coming up next on american history tv, john fea fea poses the question, was america founded as a christian nation? >> tonight we are lucky enough to have dr. john fea join us. let me tell you a little bit about john. he is the chair of the history

epartment. his first book, the way of improvement and the rule of enlightenment in early america examined the relationship between calvinism, cosmopolitanism and an enlightenment some in the 20th century. most recently he has written a istory of the american bible society. john has worked along with the washington post and the new ork daily news. and he has done scholarly articles in the journal of american history.

he will speak about his book "was america founded as a christian nation?" the book was recently rereleased . and an author alled it a remarkably useful guide of navigating the arguments of america's christian origin. at the conclusion of this talk he will to a question answer session. there is a mike in the gallery if you want to ask a question. i will come to the stage, repeat the question, and he will answer it. it is my pleasure to bring dr. fea tonight. please join me in

elcoming dr. john fea. [applause] dr. fea: thank you, it is great o be here in danville at center college. i have never been to this part of kentucky before pre-at i have never flown into lexington before. i've been to louisville if you times, but this part i have not visited. it is great to be here. i'm glad that c-span is here. and the topic i want to talk with you about tonight is a topic that is at the crux of what i do. this book has really been an effort for me to try to make ense of the relationship

between religion, specifically christianity, and the founding f our country. much of the debate over this idea of was america founded as a christian nation, you probably hear this and cable news. much of the debate has been driven by political agendas. if we can just prove america was not founded as a christian nation, we can advance a certain political position. or if we can prove it was founded as a christian nation we need to reclaim that or return to some golden age. nd what people on both sides

of the political aisle try to do, especially as it relates to religion is they cherry pick. and they marshal that evidence to promote their contemporary agenda. when i do a top on -- do a talk on this topic i come o a place where they come with their minds already made up about how they would answer the question. they are really here together and do ammunition and find new historical insight that will help them to continue to propagate whatever cultural or religious agenda they have. the title of my book is there because it is my attempt to think about this question istorically. i don't think it is possible to ver be completely objective as a historian, but what if we

were to think about relationships without 20th-century politics in mind. that may reflect the narrative or the story or some complicated nuance and complex ways of thinking about this question. unfortunately much of this conversation is dealing with politics when it comes to the christian conversation in america. in fact i would argue the title of my book is a bad historical title. it is taking, as i argue in the book, it is taking a question, was america founded as a christian nation?", that really was only asked to any degree of commonality -- it wasn't really asked in american culture until the late 1970's and early 980's. no one at the time of the founding was asking this question in any significant way. so it is taking a 20th-century uestion and superimposing it

n founding fathers who lived n a different time and different place and who are not fighting the same culture wars in the same way we do today. i think that is why it is a bad historical title. the original title of the book is boring. my publisher said if you call this book, "was america founded as a christian nation?", and even put a red white and blue cover on it, they may sell more books. it has done fairly well. what i wanted to do in the

limited time i had to do this is i wanted to reflect on what he founders believed about the relationship between religion and the republic that they were trying to create in the 18th century. and i want to leave ou with five things to think about. when you go home for thanksgiving and debate your parents about this topic, because i know you have all these meaningful conversations about the dinner table, during thanksgiving, let me give you some ammunition to use no matter what side of the question you fall on. the first assertion that i want to make is that americans always believed they were living in a christian nation, or at least

if i can nuance that more, americans up until the 1970's and 80's believe that in one form or another they were iving in a christian nation. if you do not believe america was somehow a christian nation, or you may expand it to a judeo-christian nation. you are in the minority. you are not in the mainstream. the idea that americans believe they were living in a christian ation, i don't mean to say whether or not they were right. i don't mean to suggest they were interpreting the constitution or the founding documents correctly. this is

sort of a historical fact of a life and culture in american history from roughly 1789, the passing of the ratification of the constitution, until the 1980's. when people thought about themselves living in a christian nation, or in some cases aspiring to live in a christian nation, they often don't mean the same thing. of the six and seven pictures you see up there, each one of these people in their own unique way articulated the idea that america was somehow a christian nation. let's take the first person up there. he talked to specifically about acial inequality, racial justice, the judeo-christian

root of our nation. n other words for america to be more dish be a more christian nation we need to solve this problem of race and segregation. we articulate that n strong christian nation kind of terms. it appeals to some ancient christian leaders. there is one example. when the supreme court passed the case -- the holy trinity case, in that case justice brewer wrote the majority of opinions and in hat opinion he said america is

a christian nation and was founded as a christian nation. that didn't necessarily mean there was an established church. he went off on a speaking tour around the country, talking about the idea that america had christian roots. the next guy was a great defender of a movement in the early 20th centuries and in order to make the united states more christian, in order to make a christian nation out of us we need to be more sensitive o social ills. we need to care more, we need to address the structural problems of poverty in our culture. and if we do that america will be a much more christian

nation, using those very words to describe what his ultimate goal was. some of you may be familiar with jerry falwell. writing in the wake of the icentennial. also a host of other things. the removal of prayer from ublic schools there are much more complex conversations bout what he was motivated by. the americans needed to return to christian roots, making the arguments that many founding fathers were christian and we need to get back to the judeo-christian country they created.

when we think of defenders of christian america and american history. we don't think of the pope. the man we see there is very influential in articulating that catholics were at the heart of the building. they helped build america as a hristian nation. look at the mayflower, look at the puritans and the christian origin. it actually says things like you guys think you are the first one here to establish the christian nation. if you want to look at the roots, go to saint augustine florida or go to the spanish ission in the southwest. we were the one to establish christian culture in america. basically saying we were not the christian nation that you think we were. billy graham should be a familiar face to some of you. he could believe america that

she believed america could be a christian say should test christian nation. he held these massive rallies round the world. ne of the first histories in merica, in the first couple of years of the 19th century, and if you read the book it is heavily providential. god uniquely has blessed the united tates.

this is an exceptional nation. this is a christian nation all ver this early book. one of the great female writers of the early 19th century. her brother was young but very ctive. they all of pro to this christian nationalism in a slightly different way. but hey use the language and rhetoric as a christian nation in one form or another. when the book came out we were in the 150th anniversary of the civil war. hat is fascinating is both the

north and the south view than war as a holy war to some xtent. both sides were articulating a view that truly the christian nation and god is on our side. he kind of says no, we are all uilty. both read the bible the same ay. but this is not the way it played out. many northern christians will believe that the union was somehow created by god. it's actually a wig senator itter he refused to join the

republican party in the 1850's ecause it was a party of division. he wants to make sure it is a national sacred division. america was a christian nation. and god specially ordained this nation. to break up or to divide this nation would be seen as an incredible wrongdoing. the confederacy on the other hand, they believe god was on their side. some of you may have memorized the reamble to the united states

constitution. i have heard it through those saturday morning schoolhouse rock, we the people. i can't say the preamble without thinking that song. what we're seeing is the preamble to the federal constitution. ry to figure out what is added to this preamble that is not in the original united states constitution. we the people of the confederates state -- i will give you that one. that is not in the original united states constitution. each state acting in its own independent character in order to form a more permanent and ederal government.

what is missing, what is added? this reference to an invocation of a mighty god. the confederates got a huge amount f mileage. ou think god is on your side in this war? you think we are the christian ation? you don't even have god in the preamble to the constitution. and it got so many northern ministers who came together to orm the nra. this is called the national reform association. national reform association, which had he sole purpose of trying to

put an amendment to the united tates constitution, we are a christian nation. so that we an compete with the south. we see how this religion and christian nationalism plays a role. always believed they were iving in a christian nation. we are always aware of fact there are living in a christian

nation. how about the bible? the bible was important to the revolutionary generation. donald will read all of the writings of the founding father. signed the constitution, signed the state constitution. the bible was cited in their writing more than any other ook. these were very biblically literate people. whether they believe the bible was useful and useful to the construction of the nation. the bible was

cited more than any other book. to be fair to the data, other books, other authors and classical writers, greek and romans, political writers of the day, commonwealth men. other kind of political tracks. if you add up all of the nonbiblical books, they will far exceed the number of times the bible was cited. does that make sense? it depends on what you want to o with that information.

you can work in any way you want. we were a christian nation and the founders believe the bible -- there were more on those -- more on the secular side. in my studies on the use of the bible and the revolutionary generation, i found one of the most popular verses that was cited came from the new testament book chapter five verse one.

you see it up there. stand firm and to not let yourself be burdened by the yoke of slavery. i read up on the way this verse has been interpreted by christians throughout the decades, the centuries. i went back and read some of the earliest christians in the third and fifth century. while here was some variation, i think it is fair to say most christian theologians interpreted this as somewhat dispersed along these lines. the yoke of slavery was interpreted as the -- maybe ven some evil force. and coming in the form of a man through the incarnation, dying or the sins of the world. this

is a standard catholic and ater on protestant interpretation. that's why i was stunned when i was in the archives reading a sermon by a new jersey presbyterian minister in 1775. he was preaching a sermon on

this passage. at least any of his notes are an indication. rather it really meant, what this verse meant was it was metaphorical. we have been set free from that. slavery is also a political term to describe. and then the kicker of this had written their price = continental army. he stood up there and said the sermon means it was preached in the summer of 1775. lexington and concord happened. this is the sermon, this is it -- this is how he interprets it. i'm not a theologian. i cannot say with any degree of certainty whether they correctly interpreted galatians 51. i can say his interpretation is an innovative one when you compare it to the entire history of the way the church has interpretative this verse. there are hundreds of examples like that. i can't even fit it all in the book. scripture is being used by politicians. i think we call that continuity. the bible is clearly being used to promote a olitical agenda.

in this case the american -- the american revolution. let's not let the tories off the ook. i'm going to read this passage to you. i want you to think about the context of 1775. let every soul be subject to the

higher powers. the powers that be are rdained. whosoever resists the power and the ordinance, they shall receive damnation. imagine how an anti-revolutionary would use this text. the king george the third is our god-given authority.

it is to rebel against the authorities. if you keep reading you will find references to paying your ribute, paying your taxes. you can imagine how powerful this verse is used. the bible was extremely important, it was quoted all the time, but i was fascinated with how the bible was used in many cases. third, the constitution, i

would argue, is a godless document. there is no reference to god in the united states constitution. there is one reference to religion and that is article six, which says you can hold a federal office regardless of our religious beliefs. if you look at the first amendment, of course, there are a few references to religion as well. there is the disestablishment clause. there is the free exercise clause. e will not get into how to interpret those. usually, someone in the audience will say during the

q&a, what about in the year of our lord or under god? you got me. it does say "in the year of our lord." it was probably just added on well after they left the convention anyway. what is interesting about this, at the time of the revolution, all 13 of the former colonies also developed constitutions. by 1780, we have 13 separate state constitutions. they are far from godless. let's look at the constitution from my home state of pennsylvania. anyone running for office or signing up to vote and pennsylvania in 1776 had to declare, i do believe in one god. you've got to be a believer of god who creates and governs the universe and i do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration. the constitution said, you can certainly run for federal office but you cannot run for state office. the people of pennsylvania were very interested in having christians to be able to be running our state. if you look at vermont, they do rite a constitution in

777. i love the example of vermont because today it is a bastion of progressivism. bernie sanders, first state to endorse gay marriage. it is almost identical to the ennsylvania constitution except that it is even more limiting. you need to be a protestant. his is the case in a large number of state constitutions and then there are other states

that continue to have a religious establishment. maryland, all of these states have an official church in which your taxpayer money goes to support the ministers of that church whether you belong to that church or not. if you are a baptist in massachusetts in 1810, you are paying a religious tax that will pay the salary of the congregational ministers because the congregational ministers, congregationalism is the established church. the last state to get rid of this is massachusetts in 1830. was america founded as a christian nation? it gets tricky now. what was a nation? under the articles of confederation, the government before the constitution, each individual state had sovereignty.

some of these states had clearly christian establishments. the rare example is virginia. you have this classic showdown. you have these two so-called founding fathers. you have patrick henry on one side. he is the advocate of what becomes known as the general assessment. henry's ideas, we get rid of the established church in virginia, which was the anglican church, we get rid of that, and we still have a religious tax, but everybody will pay the tax and the money will go to their own enominational ministers. if you do not have a religion,

it will go to help the poor. it is still a tax on religion. the state government is making. then you have the madison-jefferson camp. we need to keep government out of religion. nd vice versa. you have massachusetts, virginia, pennsylvania, vermont. is the nation unified yet? some historians argue there is not really a nation until after the civil war. we historians who like to make the smooth places rough. how do you sort that out when you are asking the

question? after everything i have just aid, the founders were champions of religious freedom. every founding father defended the right of human beings to worship god in the way they saw fit or not worship god at all. here we have the 1786 virginia statute of religious liberty. written by thomas jefferson. 1790, george washington writes a letter to the jewish congregation in newport, rhode island, the oldest existing synagogue building. he says, i will affirm your

right to worship freely without persecution from the federal government. religious liberty is celebrated. someone may ask me later, what would the founding fathers believe about our religious debates today? have no idea. they gave us some basic principles about religious liberty that we should defend. they could not imagine some of the issues we are debating

today. the same founding fathers all defended the right to worship freely. that does not mean and pennsylvania or vermont, you will not be in government, you will not be able to vote or hold the position in government. we will let you worship as free as you want but we want just christians or protestants, in some cases, to serve in political positions. it is fair to say that the founding fathers believed that religion was good for the republic. we need to remind ourselves of something. the founding fathers were not pastors. they were not theologians. when they talked about religion, they were not talking about religion in a way that, here is what you need to

believe to get to heaven or to be right with god. they were faced with the task of building a republic. and they knew, because they took history 101, they took world history, western civ, they knew that in order for republics to survive, people needed to sacrifice for the greater good of the republic. they called this virtue. it was a political idea, virtue. virtue was a very masculine quality. all of the founders believed that if religion was a way in which we could teach american citizens how to do that, how to be virtuous, as defined in the 18th century, it would be useful to the republic. in other words, religion was nly useful if it taught people to think about something higher than themselves and it would

only be useful if we could transfer that sacrificial idea to politics. i am convinced -- their emphasis on christianity was understood in the context of their primary goals, to build a virtuous republic. mericans always perceive themselves to be living in a christian nation. the bible was important to the founding generation. the founding fathers created a godless constitution but did not create godless state constitutions, for the most part with the exception of virginia. the founding fathers defended religious liberty. the founders believed religion was good for the republic. there is more in the book, but hese are the key themes we

have to consider at the thanksgiving table when we start to debate, did the ounding fathers really believe they were founding the hristian nation? what was the relationship between christianity and the american founding? thank you. > all right.

questions. dr. fea: if you are up there, it is hard to see. the lights are in our eyes. >> >> after this book, did dr. fea come to a conclusive answer? dr. fea: if i had a dime for every time that was the first uestion. as a historian, i want to make the smooth places rough. the human experience can be a complex experience. it is hard to put into lack-and-white categories.

you could make an argument that the founders believed christianity was important to the republic in terms of the last and i made about the role of virtue and sustaining a virtuous republic and in terms that many of them believe the kind of people they wanted running their country where people who were of christian faith. the strongest argument, the state constitutions and the virtuous republic are the strongest arguments to make in favor of the idea that america was founded as a christian nation. this is an historical treatment. it is almost impossible, except for demographics, it is hard to make an argument after the civil war that america is somehow a christian nation and that is because of the 14th amendment. it says that states must abide

by the bill of rights. it is designed for slavery, right? the states have to -- they can no longer make their decisions regarding slavery but later in the 20th century, the 14th amendment was applied to eligion and the argument went, you can no longer say as a state, we have an established church. that would violate either article six of the constitution or the first amendment. the states, on religious issues, must conform to -- they may not like it, but they are legally bound to conform to the bill of rights or article six. it is very hard on that front to make an argument that

america today is a christian nation. look at the states. that does not apply anymore after the 14th amendment. like it or not, that is not apply anymore. there are ways you could argue no, too. i did not talk about the religious beliefs of the founding fathers. the idea that the constitution is godless. it is a complex 18th century problem, 18th-century question. rather than in the way this question is debated today, where we cherry pick what we ant from the past. i do not think it is a helpful question today. so yes and no. >>

inaudible] >> the question is, how does this research inform our understanding of the culture wars today? dr. fea: going into this book, i tried to be as objective as possible. i would be lying if i said i did not go in with a preconceived idea. i was telling some students how i first came upon this book. i am a christian, i attended congregation in which people ask me a lot about this. they still do. many ordinary churchgoers do

not sit in the pew with a phd in history. when they talk to me, what do you think about this idea? it is a conversation starter. the crude answer to why i wrote the book is so i would not have to keep answering. i went to it trying to hallenge the notion that i see on the religious right of this promotion of the idea that we are a christian nation as an essential part of the culture war. that we can win the culture war if we can just get thomas efferson on our side or we can

appeal to george washington or something in the founding that talks about god or religion. i would watch these efforts made by very popular people with very large followings within certain christian communities make these arguments in a very half-baked, poorly historically researched kind of way. i am very interested in writing for public audiences and i thought this might be something that would be able to help people make sense of this. i went in with a little bit of an ax to grind. i left the project with a much greater appreciation for the role that religion did play, for good or for bad, in the founding period. it forced me to say, do these people have a point, these christian right people have a point? then i started reading more of the secular critique, which is sometimes just as bad. sometimes it is worse. a whole flood of books in the

1990's and 2000, moral minority and american fascist. all of these scathing criticism of the founders being, it was almost like they were all atheists. i was not getting that out of my research either. i developed a much greater appreciation of both sides of this debate. i am not a culture warrior. i find it reprehensible. i want to get people to talk to one another. i hope this book has gotten some people to have a nuanced iew on both sides. am not sure if that has happened or -- yeah, i learned something about both sides and i especially learned something bout the christian right and the role of religion in the period of the founding. to give a more thoughtful

answer to those who i was trying to write the book against to begin with. >> >> how does this research talk about the one nation under god insertion into the pledge? dr. fea: some of you today were in the politics class. it is important to get some historical context behind the idea of one nation under god in he pledge of allegiance. the pledge of allegiance did not originally include the hrase under god. it was added in the 1950's by the eisenhower administration. under god was added as a way of distinguishing the united states from those godless communists, if you will, of the

soviet union. talk to older americans, especially from mainline protestant or evangelical congregations, godless communist is one word. to show that we are god-fearing people. that is the context behind us. i did not do an extensive review. there is a great book called "under god," in which he unpacks this better than i can't standing up here now. part of the issue is there is this appeal, especially after world war ii, to -- eisenhower had the famous saying, everybody should have a faith or a religion, i do not care what it is. under god, the context comes from that. i am not aware of any sort of direct appeals to the founding during those debates.

but i could be wrong. >> dr. fea: how do you think about a christian nation as a more fluid concept? after the civil war, you could no longer call the united states a christian nation. that does contradict something i said in the talk. the point is, is there a distinction between having a ecular state versus having a maybe a christian culture or christian ethos. inaudible]

dr. fea: how do you think about a christian nation as a more fluid concept? after the civil war, you could o longer call the united states a christian nation. that does contradict something said in the talk. the point is, is there a distinction between having a secular state versus having a maybe a christian culture or christian ethos. that is a fair point.

americans have always understood themselves to be living in a christian nation. after the supreme court interpreted the 14th amendment in terms of religion and specially the famous 1947 case in which justice black said there is a wall of separation and united states and that wall is high and impregnable. you could say the supreme court has said we are essentially a secular state, right? that does not mean, though -- that is 1947. 1950, you have something close to the third great awakening. people flocking to churches, troops coming back from world war ii and joining churches, and you have the rise of people like billy graham, mainline protestantism.

demographically, we remained a christian culture. in terms of the official holidays we celebrate and get off of school, they are driven by christian ceremonies and rituals and the christian calendar. you could -- we were talking about 1965 and the immigration ct where you see large numbers of non-western bringing non-christian forms of religion. i think it is fair to say if you wanted to define what a christian nation is by the constitution and the relationship between church and state at the highest levels of overnment, no.

but culturally, it lingers for a long time. i think that answers your question. >> i think we have time for one more question. >> >> do you think christianity has had an overall positive or negative effect on america? dr. fea: i am an historian. anybody here could answer hat. anybody here could answer that differently. depending on their political views or their understanding -- it is a question -- donald

says, let's make america great again. historians are not in the business of declaring whether or not -- we are interested in what "again" means. hat do you mean when you say again? the reagan era or the 950's? i am not sure historians, by their vocation and their calling, are in the business of saying whether or not that was great. have opinions about whether the 1950's was great. my african-american friends have opinions about whether or not the 1950's was great. my female friends have opinions on whether or not the founding was great.

you could make a compelling case and say, you could make a ompelling case on both sides of the question. throughout the course of of american history, christianity has been used to do some incredibly positive things and has been the source of horrendous things. we could turn to things like slavery, justified by christianity. i will punt, sneak out of that question and say it is above my pay grade. >> i would like to thank you guys for being a good audience and i would like to thank dr. fea. dr. fea: thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> you're watching american history tv.

c-span us on twitter, @ history for information on our schedule and to keep up with the latest history news. next, national park service ranger lee white talks about the confederate army of tennessee's failed assault of the battle of franklin in november 1864 after william sherman began his march to the sea, john belford hood engaged his forces on the way to national. assaulte argues this was more devastating to confederates than the picket't's charge at gettysburg. this talk is about an hour. >> it is my pleasure to introduce our friend lee white. he has been with the park service since 2000. we can literally say lee has spent his whole life on the