The First Amendment: Religiously Debated. By BJ Swearer 05/02/2013

Transcription

1 The First Amendment: Religiously Debated By BJ Swearer 05/02/2013 For over two centuries, pages upon pages of research and argumentation have been dedicated to the debate surrounding the mere sixteen words comprising what has become known as the two religion clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Like the Declaration of Independence, the object of this piece is not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of. 1 Rather, the research contained herein aims to provide a condensed but clear summary of the purpose and intentions of the religion clauses of the First Amendment. When appropriately understood, the purpose of these sixteen words was and remains quite simple: the United States federal government was to be prohibited from establishing a national church, and likewise prohibited from making any law that might deprive a citizen of religious liberty. After the ratification of the US Constitution in 1788, many were still concerned that the newly established central government, if not sufficiently restrained, had the potential to develop into an all-powerful, consolidated national government. When the First United States Congress met in 1789, one of their first orders of business was to consider 12 proposed amendments, each designed to check the power of the federal government so that the equilibrium between it and the various state governments within the Republic might be preserved. Following their ratification, the 10 amendments which came into effect in 1791 became known as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment being the first of the so called Bill of Rights, therefore, was originally designed with the sole intention of limiting the power of the federal government.

2 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. On its face, this provision seems to be pretty self-explanatory. Unlike their former mother country Great Britain who recognized an official state church (Church of England), the first clause of this amendment (the Establishment Clause ) made it explicitly clear that the United States central government would be prohibited from creating or recognizing a national church. The subsequent second clause (the Free Exercise Clause ) forbade Congress from making any law that might restrict a citizen s religious liberty. Simply put, the original object of the First Amendment was to protect the church from the state more so than the state from the church. This reality will be investigated in greater depth over the course of the following pages. The rationale behind the religious provisions of the Frist Amendment is understandable given the expansive religious demographics of the states. America consisted mostly of Christian Protestants and Catholics, but also included a small minority of non-christian groups such as Jews and Mahometans (Muslims), and an even smaller non-religious group of deists, skeptics and atheists. Historically, the majority of the former British North American colonies had an established state church, for instance the Church of England/Episcopal Church (in NY, MD, VA, NC, SC, GA) or the Congregational Church (in MA, NH, CT). By the time that the First Amendment was enacted, all but two states (CT, MA) had, via their own state constitutions, disestablished their state churches. However it should be noted that for over forty years following the First Amendment taking effect, at least one state (MA) legally maintained a state church which was not disestablished until Granted, in his own defense, John Adams, the author of that original Massachusetts constitution, asserted that The Laws of Massachusetts,

3 were the most mild and equitable Establishment of Religion that was known in the World, if indeed they could be called an Establishment. 2 Never during that forty year period, was this existence of a state church challenged in court as being unconstitutional under the provisions of the First Amendment. Instead, the legislative processes of the various states worked as intended and the power reserved to the states to deal individually with matters of religion was respected, just as the Constitution was designed to ensure. While a few states either maintained an established state church or contained specific religious provisions within their constitutions (such as North Carolina s requirement for all public officials to be Protestants), every single state constitution in some degree, recognized the inalienable natural right of religious freedom. Over the course of several years, nearly every state used amendments to reduce or eliminate forms of preferentialism contained within their constitutions. For example, the Constitution of Pennsylvania from 1776 read as follows: all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding: And that no man ought or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against, his own free will and consent: Nor can any man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments or peculiar mode of religious worship: And that no authority can or ought to be vested in, or assumed by any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner controul [sic], the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship. 3 The revised Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 contained very similar wording in this respect: all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no man can, of right, be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent;

4 that no human authority can, in any case whatever, controul [sic] or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishments or modes of worship. 4 However, in regards to the eligibility to hold office, including required oaths to be taken by the official, the 1776 constitution differs significantly from that of later revisions: And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder [sic] of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration. And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State Constitution That no person, who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments, shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this commonwealth Constitution While both versions contained an oath/test that required every official to declare, in essence, that they believed in God and an afterlife, the later version did not mention the required acceptance of the Christian Bible as being divinely inspired by God. Numerous other examples of these efforts to eliminate preferentialism can be found in the texts of the various original state constitutions and their subsequent revisions. The evolution of Delaware s constitution was another prime example. In the 1776 version of that state s constitution, the required oath/religious test read: I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

5 In the Delaware Constitution of 1792, this oath was removed while the oath to uphold and defend the state s constitution remained. Added was the provision that No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, under this State. 5 The religious articles of the various state constitutions from the Founding Era provide very clear insight into how America s Founders viewed religious freedom. Generally speaking, every state acknowledged the same principles that religious conscience and worship was, as Thomas Jefferson put it a matter which lies solely between man and his God. 6 Religious oppression and despotism lasted for centuries in Europe and this form of tyranny was completely incompatible with the underlying principles of liberty that first inspired the American Revolution. John Adams perhaps best illustrated this matter in a diary entry from 1761 writing that No priest nor pope has any right to say what I shall believe, and I will not believe one word they say, if I think it is not founded in reason and in revelation. Now, how can I judge what my Bible justifies unless I can read my Bible? 7 In 1947, when ruling in the case of Everson v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court resurrected a phrase from a Thomas Jefferson letter writing that "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. Nearly 70 years later, the phrase separation of church and state has become so popularized to the point that many falsely believe that it comes verbatim from the Constitution. Unfortunately, it is arguably the most misunderstood and misconstrued phrase in continued use throughout historical, political, academic and social circles. Few realize that an earlier Court decision cited Jefferson s Letter to the Danbury Baptists and moreover correctly interpreted its intent. Seven decades before Everson, the US Supreme Court determined in the case of Reynolds v. United States that:

6 [Jefferson's letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order In this... is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. 8 Sadly, numerous courts throughout the 20 th Century have followed the example of the Everson decision, incorrectly applying the principles of the First Amendment that were so evidently revealed throughout the legal and historical documents of the previous two centuries. This false foundation of precedent has led to Courts essentially ruling that there must be a complete separation of religion from the public sphere, including the spheres of government and anything associated with it (such as education and the military). 9 Jefferson, in his famous letter, quelled the fears of the Danbury Baptists by speaking of the First Amendment s purpose of building a wall of separation between Church and State 10 not to protect the State from the Church, but to protect the Church and religious freedom from the encroachment of the State. When the primary documents of the Founding Area are consulted, the true purpose of the First Amendment is clearly explained by the men who dedicated their lives to establishing and defending those principles. Jefferson, the so-called champion of the separation between church and state wrote often on the topic: No power over the freedom of religion [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. 11 In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. 12 Our excellent Constitution has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. 13

7 I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions or exercises. 14 In a letter to friend and fellow Founder Benjamin Rush, Jefferson most explicitly explained the simple, yet profound purpose of the First Amendment which was to prevent the federal government from propping up any Christian denomination over another: The clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. Again, if historical precedence had been consulted, various 20 th Century courts should have noted that this opinion of Jefferson and of the Founders was acknowledged and confirmed only a few decades after they lived. Take for example, a report made by a House Judiciary Committee in 1854: "At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, but not any one sect [denomination] In this age, there is no substitute for Christianity That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants." 15 In fact, the reports given by both the House and Senate Judiciary committees are arguably two of the most accurate assessments of the purpose of the First Amendment and the originally intended nature of the relationship between Church and State but more on this shortly.

8 Historically, the central government of the United States, at least up until the mid-20 th Century, had a very close relationship with the promotion and inclusion of religion, in particular non-preferential Christian principles. The Founding Fathers spoke very clearly on the matter: The general principles, on which the fathers achieved independence, were the general principles of Christianity and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united John Adams Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society. 17 John Adams Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. 18 George Washington One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law... There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations... I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. 19 Joseph Story In [our] republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion as the great basis on which it must rest for its support and permanence. 20 Joseph Story Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement. 21 John Hancock Righteousness alone can exalt America as a nation. Whoever thou art, remember this; and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself, and encourage it in others. 22 Patrick Henry

9 The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible. 23 Patrick Henry There must be religion. When that ligament is torn, society is disjointed and its members perish The most important of all lessons is the denunciation of ruin to every state that rejects the precepts of religion. 24 Gouverneur Morris Has [government] any solid foundation? Any chief cornerstone?... I think it has an everlasting foundation in the unchangeable will of God The sum of my argument is that civil government is of God. 25 James Otis The only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government is the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible. 26 Benjamin Rush The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government. 27 Noah Webster The moral principles and precepts found in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. 28 Noah Webster The Christian religion is the basis, or rather the source, of all genuine freedom in government I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of Christianity have not a controlling influence. 29 Noah Webster Countless more pages could be filled with additional quotations from America s Founding Fathers that would attest to their strong attachment to the influence of Christianity and for their desire that the American government would continue to embrace and promote the principles of morality and philosophy that the religion encompassed.

10 While the Founders as private citizens, as a whole, undeniably spoke in favor of the influence of one particular religion, Christianity, over that of all others, the real question is in regards to the official actions and statements of those men. By no means did this group wish to forbid the influence of religion in the sociopolitical sphere, for if they did then they would all be guilty of violating their own principles. The explicit desire of the Founders was to focus on the general principles of Christianity upon which they could all agree and avoid bringing exegetical points of disagreement into the discussion. Unlike the opinions of various modern courts starting with Everson, the intent of the First Amendment was not to eliminate religion or force religiously neutral (specifically, non-christian), deistic language to be used whenever it was involved in the various government and public spheres. Beginning with George Washington and aside for a few presidents during the early/mid 1800s, every president has issued some type of national proclamation of thanksgiving or prayer. 30 This was in fact, a tradition that began during the meetings of America s first central government and precursor to the eventual Congress of the United States. Before the creation of the Constitution, the Continental Congress issued eight separate proclamations for days of prayer, humiliation, fasting and/or thanksgiving. The explicitly Christian terminology and nature of these official national acts might shock some in 21 st Century America. For example: That at one Time and with one Voice, the good People may express the grateful Feelings of their Hearts, and consecrate themselves to the Service of their Divine Benefactor; and that they may join the penitent Confession of their manifold Sins and their humble and earnest Supplication that it may please GOD through the Merits of JESUS CHRIST and to prosper the Means of Religion, for the promotion and enlargement of that Kingdom, which consisteth [sic] in Righteousness, Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost." 31

11 It having pleased Almighty God and it being the indispensable duty of all men gratefully to acknowledge their obligations to Him for benefits received And it is further recommended, that, together with devout thanksgiving, may be joined a penitent confession of our sins, and humble supplication for pardon, through the merits of our Savior 32 and above all, that he hath diffused the glorious light of the gospel, whereby, through the merits of our gracious Redeemer, we may become the heirs of his eternal glory that he would bless and prosper the means of education, and spread the light of Christian knowledge through the remotest corners of the earth 33 above all, in continuing to us the enjoyment of the gospel of peace build up his churches in their most holy faith and to cause the knowledge of Christianity to spread over all the earth. 34 that all the people may assemble on that day, with grateful hearts, to celebrate the praises of our gracious Benefactor; to confess our manifold sins; to offer up our most fervent supplications to the God of all grace, that it may please Him to pardon our offenses and cause the knowledge of God to cover the earth, as the waters cover the seas. 35 that all religious congregations do acknowledge before God the manifold sins and transgressions with which we are justly chargeable as individuals and as a nation, beseeching Him at the same time, of His infinite grace, through the Redeemer of the World, freely to remit all our offenses, and to incline us by His Holy Spirit to that sincere repentance and reformation which may afford us reason to hope for his inestimable favor and heavenly benediction. 36 that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the Most High God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore His pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to His righteous requisitions in time to come. 37

12 In terms of the United States military policy, for the greater part of its history, Congress has passed laws encouraging soldiers and sailors to attend religious services, in particular Divine Service, a historically distinct Christian occasion. Beginning as early as the American War for Independence, Congress earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers, diligently to attend Divine Service and if commissioned officers behaved indecently or irreverently at any place of Divine Worship they could be court marshaled, while non-commissioned officers and soldiers would face being fined and imprisoned. 38 This tradition continues to this very day with federal laws currently on the books such as 10 USC 6031 which states that: The commanders of vessels and naval activities to which chaplains are attached shall cause divine service to be performed on Sunday, whenever the weather and other circumstances allow it to be done; and it is earnestly recommended to all officers, seamen, and others in the naval service diligently to attend at every performance of the worship of Almighty God. 39 The reality is that the understanding of the Founding Fathers in regards to the relationship between the federal government and religion was quite different from that of modern interpretation. What is a travesty is that so often the Founding Fathers are cited to be supportive of the current attitude taken towards religious matters, whereas that is simply not the case. In closing and reflecting again on the reports of the House and Senate Judiciary committees from , the purpose of the First Amendment was very straightforward: The [First Amendment] clause speaks of "an establishment of religion But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people; they did not intend to prohibit a just expression of religious devotion by the legislators of the nation, even in their public character as legislators; they did not intend to send our armies and navies forth to do battle for their country without any national

13 recognition of that God on whom success or failure depends; they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy. 40 ENDNOTES 1 Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, edited by Henry A. Washington (Washington DC: Taylor and Maury, 1854) Vol. VII, p. 407, letter to Henry Lee, 9 May John Adams, Founding Families: Digital Editions of the Papers of the Winthrops and the Adamses, edited by C. James Taylor (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 2007) The Adams Papers, Diary of John Adams, Volume III, No. 291, Diary Entry from September October The Federal and State Constitutions Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and Colonies Now or Heretofore Forming the United States of America, edited by Francis Newton Thorpe (Washington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1909) Constitution of Pennsylvania September 28, Accessed at 4 Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, From the Seventh Day of December One Hundred and Ninety, to the Twentieth Day of April, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Five, edited by Alexander James Dallas (Philadelphia: Hall and Sellers, 1795) Vol. III, pp , Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Accessed at 5 The Federal and State Constitutions Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and Colonies Now or Heretofore Forming the United States of America, edited by Francis Newton Thorpe (Washington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1909) Constitution of Delaware June 12, Accessed at 6 Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, edited by Albert Ellery Bergh (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904) Vol. XVI, pp , letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, 1 January John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, edited by Charles Frances Adams (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1854) Vol. II, p. 131, diary entry for 1 August Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U. S. 145, 164 (1878). 9 See for examples: Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), Anderson v. Milwaukee County, 433 F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 2006), H.E.B. Ministries v. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 114 S.W.3d 617 (Tex. App. 2003), Lowe v. City of Eugene, 459 P.2d 222 (Or. 1969), Ellis v. City of La Mesa, 990 F.2d 1518 (9th Cir. 1993), Carpenter v. City and County of San Francisco, 93 F.3d 627 (9th Cir. 1996), Separation of Church and State Committee v. City of Eugene, 93 F.3d 617 (9th Cir. 1996), Murphy v. Bilbray, Nos GT, GT, 1997 WL (S.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 1997), Paulson v. City of San Diego, 294 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2002), Buono v. Norton, 212 F. Supp. 2d 1202 (C.D. Cal. 2002), aff d, 371 F.3d 543 (9th Cir. 2004), Harvey v. Cobb County, 811 F. Supp. 669 (N.D. Ga. 1993), aff d, 15 F.3d 1097 (11th Cir. 1994), Young v. County of Charleston, 1999 WL (S.C. Com. Pl. 1999), ACLU of Tennessee v. Hamilton County, 202 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E.D. Tenn. 2002), Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2003), Adland v. Russ, 307 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2002), ACLU of Ohio v. Ashbrook, 375 F.3d 484 (6th Cir. 2004), ACLU of Kentucky v. Grayson County, 2002 WL (W.D. Ky. May 13, 2002), ACLU of Tennessee v. Rutherford County, 209 F. Supp. 2d 799 (M.D. Tenn. 2002), Notes to pages Turner v. Habersham County, 290 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (N.D. Ga. 2003), McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005). 10 Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, edited by Albert Ellery Bergh (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904) Vol. XVI, pp , letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, 1 January 1802.

14 11 The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, editor (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), p. 977, Kentucky Resolution, Annals of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852) Eighth Congress, Second Session, p. 78, Jefferson s Second Inaugural Address, 4 March Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, edited by Albert Ellery Bergh (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904) Vol. I, p. 379, Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 4 March Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, edited by Thomas Jefferson Randolph (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, pp , to Rev. Samuel Millar, 23 January Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made During the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress (Washington: A. O. P. Nicholson, 1854), pp John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, edited by Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), Vol. X, pp , to Thomas Jefferson, 28 June John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, edited by Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1854), Vol. IX, p. 636, to Benjamin Rush, 28 August George Washington, Washington s Farewell Address to the People of the United States of America, (New York: Robert Craighead Printers, 1850) p.33-35, Farewell Address of Joseph Story, Life and Letters of Joseph Story, edited by William W. Story (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. II, pp.8, Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: Hillard, Gray, and Company, 1833), Vol. III, p Independent Chronicle (Boston), November 2, 1780, last page; see also Abram English Brown, John Hancock, His Book (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1898), p Patrick Henry, Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence and Speeches, edited by William Wirt Henry (New York: Charles Scribner s Sons, 1891), Vol. II, p. 592, to Archibald Blair, 8 January Ibid. 24 Collections of the New York Historical Society for the Year 1821 (New York: E. Bliss and E. White, 1821), pp. 32, 34, from An Inaugural Discourse Delivered Before the New York Historical Society by the Honorable Gouverneur Morris, 4 September James Otis, The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved (London: J. Williams and J. Almon, 1766), pp. 11, Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral & Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas & Samuel F. Bradford, 1798), p. 112, A Defence of the Use of the Bible as a School Book. 27 Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie and Peck, 1832), p Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p K. Alan Snyder, Defining Noah Webster: Mind and Morals in the Early Republic (New York: University Press of America, 1990), p. 253, to James Madison, 16 October Collections of these proclamations can be found at: and 31 Thanksgiving Proclamation 1777, By the Continental Congress, 1 November Accessed at Proclamation 33 Ibid, 1779 Proclamation 34 Ibid, 1780 Proclamation 35 Ibid, 1781 Proclamation 36 John Adams: "Proclamation 8 - Recommending a National Day of Humiliation, Fasting, and Prayer," March 23, Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley: The American Presidency Project.

15 37 John Adams: "Proclamation - Recommending a National Day of Humiliation, Fasting, and Prayer," March 6, Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley: The American Presidency Project Journals of the Continental Congress , Edited by Worthington Chauncey Ford (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1905.) Vol. II Pages , Articles of War, 30 June USC Chaplains: divine services 40 Reports of Committees of the Senate of the United States for the Second Session of the Thirty-Second Congress (Washington: Robert Armstrong, 1853), pp. 1-4.