Moses Seixas was a man with a plan in the summer of 1790. Forty six
years old, the son of Portuguese Jews who emigrated to Rhode Island,
Moses was warden of Newport’s Tauro Synagogue. President George
Washington was making his first visit to Rhode Island, and Moses was
determined to use the occasion to obtain express acknowledgement of the
enfranchisement of American Jews under the new Constitution.
Washington’s visit also had a plan behind it. The prior year, he had
undertaken a lengthy visit to the northern states as part of his
strategy of drawing the new nation together and creating more popular support for the newly formed Federal government (he would tour the southern
states in 1791). Rhode Island was not part of that tour, because it had
yet to ratify the Constitution. The recalcitrant state, under pressure
from the new federal government and neighboring states, along with the
promise of a visit from Washington and Vice-President Thomas Jefferson,
became the last of the original 13 states to ratify on May 29, 1790.
Sexias was to get what he wanted from his letter, but the President’s
response expressed additional thoughts that are worth reflecting upon
today.
On August 17, 1790 Moses sent a letter to the President, welcoming him to Newport on behalf of “the children of the stock of Abraham“, expressing their happiness in having the “invaluable rights of free Citizens“, and adding:
“we now with a deep sense of gratitude to the Almighty disposer of
all events behold a Government, erected by the Majesty of the People – a
Government, which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no
assistance – but generously affording to all Liberty of conscience, and
immunities of Citizenship.”
The President responded the following day, echoing the warden’s phrasing but adds his own distinctive sentiments:
“The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud
themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and
liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike
liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more
that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one
class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent
natural rights. For happily the Government of the United
states, which give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance
requires only that they who live under its protection should demean
themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their
effectual support.”
Much of the commentary on the letter by historians focuses on the passage that the Government “
gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance“, citing its importance for the concept of religious liberty, but its significance is deeper in its link to America’s unique founding
principles. It is found in two sentences which do not have a counterpart
in the Sexias letter. The first:
“It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by
the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise
of their inherent natural rights.”
The passage expresses two concepts:
First, the American version of “tolerance” is not something
bestowed by a dominant group, or individual, upon other groups, because
that kind of tolerance is revocable upon the discretion of the dominant
group or individual. Bestowed “tolerance” was the concept used in most other societies in that age (and still used in many parts of the world), but in Washington’s parlance “tolerance” is that which we owe to each other as equals. In other “tolerant” societies of the time, the Jewish Community would be considered supplicants; in Washington’s they are equals. In other words, tolerance is a mutual obligation, because it is a sign of equality. It is that sense of mutuality that is foundational to this nation.
Second, the source of what we owe to each other as equals are our “inherent natural rights“.
These rights are not created by the Declaration of Independence or the
Constitution. It’s the other way around – these rights predate those
documents and are a source for the text and ideas behind them.
Specifically, the Constitution is not a document describing the rights
of citizens – those inherent natural rights are so broad as to exceed
any attempt to catalogue them in a document. Rather, the Constitution is
a delineation of the specific powers delegated by the citizens, who
hold those inherent rights, to the government in order for it to perform
certain designated functions.
It was 25 year old James Madison who first pointed out how these
concepts worked together in May 1776, during the debate on Virginia’s
new state constitution. The draft constitution contained a Declaration
of Rights, including a clause on religious liberty drafted by George
Mason, providing that “all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion“. Madison objected to the use of the word “toleration”
because it implied toleration was a gift from government rather than an
inherent natural right. Mason agreed and the draft was amended to read “all men are entitled to the full and free exercise” of religion. This approach is now embodied in the First Amendment our Constitution, not coincidentally authored by Madison:
Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As for Washington, his views were not something newly formulated in
1790. In 1775, shortly after the Continental Congress named him
commander of its military forces, he approved a plan to invade Canada.
The civilian population of Canada, which the British had taken from
France only twelve years prior, was almost exclusively Catholic, a
religion detested by most American Protestants of that era. On
September 14, 1775, Washington sent instructions to Benedict Arnold,
commanding the American expedition about to start its epic campaign
through the backwoods of Maine to Quebec. He directed Arnold to respect
the religious beliefs of the Canadians. This, in and of itself, was not
remarkable – doing so was wise strategy when the Americans were trying
to get the Canadians to join them in the revolt against Britain. It was
the way Washington expresses himself that is striking:
“While we are Contending for own own Liberty, we should be very
cautious of violating the Rights of Conscience in others; ever
considering that God alone is the Judge of the Hearts of Men and to him
only in this Case they are answerable”
The second significant sentence in Washington's response to the Jewish congregation:
For happily the Government of the United states, which give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires
only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves
as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”
In this passage, the President emphasizes the duty of every American
is to be a good citizen by supporting the new federal government. Thought the letter does not refer specifically to the Constitution, Washington had expressed that this was the underlying purpose of his state visits, and he seized every opportunity to
promote it. The Constitution, not a common religion, was to bind all citizens together. However, if you read more on Washington and many of the other Founders, what underlay all of this was a common sense of morality. That duty of the citizen was not absolute, rather Washington's expression of that duty presupposes the government would act in a moral way that deserved the support of its citizens. But not only the government. As John Adams would write:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Both letters are worthy of a full reading, expressing their sentiments
using the wonderful phrasing characteristic of that time, a writing
style that only a generation later had fallen out of favor. I
particularly like Washington’s closing lines:
” . . . while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and
figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of
all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all
in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way
everlastingly happy.”
Moses’ closing words aren’t too bad either:
“And, when, like Joshua full of days and full of honour, you
are gathered to your Fathers, may you be admitted into the Heavenly
Paradise to partake of the water of life, and the tree of immortality.”
You can find the full text of the Seixas letter
here, and Washington’s full response
here.
As a final note, it is often overlooked that Moses Seixas wrote a
second letter to President Washington on August 17, 1790. This letter
was on behalf of King David’s Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons, of
which Seixas was Grand Master, and contained greetings from one member
of a fraternal order to another member.
(Archibald "Moonlight" Graham, from wikipedia) 