Were America's Founders Christians or deists? Conservatives and secularists have taken each position respectively; mustering evidence to insist just how tall the wall separating church and state should be. Now Gregg Frazer puts their arguments to rest in the first comprehensive analysis of the Founders' beliefs as they themselves expressed them—showing that today's political right and left are both wrong.Going beyond church attendance or public pronouncements made for political ends; Frazer scrutinizes the Founders' candid declarations regarding religion found in their private writings. Distilling decades of research; he contends that these men were neither Christian nor deist but rather adherents of a system he labels "theistic rationalism;" a hybrid belief system that combined elements of natural religion; Protestantism; and reason—with reason the decisive element. Frazer explains how this theological middle ground developed; what its core beliefs were; and how they were reflected in the thought of eight Founders: John Adams; Thomas Jefferson; Benjamin Franklin; James Wilson; Gouverneur Morris; James Madison; Alexander Hamilton; and George Washington. He argues convincingly that Congregationalist Adams is the clearest example of theistic rationalism; that presumed deists Jefferson and Franklin are less secular than supposed; and that even the famously taciturn Washington adheres to this theology. He also shows that the Founders held genuinely religious beliefs that aligned with morality; republican government; natural rights; science; and progress.Frazer's careful explication helps readers better understand the case for revolutionary recruitment; the religious references in the Declaration of Independence; and the religious elements-and lack thereof-in the Constitution. He also reveals how influential clergymen; backing their theology of theistic rationalism with reinterpreted Scripture; preached and published liberal democratic theory to justify rebellion. Deftly blending history; religion; and political thought; Frazer succeeds in showing that the American experiment was neither a wholly secular venture nor an attempt to create a Christian nation founded on biblical principles. By showcasing the actual approach taken by these key Founders; he suggests a viable solution to the twenty-first-century standoff over the relationship between church and state—and challenges partisans on both sides to articulate their visions for America on their own merits without holding the Founders hostage to positions they never held.
#1376098 in Books 2008-09-09Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 .98 x 6.02 x 9.30l; 1.27 #File Name: 0700616071296 pages
Review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. The font was a bit small but the information was ...By Feldmar TwomblebeeThe font was a bit small but the information was well presented and the reference value hard to over rate.9 of 14 people found the following review helpful. Interesting history but very little personal experience to back it upBy Charlie LURPThe author seems to be totally convinced a smooth bore musket is as accurate at 100 yards as a rifled musket. Not once did he give any proof that he had personally fired either to determine this. Either weapon is easily available today in historically accurate reproductions. A smooth bore musket ball may have adequate force at 100 yards and a large group of troops firing volleys would no doubt hit a number of their enemy by sheer luck. That is not the same as an individual solider singling out his target and carefully firing at him. I've fired both weapons I know which musket I would put my faith in.The fact the troops did not receive proper marksmanship training with the rifled musket doesn't make the smoothbore a superior weapon. It just means training should have been improved.17 of 27 people found the following review helpful. Pity the Civil War scholarBy Patrick L. BoyleI read that there were something like six thousand books on the Civil War. So I realized that I would never be a 'real' Civil War expert.Now that I have read this book I have developed some compassion for those poor SOBs who are professional Civil War scholars. Every sensible issue has long been throughly discussed. In order to write something 'new' a scholar must search for a new perspective - a nugget of new truth is this well scrutinized ground.Hess states his thesis in the first sentences of the prolog. Before the war experts expected that the rifled musket would allow engagements at several hundred yards - far more than the 50 yards engagement distance of smoothbores. In fact the rifled musket was used by main battle lines at only about 60-70 yards. That's it. That's the whole point of the book.Hess also indulges in what another reviewer called "voodoo balistics". He thinks that a rifle's projectile follows a parabolic trajectory but that a smoothbore musket's ball flies level. He claims that the soldiers inevitably fired over the heads of the enemy with the new rifles because they never understood this fact(?).I know this thesis is wrongheaded because Hess himself proves it in subsequent chapters.The real revolution was not in rifling so much as it was is ammunition. The Minnie ball was a fast loading projectile. Rifles has been around for centuries but they had always had the trade off of accuracy for rate of fire. The Minnie ball suddenly erased the speed penalty of the muzzle loading rifle. Its introduction was expected by the experts of the day to revolutionize the battle field - and it did - just not in the way they had predicted. With smoothbore muskets and linear tactics the engagement didtance was about 50 yards or less. Some expected that with rifles that didtance would be 100 or 200 hundred yards. Hess's point is that this expectation proved wrong as indeed it did. But so what? The rifle had many other profound effects.Hess's book has a chapter on snipers. Remember there is no such thing a a sniper with a smoothbore gun. Hess's book also has a chapter on skirmishers. Again skirmishing requires rifles. Infantry men operating alone or in small groups couldn't be effective with smoothbores. Muskets were always used in massed groups. He has chart after chart showing skimishers and snipers engaging at great distances: 200; 500; 800; 1500; and 2000 yards. Compare that with his statistic of smoothbore accuracy. At 62 yards less than half of shots hit the target - a target that was 5.5 feet wide and 10 feet tall (roughly the size of a man on horseback).Hess relates how Civil War soldiers on both sides when in trenchs had to keep their heads down. If they stuck their head up they would have it blown off. This is a reality of a battlefield only where there are rifles. A smoothbore musket just can't hit small targets. Officers in the musket period considered such pot shots just a waste ammunition.Consider also the tactics of the French and the English in the previous big conflicts waged with smoothbores. The French formed a tighthly packed column that marched slowly toward the enemy. Almost every General on both sides knew about Napoleon and his tactics. But no one ever adopted the slow moving column; because the rifle musket made such a tactic suicidal.We know that on the battlefield soldiers with smoothbores (mostly Confederates) quickly swapped them for rifles. Just as they prefered breach loaders and repeaters. Hess claims that smoothbores were just as effective as rifles. I guess those soldiers hadn't read this book.Hess is just flat out wrong when he implies that the adoption of the rifle had little effect. He can only get away with this silly statement because he sets up a straw man expectation which he then refutes. The poor doofus is so desparate to say something original that he denies the obvious.
