There are several holidays on the American calendar bearing religious origins. Thanksgiving is the only one that specifically calls us to pray.
This week, millions of Americans will eat turkey and stuffing, ham, mashed potatoes, corn, lima beans (sadly), and pumpkin pie (preferably with lots of whipped cream on top). Thanksgiving is one of the most enjoyable holidays of the year, with Americans loving to eat and spending time with family and friends. Oh, and of course, catching the football games - which always involve the Dallas Cowboys and the Detroit Lions.
Of course, Thanksgiving didn't just come about, because people liked to eat. If that were the standard, every day of the year would be a holiday. (Perhaps not a bad idea). Thanksgiving started as a call to action - a day set aside for us to do something very specific. A hint: the American Civil Liberties Union doesn't like it.
Celebrate Thanksgiving - the George Washington Way
While the tradition of Thanksgiving stretches back to the Pilgrims and Governor William Bradford, it did not become an officially sanctioned day of observance until 1789 - the first year that America's government operated under the newly-ratified Constitution of the United States.
It was in November of 1789 that President George Washington issued a proclamation of a nation-wide day of thanksgiving. The purpose of the Thanksgiving holiday couldn't have been more clear and more (shall we say "politically incorrect"). The entire proclamation is provided below for you to read. This way, you can see the full context. Read it carefully and consider its meaning.
"WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houfes of Congress have, by their joint committee, requefted me 'to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANKSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to eftablifh a form of government for their safety and happiness':
"NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and affign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of thefe States to the fervice of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our fincere and humble thanksfor His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the fignal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpofitions of His providence in the courfe and conclufion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have fince enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to eftablish Conftitutions of government for our fafety and happinefs, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are bleffed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffufing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleafed to confer upon us.
And also, that we may then unite in moft humbly offering our prayers and fupplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and befeech Him to pardon our national and other tranfgreffions;-- to enable us all, whether in publick or private ftations, to perform our feveral and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a bleffing to all the people by conftantly being a Government of wife, juft, and conftitutional laws, difcreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all fovereigns and nations (especially fuch as have shewn kindnefs unto us); and to blefs them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increafe of fcience among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind fuch a degree of temporal profperity as he alone knows to be beft.
"GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand feven hundred and eighty-nine."
"Lord and Ruler of Nations"? "Great and Glorious Being"? It's our duty to "obey" God? Man, oh, man! Were George W. Bush to issue a similarly worded proclamation today, he would be lambasted by secularists and liberals as being "intolerant" and violating the constitutional "separation of church and state." Unfortunately, no liberal was around to tell George Washington, who of course presided over the Constitutional Convention, that he was in violation of the Constitution. What a shame.
But, oh of course, the "separation of church and state" was in the First Amendment, which was added as part of the Bill of Rights AFTER the original Constitution was written. Thus, we can excuse Washington for his ignorance.
Except....
The very same Congress that approved the First Amendment (which includes the establishment clause and the free exercise clause - interpreted by our Supreme Court in the 20th century to constitute a "wall of separation" between "church and state") was the same Congress that asked Washington to proclaim this day of Thanksgiving.
And...wouldn't you know it? George Washington supported the First Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights package to the Constitution AND also supported Thanksgiving. So, somehow, he didn't think there was a conflict. Interesting.
So...Happy Thanksgiving!
As you feast and fellowship this Thanksgiving, don't forget what the holiday is really all about. It's not "Turkey Day." It's about giving thanks - and the one who should receive the most thanks from you is God.
If you don't agree, take it up with George Washington!
The copyright of the article George Washington's Thanksgiving in Protestantism is owned by Brian Tubbs. Permission to republish George Washington's Thanksgiving in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Nov 21, 2006 7:19 AM
Pink
:
. <i>"The very same <b>Congress that approved the First Amendment</b> (which includes the establishment clause and the free exercise clause - interpreted by our Supreme Court in the 20th century to constitute a 'wall of separation' between 'church and state') was the same Congress that asked Washington to proclaim this day of Thanksgiving."</i> . I'm not sure of your point here; but, I can guess. Your earlier comment in this paper regarding the ACLU gave us the clue, right? You want to claim that the 'wall of separation' between 'church and state' is a myth, right? That does seem to be the matra of 'Christian historians'. That's your right. . I often see that statement made about Congress 'approving' the First Amendment as though if it weren't for 'that' congress we wouldn't have the First Amendment . <b>Would you give me the references that show that Congress was the approving body for the First Amendement including the date?</b> .
Nov 21, 2006 8:05 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
You're pushing my point to an extreme. I've not called anything a "myth" here, but Pink, please show me in the First Amendment where the phrase "separation of church and state" exists. I believe that the courts should interpret the First Amendment's language AS IT IS. They are, after all, supposed to be interpreting the Constitution - not a letter that President Jefferson wrote.
But...NUMEROUS court decisions have cited the First Amendment's "wall of separation," when that phrase isn't even IN the Constitution.
<b>Can you see how dangerous and precarious it is to start interpreting a law according to language that isn't even a part of that law??????</b>
Of course, it gets better. Thomas Jefferson took no active role in fashioning the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Why is he cited as an authority on a document he didn't take part in writing?
And, furthermore, Jefferson didn't believe that the "wall of separation" was meant to keep God out of the public square. His letter to the Danbury Baptists was to assure them that the government could not interfere with their religious freedom.
So, we're about three steps removed from the original First Amendment's language and intent. That's NOT a myth. It's a fact.
Nov 21, 2006 8:16 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
Be careful not to misconstrue my argument here. I did NOT say that Congress was the <b>only</b> approving authority for constitutional amendments. I was merely pointing out that the same Congress which called on President Washington to issue a national call for "thanksgiving and prayer" ALSO approved the First Amendment.
Of course, congressional approval is not sufficient to amend the Constitution.
Ultimately, a requisite number of states must approve the amendment. However, Congress is TYPICALLY the means by which a proposed amendment is sent to the states. The other means (which has not been done since the beginning) is for a constitutional convention to send its work to the states.
In the case of the First Amendment, Rep. James Madison (Virginia) brought 12 amendments before Congress. Congress modified and ultimately approved 11 of the 12 - and sent those 11 to the states for ratification.
The states (in Madison's day) approved 10 of the 11 -- forming our "Bill of Rights." (The other one, concerning congressional pay raises, remained in limbo until the 1980s when states began voting on it again - and it's now been added. It had already been sent to the states, and had not expired).
You can read about the Bill of Rights and the chronology at the following link...
Bottom line...Congress approved what is now the First Amendment in the fall of 1789 (it would be ratified by the states in 1791). The fall of 1789 is ALSO the same time in which Congress requested Washington issue his proclamation for "thanksgiving and prayer" - something GW gladly did.
Nov 21, 2006 8:34 AM
Pink
:
. I know you didn't come right out and call the 'wall of separation' between 'church and state' a myth; but, you sure seemed to be knocking on that door. . What part of "NO LAW" is confusing to you? . I think Jefferson played a very important role in the writing of the U.S. Constitution. His efforts regarding the Declaration of Independence bore directly on the eventual document that became our U.S. Constitution. To pass Jefferson off as not involved, does an injustice to our country's history which depends so heavily on the Jeffersonian influence.
Nov 21, 2006 8:45 AM
Pink
:
. The implication in the statement that congress 'approved' the First Amendment is that we wouldn't have the amendment except for congress. The facts are that if We The People hadn't approved the First Amendment, this country likely wouldn't be the United States of America. . Thanks for correcting your original statement. . If you key in "congress approved the First Amendment" to your search engine, you will get more than fifty links to speciasl interest groups that support removal of the 'wall of separation' from the Supreme Law of The Land. .
Nov 21, 2006 8:54 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
You imply that there was some disagreement between the people of that day and Congress concerning the meaning of the First Amendment. If anything, the people - as they expressed themselves through their state governments (which were closer to them and more answerable to them) - were MORE "religionist" than the Congress. Just about every single state had an established church. You do know that, right?
Nov 21, 2006 9:06 AM
Pink
:
. Here's a fun link from D. James Kennedy: . http://www.christiancitizen.com/feb/commentary/02kennedy.html . I used to support this guy as well.
Nov 21, 2006 9:14 AM
Pink
:
. Yup, I know that. . So, do you think we should allow states to have established churches today? . Do you think the 'wall of separation' in the Supreme Law of The Land is a bad idea? Do you support a new judgement by the Supreme Court regarding the meaning of the First Amendment?
Nov 28, 2006 2:31 PM
Brian Tubbs
:
D. James Kennedy has some good stuff to offer most of the time, but every now and then, he says some things that make me cringe. Recently, I've heard more and more of those things. Some o fthe claims he makes about the Founders are just not true. Same goes for others like Tim LaHaye. These guys go too far.
Nov 28, 2006 2:37 PM
Brian Tubbs
:
<i>So, do you think we should allow states to have established churches today?</i>
No, I support the consensus that emerged from the founding generation - a consensus represented by the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. No established denominations, but allowance for the free exercise of religion.
Many of the Founders (particularly Madison and Jefferson) might object to a government mandate to teach Creationism in schools, but they would FLIP IN THEIR GRAVES at the microphone being turned off on a high school graduating senior's valedictory address because she talks about her personal faith in Jesus.
The free exercise of religion means just that -- the FREE EXERCISE of religion. Public schools shouldn't coerce belief in God, but they shouldn't stigmatize it either. They shouldn't drive it out of the building like it's some kind of cancer, and many do this - disallowing Bible study clubs from meeting after-school at the same time the chess club meets. Nonsense like that.
And the Founders most certainly would not object to paid chaplains in Congress or the military. (They, after all, are the ones who STARTED that tradition!!)
They wouldn't object to official, overall acknowledgments of God - as in "under God" in the Pledge or "In God We Trust" on our coins. This is plainly seen from what the Founders themselves did - with, say, the Great Seal of the United States.
Bottom line...I believe the ACLU needs to back off. The Founding Fathers wanted religious FREEDOM, but they did not want an atheist, secularist state!
Nov 28, 2006 4:42 PM
Pink
:
. <i>"... they would FLIP IN THEIR GRAVES at the microphone being turned off on a high school graduating senior's valedictory address because she talks about her personal faith in Jesus."</i> . Where and when did that take place? . <i>I believe the ACLU needs to back off. The Founding Fathers wanted religious FREEDOM, but they did not want an atheist, secularist state!</i> . It's hard to say what they wanted. Back off? You don't really mean that about the ACLU. But, I understand your frustration. I have some bones to pick with the ACLU as well just as I do with their opposition. Democracy might not be a very good system; but, it's way ahead of whatever is in second place. . Our educational system needs major improvements from the top to the bottom.. .
Dec 9, 2006 6:06 AM
Pink
:
. <i>"Bottom line...I believe the ACLU needs to back off. The Founding Fathers wanted religious FREEDOM, but they did not want an ... secularist state!"</i> . Well, I'm not so sure about that. It would be interesting to read you source material that backs that statement up. . By the way, when we consider the Founding Fathers, we might give a little credit to--maybe--the main one of all--the one who came up with the title, United States of America, Thomas Paine. .
Dec 9, 2006 11:43 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
I say this quite objectively as a historian...
Thomas Paine belongs in that group of Founders most influential for stirring up support for the American Revolution. Men like Sam Adams (especially), Thomas Paine, and Patrick Henry were among those most responsible for getting the war started in the first place. Without Common Sense, it's hard to see how enough of the American populace would've rallied to the Revolution to make a difference.
However, Paine's influence drops off considerably once the Revolution winds down and the Founding Fathers beging putting a country together. Paine played no role in the Constitutional Convention, and was considered a fringe outcast during Washington's presidency. So...with respect to you and the biographer (the recent book out on Mr. Paine), Thomas Paine in NO way deserves to be called the "main" Founding Father.
Dec 9, 2006 11:47 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
Source material, you ask? I hardly know where to start. Did you read Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation? Perhaps you need to read it again.
How about the numerous calls for prayer and fasting made by the Continental Congress during the American Revolution and the various state assemblies as well?
What about Washington's Farewell Address, when he says in no uncertain terms that "religion and morality" are the "indispensable supports for political prosperity" and goes on to say that you can't have morality without religion? Have you read that?
I tell ya, Pink, the evidence is OVERWHELMING. You and Migisi are way out of step with the Founders.
And holding up Founders like Thomas Paine won't help you. Paine was ostracized by many of his founding brethren, including Deist Ben Franklin, for being too hostile toward religion. You and Migisi may be with Paine - but you are not with the Founders that prevailed.
Dec 9, 2006 3:48 PM
Pink
:
. <i>"I tell ya, Pink, the evidence is OVERWHELMING. You and Migisi are way out of step with the Founders." </i> . I won't argue with you. . But, in my humble opinion, if it weren't for Thomas Paine, there wouldn't be a U.S.A. as we know it today. Perhaps you'd like to refute that? Start out with, "Now is the time that tries men's souls", the night the tide of war was changed. . And, I think I've got a lot of company with my position. . Paine certainly wasn't perfect. But, who is or was? . Paine doesn't seem to have been a very astute politician. I'll grant you that. .
Dec 9, 2006 4:32 PM
Pink
:
. Grant you that sounds a little pompous on my part. I don't mean to be that way. Maybe it would be better for me to say, "Paine doesn't seem to have been a very astute politician. I'm sure of that." . To be straight, Paine is my type of guy. I like him. He's down to earth. He certainly had a gift for rhetoric, didn't he? .
Dec 9, 2006 8:47 PM
Brian Tubbs
:
I don't want to take anything AT ALL away from Thomas Paine in terms of his eloquence as a writer and his effectiveness as a (for lack of a better term) propagandist for the American Revolution. "Common Sense" and "The American Cause" (the latter you reference appropriately) were both brilliant masterpieces that were critical to the Revolution.
However, let's be honest. If you're going to make statements about a Founder being indispensable to the Revolution or to the very existence of the USA, NO ONE comes close to George Washington in that department. And just about EVERY historian I can think of, starting with David McCullough (who has won not one, but TWO Pulitzers) will agree with me there.
And not to be arrogant, but I don't think you want to get into a Thomas Paine v. George Washington tit-for-tat in terms of who is the more indispensable Founder. It's not even close.
And then there's John Adams. Again, Adams was far more influential than Paine in both the American Revolution itself and then the founding of the nation.
And of course Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and on and on.
In fact, there are other Founders you might not be super familiar with who did more for the founding of the USA than Paine - among them, Roger Sherman, Noah Webster, Benjamin Rush, John Witherspoon, James Wilson, etc, etc, etc.
So, I give credit to Paine for what he did. And I don't want to take away from that, but I think you're blowing his role out of proportion. He is not on the same level as the other Founders I mentioned - and doesn't even come close (not even remotely so) to Washington.
Dec 10, 2006 5:40 AM
Pink
:
. Like I wrote, I don't want an argument. . You seem bent on first causes and 'necessaries' in certain areas. . Are you denying that the work of Paine laid the groundwork on which others stood? . Pretty much, my comment about Paine are that he was the spokesperson who made the cause popular among the people. From what I remember reading of American history, most Americans were quite content with the idea of being British before Paine. . I know Paine and Washington ended up at odds with each other. Washington is seen as the Father of Our Country. I don't have any problems with that. I suppose that Christmas in 1776 could have seen the failure of George Washington if the troops hadn't been rallied. As it was, it was the first victory that changed the war, wasn't it? .
Dec 10, 2006 11:01 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
If your position is that Thomas Paine is the first cause of American independence, that is easily refuted. Paine didn't come to American shores until revolutionary zeal was already taking hold. What Paine did was take sentiments already out there - and fashion them into a compelling argument that resonated with the masses. I'm not taking anything away from that, but he hardly deserves to be credited with stirring up those sentiments to begin with.
If you want a "first cause" Founder, a much, MUCH stronger argument can be made for Sam Adams - who founded the Sons of Liberty, the Committees of Correspondence, and published some of the most influential pamphlets on American grievances and aspirations LONG BEFORE Paine ever came to America!
Key supporting players (along with Sam Adams and more influential than Paine in stirring up pro-revolutionary zeal) were James Otis, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, and John Adams.
So....I'm sorry, Pink, you're way over-inflating Paine's role. The facts of history don't support it.
Dec 10, 2006 11:18 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
We can't know for certain, but I don't think Paine was indispensable to Washington's victory at Trenton. It was Washington that decided to attack, not Paine. Paine provided a significant morale boost to the troops - no question about that, but here again, his role is overrated. What about all the chaplains that GW brought into the army? That was among the MAIN reasons GW started the chaplain corps. - keep the troops focused on God and country, keep them believing in each other and the cause and a just God presiding over their affairs. These chaplains (and there were many) played a huge part in keeping the Revolutionary cause and the army going. Was Paine more influential than they?
What about the Martha Washington - who came into camp often during the winters and organized the officers' wives into sewing mittens and making shoes for the men? Did you know that the Continental Army soldiers WORSHIPPED the ground Martha Washington walked on? When GW was inaugurated President, he traveled ahead of Martha. There was a HUGE state welcome for him when he came to New York. Martha came later, and guess who turned out to greet her and give her the proper "pomp and circumstance"? Answer: Revolutonary War veterans!
What about the spy network that GW put into place to sabotage and confuse the British? GW's agents had the Hessians CONVINCED that the Continentals were finished - were NO threat whatsoever to them. Which is why the Hessians were unprepared for the Christmas crossing of the Delaware and attack on Trenton.
Thomas Paine played a big role, but he was far from indispensable. Admire him all you want, but don't blow him out of proportion.
Dec 10, 2006 11:19 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
And finally, this thread began with GW in focus. My point was that Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation says a lot about what he (GW) felt about Thanksgiving, about God's role in American history, and what our relationship (as individuals and as citizens) should be toward God.
You're shifting the focus to Thomas Paine, but that does nothing to counter my points on Washington. Migisi (in a different thread) calls GW a Deist. If he was, then he's my kind of Deist. :-)
George Washington's position on God in the public square and our relationship with God is much different from yours, Migisi's, and the ACLU's.
Dec 10, 2006 11:36 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
....(since you want to talk Tom Paine) I'll dust off my copy (more like an Internet file) of <i>Age of Reason</i> - and do a review of it. That should make for an interesting discussion of Mr. Paine's religious views.
Dec 10, 2006 1:20 PM
Pink
:
. I'll be interested in what you have to say. . Maybe I'll get Craig Nelson's book on the subject if you're serious about hosting a discussion.: . http://craignelson.us/tompaine.html . . .
Dec 14, 2006 3:13 PM
Pink
:
. Thanks for that timely article on the Father of Our Country. . Do grade schools still pay as much attention to George Washington as we did when I was a child? .
Dec 16, 2006 2:11 PM
Brian Tubbs
:
I wish.
Feb 14, 2007 3:26 PM
Pink
:
Testing. Notice that in the discussions menu, all the threads listed below the ". religious book" thread are in italics. Those above it are not italicized. This is a test to see if that is true.
And, yes, it is true. There is a problem with the page, not just a single thread.
Feb 14, 2007 7:35 PM
Brian Tubbs
:
Thanks for calling this to my attention, Phil. I appreciate it. I went into the editor tools and it looks like it's fixed.
