VETO MESSAGE From President James Madison, Thursday, February 21, 1811:
*************************************************************************
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An Act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia," I now return the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:
Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment." The bill enacts into and establishes by law sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the minister of the same, so that no change could be made therein by the particular society or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration. Nor can it be considered that the articles thus established are to be taken as the descriptive criteria only of the corporate identity of the society, inasmuch as this identity must depend on other characteristics, as the regulations established are generally unessential and alterable according to the principles and canons by which churches of that denomination govern themselves, and as the injunctions and prohibitions contained in the regulations would be enforced by the penal consequences applicable to a violation of them according to the local law.
Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty. [Writings of James Madison, 8:132-133; The Papers of James Madison: Presidential Series, 3:176-177]
**********************************************************************
In the House of Representatives, Thursday, February 21, 1811:
A Message was received from the President of the United States, by Mr. Edward Coles, his Secretary, who, by command of the President, returned to the House the bill passed by the two Houses entitled "An act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia," and presented to the President for his approbation and signature, on Thursday the fourteenth instant, to which bill the President having made objections, . . .
The objections were read, and ordered to be entered at large
on the Journal, . . .
On Motion of Mr. Pitkin, the House proceeded to reconsider the bill. . . .
Mr. Pitkin said, that this question was new to him. He had no idea that the Constitution precluded Congress from passing laws to incorporate religious societies for the purpose of enabling them to hold property, &c. He had always held the Constitution to intend to prevent the establishment of a National Church, such as the Church of England--a refusal to subscribe to the tenets of which was to exclude a citizen from office, &c. Desiring time for reflection, he therefore wished the bill to lie on the table for further consideration. . . .
Mr. Wheaton said he . . . did not imagine that they were to assume the objections of the President to be valid, . . . They had a duty to perform as well as the President. . . . This was not a correct principle. In his view the objections made by the President to this bill were altogether futile. Mr. W. said he did not consider this bill any infringement of the Constitution. If it was, both branches of the Legislature, since the commencement of the Government, had been guilty of such infringement. It could not be said, indeed, that they had been guilty of doing much about religion; but they had at every session appointed Chaplains, to be of different denominations, to interchange weekly between the two Houses. Now, if a bill for regulating the funds of a religious society could be an infringement of the Constitution, the two Houses had so far infringed it by electing, paying or contracting with their Chaplains; for so far it established two different denominations of religion. Mr. W. deemed this question of very great consequence. Were the people of this District never to have any religion? Was it to be entirely excluded from these ten miles square? He should be afraid to come if that were to be the case. . . .
Mr. Quincy quoted cases of laws which had passed the signature of the late President, which, in every material respect, appeared to him to contain the same provisions as this bill. [Annals, 22:982-984.]
In the House of Representatives, Saturday, February 23, 1811:
The House resumed the reconsideration of the bill passed by the two Houses, entitled "An act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church, in the town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia," which was presented for approbation of Thursday, the 14th instant, and returned by the President on the 21st instant, with objections.
The said bill was read at the Clerk's table, . . .
The President's objections were also again read; and, after debate, the question "That the House on reconsideration, do agree to pass the bill," was taken in the mode prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, and determined in the negative--yeas 29, nays 74, . . .
And so the said bill was rejected, two thirds of the House not agreeing to pass the same. [Annals, 22:995-998.]
-------------------------------
The override vote lost overwhelmingly as the 1811 House of Representatives upheld President Madison's veto. The above is quoted from the newspaper reporter's notes in the Annals of Congress.
-------------------------------
VETO MESSAGE From President James Madison, Thursday, February 28, 1811:
**********************************************************************
To the House of Representatives of the United States: Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An act for the relief of Richard Tervin, William Coleman, Edwin Lewis, Samuel Mims, Joseph Wilson, and the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, in the Mississippi Territory," I now return the same to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objection:
Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land of the United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment." [The Writings of James Madison, 8:133; The Writings of James Madison: Presidential Series, 3:193 ]
**********************************************************************
In the House of Representatives, Saturday, March 2, 1811.
The House proceeded to reconsider the bill, entitled "An act for the relief of Richard Tervin, William Coleman, Edwin Lewis, Samuel Mims, Joseph Wilson, and the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, in the Mississippi Territory;" which was returned by the President of the United States, with objections.
The said bill was read the Clerk's table, . . .
The President's objections were also again read: And after debate, the question, "That the House on reconsideration do agree to pass the bill," was taken in the mode prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, and determined in the negative--yeas 33, nays 55, . . .
And so the said bill was rejected; two-thirds of the House not agreeing to pass the same. [Annals, 22:1103-1105.]
-------------------------------
The vote to override failed again as the majority in the House of Representatives upheld President Madison's use of the Establishment Clause to veto unconstitutional congressional legislation. The above is quoted from the newspaper reporter's notes in the Annals of Congress.
In regard to the two unconstitutional bills which were passed by Congress, twenty years after adoption of the First Amendment's religion clauses, and which were vetoed by President James Madison ("Father of the Constitution"), the majority of the members of Congress supported the position of James Madison. In 1811 most of the members of Congress were not members of the 1787 Constitutional Convention and were not even members of the First Congress. Nevertheless, upon considering what the former member of the 1789 joint Senate-House conference committee which drafted the religion clauses had to say, the majority agreed with President Madison. This lesson from history illustrates that there have always been some Americans who have advocated direct government support for religion, and it also documents the fact that the constitutional principle of separation between religion and government was not first debated or created in the 1947 Supreme Court case known as Everson v. Board of Education, as today's "cut and paste" history revisionists would have us believe. It was debated in the 1811 Congress. Furthermore, a bill is not constitutional simply because Congress passes it--if that were the case, we would not need the Constitution (or the Establishment Clause which prohibits Congress from establishing "religion" by law and protects, in regard to religion, the minority from tyranny by the majority and from paying tax money to support religion). In America, religion is to be supported voluntarily; public money is for public institutions.
BUT, READ ON BECAUSE THERE IS MORE: WHAT DID THE BAPTISTS SAY ABOUT JAMES MADISON'S VETO WHICH REFUSED TO GIVE PUBLIC LAND TO A BAPTIST CHURCH?
On April 27 and May 4, 1811, two North Carolina Baptist churches wrote to President Madison about his veto:
Sir
The Baptist Church on Neels Creek in Cumberland County in the State of North Carolina having Received intelligence Respecting the Affair of the Baptist Church at Salem meeting house in the mississippi Territory Considering the said affair as proceeding from Some of our Religious Connections and that the Same is not Consistent with the Spiritual interest of Religion and that the tendency of Such a procedure if perpetuated would inevitably give to Religious Societies an undue weight and Corrupt influence in public affairs at large and diminish Religious enlargement impairing our civil and Religious liberties and in fine Contaminate our national morals we therefore desire to assure you that we entertain a high Sense of and Confidence in your illustrious objection against the Bill wherein we humbly conceive as eminent an Instance of patriotism have displayed as in any occurrence of the kind.
Signed by order and in behalf of Conference
Jesse Jones
-------------------------------
The Baptist Church on Black Creek in Johnston County in the State of north Carolina having heard the above Read and approbated the Same.
Signed by order and in behalf of Conference.
May the 4--1811
----------------------------
The two Baptist letters quoted above are located in The Papers of James Madison: Presidential Series, 3:292-293.
The above two letters approved James Madison's veto and his understanding of the Establishment Clause. The Baptists condemned the bill, which would give public land to a church, as "not Consistent with the Spiritual Interest of Religion" and would not only give churches a "Corrupt influence in public affairs," but would also "Contaminate our national morals"--the historical position of Baptists and other evangelicals in early America respecting separation between religion and government (see Separation of Church and State in Virginia, 1910, by H. J. Eckenrode).
IN CASE YOU STILL DO NOT CLEARLY UNDERSTAND THE ESSENTIAL MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE REGARDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND PRACTICAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN RELIGION AND CIVIL GOVERNMENT, READ JAMES MADISON'S REPLY TO THE BAPTISTS:
June 3, 1811
I have recd. fellow Citizens your address, approving my Objection to the Bill contain[in]g a grant of public land, to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House Missippi Terry. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion & Civil Govt as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constn: of the U.S. I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself. Among the various religious Societies in our Country, none have been more vigilant or constant in maintain[in]g that distinction, than the Society of which you make a part, and it is an honourable proof of your sincerity & integrity, that you are as ready to do so, in a case favoring the interest of your brethren, as in other cases. It is but just, at the same time, to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, to remark that their application to the Natl. Legislature does not appear to have contemplated a grant of the Land in question, but on terms that might be equitable to the public as well as to themselves. Accept my friendly respects
------------------------------
President Madison's letter as quoted above is located in The Papers of James Madison: Presidential Series, 3:323-324. To Mr. Madison, I say, thank you; and in appreciation of the historical Baptist position, I say, Amen!
Copyright 1998, 2001 Gene Garman