•

Israers Festival—and Religions Freedom in America:

52—THE JEWISH NEWS
Friday, March 31. 1950

Jacob Henry's Battle for Civil Rights

•By PHILIP SLOMOVITZ

srael's Festival of Freedom—the Pass-
over—is a glorious occasion on which
to recall important battles for justice on
the American continent. There are numer-
ous instances of heroic efforts, dating
back to Colonial times, when high-minded
Christians fought for the right of man
to worship — or not to worship — as he
pleased.
Thus far, the triumphs of Washington, Jefferson, Madison and
scores of others, who have succeeded in writing into our Constitution the
basic principles of religious liberty, remain the pride and the cornerstone
of our American heritage.
There are some lesser known names whose contributions to the
cause of justice and untrammeled freedom have helped build a strong
foundation for this great republic. Among them was Jacob Henry, who
was elected to the North Carolina House of Commons in 1808, served for
a year and upon his re-election hi 1809 faced the challenge as to his right
to hold office on religious grounds.

I

At that time the North Carolina constitution prohibited non-Protestants
from holding civil offices. Henry, who was elected to the North Carolina state
legislature from Carteret County, became the center of a political issue. Many
of the state's leaders came to his support and Roman Catholics, who were simi-
larly affected by the law barring non-Protestants from holding civil positions,
were on his side.
Henry won an overwhelming victory to retain his seat after delivering an
address which has won such wide acclaim that it has been included in the fa-
mous collection "The American Orator." Henry's triumph, however, was only
partial. While he was permitted to retain his seat in the legislature, the discrim-
inatory North Carolina clause remained on the state's statutes. It was interpreted
to mean that legislative offices were not necessarily "civil," that Catholics and
Jews could participate in making laws although they were prohibited from in-
terpreting and executing them.
After the Civil War, when southern states began to liberalize their consti-
tutions, North Carolina granted full religious liberty to all its constituents in
1868.
Jacob Henry was born in Philadelphia in 1776. His activities after his rise
to fame in the battle for religious equality in 1809, when he delivered his great
oration, the date and place of his death, are unknown. His name at birth was
Jacob Gratz and it is believed he was the brother of the Philadelphia merchant
Michael Gratz. Jacob changed his last name to Henry when he moved to the south.
In his powerful book on the battle for liberty for all faiths, "Cornerstone
of Religious Freedom in America," (Beacon Press), Joseph L. Blau reprints in
full the famous oration by Henry. and makes this interesting reference to Henry
in a chapter on "The Affirmation of Civil Rights for Religious Minorities":
. "North Carolina, whose Constitution required its
officials to accept the divine authority of the New
Testament, but whose declaration of rights granted
religious freedom, was faced with the necessity, in
1809, of deciding between these two instruments.
"Jacob Henry, a Jew, was elected. to the House of
Commons by the voters of Carteret County. It was,
of course, impossible for Mr. Henry to affirm the
divine authority of the New Testament. His right to
his seat was, therefore, challenged. Mr. Henry was
granted the privilege of speaking in defense of his
right to retain the seat, and did so in a brief speech
which was long considered one of the gems of Ameri-
can oratory. There has been some question raised as
to his authorship of the speech; it is reported by one
of the historians of North Carolina to have been written for him by Chief Jus-
tice Taylor of the State Supreme Court. This attribution was solely on the basis
Of hearsay, and we are justified in attaching the name of Jacob Henry to this
speech until trustworthy evidence of other authorship is furnished.
"The speech itself, though brief, is a ringing .reiteration of the view that
religion is a personal matter between the individual and his Maker, and that
no one has the right to challenge or question this personal relation. As long

as one does not hold religious opinions dangerous to the state, the state has
no power to exclude him from any privilege or obligation of citizenship. The
statement was clear-cut and incisive—and it is a pleasure to report that it
was decisive. Mr. Henry was overwhelmingly granted the right to his seat in
the Commons, and, some years later, the constitutional provisions were
changed."
In 1818, in the heat of debate over a similar issue in the Maryland As-
sembly, while discussing the so-called "Jew Bill" which was aimed at the re-
peal of a test act that prevented Jews from entering the legal profession and
public office, the Hon. H. M. Brackenridge spoke of Jacob Henry's speech as
being "a part of our education as Americans to love and cherish the sentiments
uttered by him .. ."

The Maryland battle, which began in 1797 when the Bdltimore Jew Solo-
mon Etting first petitioned the Maryland House of Commons against the re-
strictions on Jews seeking office or entrance in the legal profession; the part
played in it by Thomas Kennedy, "ardent Jeffersonian and a persistent fighter,"
Col. W. G. D. Worthington and H. M. Brackenridge, form another glorious
chapter in the struggle for religious freedom in this country. The "Jew Bill"
was adopted by the Maryland House of Delegates on the last day of the ses-
sion, Feb. 26, 1825, and was confirmed, as -required by law, in the following
session of the House, on Jan. 5, 1826. Mr. Blau, whose book also contains the
complete text of Mr. Brackenridge's historic address, comments that "the Jef--
fersonian principle was vindicated and sustained in Maryland just six months
before the death of Jefferson himself."

Brackenridge's Speech on the Maryland "Jew Bill," delivered in 1819, has
gone down in history with the greatest orations in defense of civil rights. Brack-
enridge had this to say on the -question of tolerance:
"Sir, I abhor intolerance, whether it be political or religious; and yet, I can
scarcely regard religious . tolerance as a virtue. What! has weak and erring man,
a right to give permission to his fellow mortal, to offer his adorations to the
Supreme Being, after his own manner? Did I not feel myself somehow restrained
from pursuing this subject, I would endeavor to demonstrate, that the idea of
such permission, or toleration, is not better than impiety. But I content myself,
with calling your attention to what has been the effect, in this country, at least,
of leaving religion to be taught from the pulpit, or to be instilled by early ed-
ucation."
Is this a Christian land? Brackenridge had something to say, also, on this
score in his famous speech. To quote him again:
"But, we are told, that this is a Christian land, and that we are Christians!
I rejoice to hear it, and I hope we will prove ourselves worthy of the name, by
acting on this, and on every other occasion, with Christian spirit . . . But this
is a Christian land! And let me inquire of the page of history, by what means
it became so? Was it through the instrumentality of peace and good will to our
fellow men? . . . No, sir, the soil we inhabit yields its fruit to the just and to
the unjust; the sun which gives us life, sheds his glorious beams impartially on
all. But the great majority of the dwellers of this land
are Christians; therefore it is a Christian land! For
the same reason, it might be a catholic, episcopal, or
presbyterian land. Our political compacts are not en-
tered into as brethren of the Christian faith—but as
men, as members of a civilized society. In looking
back to our struggle for independence, I find that
we engaged in that bloody conflict, for the RIGHTS
OF MAN, and not for the purpose of enforcing or de-
fending any particular religious creed. If the acci-
dental circumstance, of our being for the greater part
Christians, could justify us in proscribing other re-
ligions, the same reason would justify any one of the
sects of Christianity, in persecuting the rest. But, sir,
all persecution for the sake of opinions, is tyranny—
and the first speck of it that may appear, should be eradicated, as the com-
mencement of a deadly gangrene, whose ultimate tendency, is, to convert the
body politic, into a corrupt and putrid mass."
This is the stuff of which the ideals of freedom and democracy were made
in this great land of liberty. We pause on the Passover Festival of Freedom to
pay tribute to the moulders of free expression and free living and thinking in
our great land.

Text of Henry's Great Oration in Carolina House of Delegates in 1809

I certainly, Mr. Speaker, know not the design of the

If a man should hold religious princi-

Declaration of Rights made by the people of this State in the

ples incompatible with the freedom and

year 1776, if it was not to consecrate certain great and fun-

safety of the State, I do not hesitate to

damental rights and principles which even the Constitution

pronounce that he should be excluded from

cannot impair; for the 44th section of the latter instrument

the public councils of the same; and I
trust if I know myself, no one would be
more ready to aid and assist than myself.
But I should really be at a loss to specify
any known religious principles which are
thus dangerous.
It is surely a question between a man and his Maker, and
requires more than human attributes to pronounce which of
the numerous sects prevailing in the world is more acceptable
to the Deity. If a man fulfills the duties of that religion,
which his education or his conscience has pointed to him as
the true one, no person, I hold, in this our land of liberty,
has a right to arraign him at the bar of any inquisition; and
the day, I trust, has long passed, when principles merely
speculative were propagated by force; when the sincere and
pious were made victims, and the light-minded Jpribed into

declares that the Declaration of Rights ought never to be vio-

lated, on any pretence whatever; if there is any apparent

difference between the two instruments, they ought, if pos-
sible, to be reconciled; but if there is a final repugnance be-
tween them, the Declaration of Rights must be considered
paramount; for I believe it is to the Constitution, as the Con-
stitution is to law; it controls and directs it absolutely and
conclusively. If, then, a belief in the Protestant religion is re-
quired by the Constitution, to qualify a man for a seat in this
house, and such qualification is dispensed with by the Declar-
ation of Rights, the provision of the Constitution must be
altogether inoperative; as the language of the Bill of Rights
is, "that all men have a natural and inalienable right to wor-
ship ALMIGHTY GOD according to the dictates of their own
consciences." It is undoubtedly a natural right, and when it is
declared to be an inalienable one by the people in their sov-
ereign and original capacity, any attempt to alienate either by
the Constitution or by law, must be vain and fruitless.

It is difficult to conceive how such a provision crept into
the Constitution, unless it is from the difficulty the human
mind feels in suddenly emancipating itself from fetters by
which it has long been enchained: and how adverse it is to
the feelings and manners of the people of the present day
every gentleman may satisfy himself by glancing at the reli-
gious belief of the persons who fill the various offices in this
State: there are Presbyterians, Lutherans, Calvinists, Mention-
ists, Baptists, Trinitarians and Unitarians. But, as far as my
observation extends, there are fewer Protestants, in the strict
sense of the word, used by the Constitution, than of any other
persuasion; for I suppose that they meant by it, the Protestant
religion as established by the law in England.

For other persuasions we see houses of worship in almost
every part of the State, but Very few of the Protestant; so
few, that indeed I fear that the people of this State would
for some time remain unrepresented in this House, if that
clause of the Constitution is supposed to be in force. So far
from believing in the Thirty-nine Articles, I will venture to
assert that a . majority. of the people never have read them.

hypocrites.
The purest homage man could render to the Almighty was
the sacrifice of his passions and the performance of his duties.
That the ruler of the universe would receive with equal be-
nignity the various offers of man's adoration, if they pro-
ceeded from the heart. Governments only concern the
actions and conduct of man, and not his speculative notions.
Who among us feels himself so exalted above his fellows
as to have a right to dictate to them any mode of belief?
Will you bind the conscience in chains, and fasten conviction
upon the mind in spite of the conclusions of reason and
of those ties and habitudes which are blended with every
pulsation of the heart? Are you prepared to plunge at
once from the sublime heights of moral legislation into the
dark and gloomy caverns of superstitious ignorance? Will you
drive from your shores and from the shelter of your constitu-
tion, all who do not lay their oblations on the same altar, ob-
serve the same ritual, and subscribe to the same dogmas? If
so, which, among the various sects into which we are divided,
shall be the favored one?
I should insult the understanding of this House to suppose
all know that persecution in all its shapes and modifications,
it possible that they could ever assent to such absurdities; for
is contrary to the genius of our government and the spirit of

our laws, and that it can never produce any other effect
than to render men hypocrites or martyrs.
When Charles V.; Emperor of Germany, tired of the cares
of government, resigned his crown to his son, he retired to
a monastery, where he amused the evening of his life in
regulating the movements of watches, endeavoring to make
a number keep the same time; but, not being able to make
any two go exactly alike, it led him to reflect upon the folly
and crimes he had committed, in attempting the impossibility
of making..men think alike!!
Nothing is more easily demonstrated than that the con-
duct alone is the subject of human laws, and that man ought
to suffer civil disqualification for what he does, and not for
what he thinks. The mind can receive laws only from Him,
of whose Divine essence it is a portion; He alone can punish
disobedience; for who else can know its movements, or esti-
mate their merits? The religion I profess, inculcates every
duty which man owes to his fellow men; it enjoins upon its vo-
taries the practice of every virtue, and the detestation of every/
vice; it teaches them to hope for the favor of heaven exactly 4'1'1
proportion as their lives have been directed by just, honorable,
and beneficent maxims. This, then, gentlemen, is my creed,—
it was impressed upon my infant mind; it has been the direc-
tor of my youth, the monitor of my manhood, and will, I trust,
be the consolation of my old age. At any rate, Mr. Speaker,
I am sure tha't you cannot see anything in this Religion, to
deprive me of my seat in this house. So far as relates to my
life and conduct, the examination of these I submit with
cheerfulness to your candid and liberal construction. What may
be the religion of him who made this objection against me, or
whether he has any religion or not I am unable to say. I have
never considered it my duty to pry into the belief of other,
members of this house. If their actions ore upright and con-1
duct just, the rest is for their own consideration, not for mine.
I do not seek to make converts to my faith, whatever it
may be esteemed in the eyes of my officious friend, nor do I
exclude any one from my esteem or friendship, because he
and I differ in that respect. The same charity, therefore, it is
not unreasonable to expect, will be extended to myself, be-
cause in all things that relate to the State and to the duties
of civil life, I am bound by the same obligations with my,
fellow-citizens, nor does any man subscribe more sincerely,
than myself to the maxim, "whatever ye would that mer,
should do unto you do ye so even unto them, for such is the
law and the prophets."

