“No more important measure was proposed to the committee which met in Fredericksburg, on the 13th of January, 1777, than that of Jefferson’s for the establishment of religious freedom, just as it now appears, with slight modifications in the preamble, in the statute books to-day. The fact that this act was written in Fredericksburg, we have never heard questioned; and the people of this city have the same right to claim that this ‘second declaration’ had its birth here, that the people of Philadelphia have to claim that city as the birth-place of the first. It was, however, a long time before its advocates were able to secure its passage by the Legislature. Having been written in 1777, it did not become the law of the land until 1785.
“In making his fight for religious freedom, the courage, the persistence and the power of this statesman shone in all their splendor. We consider this as his most difficult task, but it is his crowning glory. He had arrayed against him the advocates of a long cherished policy, sustained by law; one around which tradition had woven a peculiar sanctity, and he who would lift his hand against it was deemed guilty of sacrilege. There, too, were the clergy, strong in resistance, backed, as they were, by a wealthy and powerful class, Jefferson himself belonging to a family whose members, though loyal in exacting faithful obedience to changes in existing conditions, loved this church and worshipped in its sacred, but State protected walls; yet, in spite of all of this, believing that freedom of conscience was one of the ‘inalienable and natural rights,’ with a boldness, which all must commend; with a persistence, which all must admire, he headed the forces which took the last citadels of monarchial institutions and leveled them to the ground, thus forever separating church and State and eliminating the combination of political policy and religion, so that henceforth no man could be ‘compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry, but all men shall be free to profess, and by argument maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or effect their civil capacity.’
“In justice to those who were adherents to the established church, it must be said that some supported Jefferson, and after the change came, none were more devoted in maintaining the statute, and all others of kindred import; many being in positions charged with their proper enforcement, gave them sound judicial interpretation in exact conformity to all theories of the newly formed government.
“This act for the establishment of religious freedom is not only a monument to him, as a liberator of men, but its elegant diction, its easy and smoothly flowing style, show his genius as a writer. It is worthy of note, its preamble contains over five hundred words, yet it is but one sentence; only finished in the body of the act itself, where the first period appears; and, although he says this preamble was somewhat mutilated by others, there is nothing doubtful or uncertain as to its meaning, purpose and scope.
“To do full justice to the subject in hand would require a volume, but we must content ourselves with what has been written to show in part the wonderful and rapid changes then made in old and settled conditions, and the powerful influence this section had in moulding a government based on ‘natural rights and justice,’ and in shaping its destinies.”
WASHINGTON GAINS INDEPENDENCE.
It was George Washington, a native of Westmoreland county, raised in Fredericksburg, who led the American armies in the Revolutionary war and gained American independence. He was called the “Great and Good Washington.” He was truly great. He was great in the eyes of Americans; he was great in the eyes of his opposing enemies; he was great in the eyes of the world. He was an uncrowned king, because he refused to be crowned. We cannot properly appreciate his greatness, because he was so great we have no one to compare him with.
It is said a famous scholar has written a long essay in which he argued that the “traditional Washington” must give place to the new Washington. Referring to this, Senator Lodge says: “This is true in one sense. A new idea of Washington comes up in the mind of each generation, as it learns the story of the father of this country; but in another sense, the idea of a new Washington is wrong. He cannot be discovered anew, because there never was but one Washington.”
As to the esteem in which Washington is held all over the world, Senator Lodge says: “Even Englishmen, the most unsparing critics of us, have done homage to Washington from the time of Byron and Fox to the present day. France has always revered his name. In distant lands, people who have hardly heard of the United States know the name of Washington. Nothing could better show the regard of the world for this great giver of liberty to the people than the way in which contributions came from all nations to his monument in Washington. There are stones from Greece, fragments of the Parthenon. There are stones from Brazil, Turkey, Japan, Switzerland, Siam and India. In sending her tribute, China said: ‘In devising plans, Washington was more decided than Ching Shing or Woo Kwang; in winning a country, he was braver than Tsau Tsau or Ling Po. Wielding his four-footed falchion, he extended the frontiers, and refused to accept the royal dignity. The sentiments of the three dynasties have reappeared in him. Can any man of ancient or modern times fail to pronounce Washington peerless?’ These comparisons, which are so strange to our ears, and which sound stranger still when used in comparison with Washington, show that his name has reached further than we can comprehend.”
Speaking of the Declaration of Independence, Maury says: