a very good parallel, i think. and there was. and there were grounds for fearing this because of the way in which the church made certain statements about the way government should be organized. and catholicism should be the dominant religion. getthat really did not erased until vatican ii and his declaration of religious freedom. so, thank you for that. >> i look around this room and i see my generation and such, but i am worried a younger generation that seems to be moving away from a religious connection might move forward and we lose this protection of

.hurch and state separation do you see that moving or am i just the evening goofy -- or am i just being goofy? depends onit all your perspective. from my perspective, i do not see the students and this next generation of young people moving towards anything other than what we have now. a lot of them are very enthusiastic evangelicals. but an awful lot are not. i think they are going to have to duke that out later on, and i am not going to be around to see it. but i'm not worried about it. of fought our own tradition of church-state liberty and mutual respect in such a way, i think if we inched -- if we teach that the schools, private or public schools, if we teach that in our churches, our synagogues, our

temples, i think it is going to be fine. and i think people who come to this country that are not part of this addition you will become part of our tradition when they come. why? they will look around and they will say, people are not killing one another over religion. so, that is a good thing. >> no other questions? [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> you are watching american history tv. 48 hours of programming on american history every weekend on c-span3. follow us on twitter schedule,ory for the upcoming programs, and to keep up with the latest history news. 24,years ago on august

1814, british forces injured washington, d.c. and burnaby capitol building, the president's house, and most of the federal buildings. vogel, author of "through the perilous fight -- six weeks that saved the nation" .akes us on a river tour the troops move down pennsylvania avenue down to the white house. dolly and james madison had to earlier.mber of hours the british along the way stopped and talked to some madisons, asking where was, and were somewhat disappointed to learn he had left the city. they passed a tavern on the