America's True History of Religious Tolerance
The idea that the United States has always been a bastion of religious freedom is reassuring—and utterly at odds with the historical record
- By Kenneth C. Davis
- Smithsonian magazine, October 2010, Subscribe
(Page 4 of 4)
Late in his life, James Madison wrote a letter summarizing his views: “And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
While some of America’s early leaders were models of virtuous tolerance, American attitudes were slow to change. The anti-Catholicism of America’s Calvinist past found new voice in the 19th century. The belief widely held and preached by some of the most prominent ministers in America was that Catholics would, if permitted, turn America over to the pope. Anti-Catholic venom was part of the typical American school day, along with Bible readings. In Massachusetts, a convent—coincidentally near the site of the Bunker Hill Monument—was burned to the ground in 1834 by an anti-Catholic mob incited by reports that young women were being abused in the convent school. In Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love, anti-Catholic sentiment, combined with the country’s anti-immigrant mood, fueled the Bible Riots of 1844, in which houses were torched, two Catholic churches were destroyed and at least 20 people were killed.
At about the same time, Joseph Smith founded a new American religion—and soon met with the wrath of the mainstream Protestant majority. In 1832, a mob tarred and feathered him, marking the beginning of a long battle between Christian America and Smith’s Mormonism. In October 1838, after a series of conflicts over land and religious tension, Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs ordered that all Mormons be expelled from his state. Three days later, rogue militiamen massacred 17 church members, including children, at the Mormon settlement of Haun’s Mill. In 1844, a mob murdered Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum while they were jailed in Carthage, Illinois. No one was ever convicted of the crime.
Even as late as 1960, Catholic presidential candidate John F. Kennedy felt compelled to make a major speech declaring that his loyalty was to America, not the pope. (And as recently as the 2008 Republican primary campaign, Mormon candidate Mitt Romney felt compelled to address the suspicions still directed toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.) Of course, America’s anti-Semitism was practiced institutionally as well as socially for decades. With the great threat of “godless” Communism looming in the 1950s, the country’s fear of atheism also reached new heights.
America can still be, as Madison perceived the nation in 1785, “an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion.” But recognizing that deep religious discord has been part of America’s social DNA is a healthy and necessary step. When we acknowledge that dark past, perhaps the nation will return to that “promised...lustre” of which Madison so grandiloquently wrote.
Kenneth C. Davis is the author of Don’t Know Much About History and A Nation Rising, among other books.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (123)
+ View All Comments
our middle school teaches this!
Posted by elizabeth on February 8,2013 | 12:41 PM
being a cristion is awsome
Posted by william on January 31,2013 | 10:27 AM
The writer of this article would do well to point out that Catholics in Florida predated the Huguenot settlement by 51 years. Florida was not some Huguenot safe haven before Catholics arrived. Maybe that wasn't the point the author was making, maybe it was close. Regardless, Davis has a good point though misguided.
Posted by JohnG on January 29,2013 | 12:17 AM
I agree that religious persecution is wrong.
Posted by robert skurlock on November 26,2012 | 12:26 PM
Religious persecution has become so common that atheism is trendy, and believing in God is seen as a sign of ignorance. I am an American born Jew. Militant Atheism is a religion. There are so many atheist forums and on YouTube people who have made hundreds of videos which are all about trashing religion. . I am Jewish, and the fact that is now "OK" to persecute Jews is disgusting., even worse is trying to start a "holy war" by equating Christians and Anti-Semitism. there are Jews Alive right now who survived the "Final Solution" and the religious persecution of Jews remain. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should, We(Jews) are pacifists and pretty much keep to ourselves. I respect a persons right to believe (or not believe) in anything they want. That respect goes bothways, if you believe you are better than someone solely based on the fact they are Jewish,Christian, Muslim...etc. You are a bigot. Good Job on covering the holocaust, I guess it's not a part of American History or just a small footnote. Am Yisrael Chai
Posted by Anonymous999 on November 18,2012 | 09:23 AM
Thank you, Smithsonian, for underscoring the complexities that religious beliefs by people from many origins brought to the Americas. The last decades have somehow propagated the myth that America was founded as a Christian nation and that christians came to America in order to practice their faith. I see from many comments above that history is not a strong subject matter for many and many wish to see the myth or variations on it continue. I underscore the intent of the article emphasis on knowing the facts of history (and reading original text) in order to understand the basis for the "..wall of separation.." between church and state and the the freedom it allows for both church and state.
Posted by ouali on November 1,2012 | 01:25 PM
To Kim, who posted on April 3 2012 at 11:29 AM: Thank you. Well said. Hear! Hear! And may God save our beloved fraternal republic from public-trough-slurping revisionist Leftards.
Posted by Brian Richard Allen on September 25,2012 | 09:14 PM
My high school actually does teach about this. It's quite revealing on how our country was established through deception and murder of the Native Americans.
Posted by Zach on September 20,2012 | 07:43 PM
In light of recent events, I thought this Library of Congress article from 2002 on the subject of the Founding Fathers and Islam would be pertinent to the conversation. It includes a reference to Jefferson's autobiographical mention of "Mahometans" cited in my article above: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html
Posted by Kenneth C. Davis on September 19,2012 | 05:11 PM
A good overview; I wanted to learn more. I was surprised by the comments. The article seemed fair, accurate, and insightful to me. Indeed, a positive history of how we have evolved as we still struggle with religious differences and government involvement.
Posted by Bruce on September 14,2012 | 01:35 AM
The day an athiest member of congress gets elected, then America will be tolerant.
Posted by Richard on September 10,2012 | 08:44 AM
It's nice to see of the thoughts of the founding fathers concerning religion. They all seem to be expressing their personal beliefs, which is great. We all have our opinions on religion. However, I don't see a single one where one of the founders advocates the creation of a "Christian Nation".
Posted by Edward Joseph on July 8,2012 | 09:45 PM
this is a good site too use
Posted by mollee on June 4,2012 | 01:50 PM
To Barbara, who quotes the fraud David Barton on the Treaty of Tripoli: You have so overstated your case as to have made it utterly irrelevant. Nothing whatever in your post supports the notion that the U.S. was "founded as a Christian nation." How does the fact that George Washington never saw the treaty support the "truth" that America was founded as a Christian nation? You say it is "absurd" that John Adams would have endorsed any provision which "repudiated" Christianity, yet Adams signed the treaty without objection to the language repudiating the idea that America was "a Christian nation." No Senator raised any objection to the language, either. Some of them had been at the Constitutional Convention. Wouldn't they have noticed if the Treaty of Tripoli had contravened the intent of the Constitution-makers? The Treaty of Tripoli, whether you or David Barton like it or not, was a binding document. It expressed the official position of the United States government. You'll just have to deal with that fact.
Posted by Jeff Reeves on May 10,2012 | 10:02 AM
+ View All Comments