These letters are entirely imaginary—offered with wit, affection, and no partisan agenda. We hope they make you smile, make you think, and perhaps send you back to what the founders actually wrote.

If this makes you think—or smile—please click ‘Like.’ It helps these letters reach more readers who care about the republic the founders imagined.

In our previous post, we learned what the Founding Fathers would think about Presidential Character. Today, Patrick Henry, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams debate where religion belongs in a constitutional republic.

Source: Religious Liberty Debate

Correspondents: Patrick Henry and James Madison; Thomas Jefferson and John Adams

In 1784, Patrick Henry proposed a bill in the Virginia legislature to levy taxes for the support of Christian ministers—a measure he believed essential to public morality. James Madison responded with his legendary Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, arguing that faith must be left entirely to individual conscience. The bill was defeated, and in 1786, Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom became law. Decades later, in their twilight correspondence, Jefferson and Adams reflected on the proper place of religion in a republic—and whether the wall they had built could withstand the ages.

*   *   *

Leatherwood, Virginia, October 14, 1784

Dear Mr. Madison,

I write to you as one who has labored alongside you for liberty, though we now find ourselves on opposite banks of a most turbulent stream. You oppose my bill for the support of Christian teachers. I confess I am astonished.

What is government, sir, if not the guardian of public virtue? And what is the source of virtue among a free people, if not religion? Remove the pulpit from public life, and you remove the very foundation upon which republican government must rest. I have seen men fight tyrants for liberty—but I have also seen what men become when they acknowledge no power higher than their own appetites.

Suppose posterity should embrace your doctrine of strict separation. Suppose they should banish every vestige of religious sentiment from their public squares, their schools, their very oaths of office. Would such a republic endure? Or would it become a nation of merchants and lawyers, clever in commerce but bankrupt in conscience?

I tremble for such a people. They would worship liberty as an idol while forgetting the God who grants it.

Your obedient servant,

Henry

*   *   *

Orange, Virginia, October 28, 1784

Dear Sir,

I honor your concern for public virtue, but I must insist that the remedy you propose is worse than the disease. The moment government presumes to direct matters of faith, it corrupts both the church and the state. Religion flourishes not by the patronage of princes, but by the sincerity of believers.

You ask what would become of a people who separate their government entirely from religious establishment. I ask you: what becomes of faith when it is propped up by tax collectors? Does not such support breed complacency among clergy and resentment among dissenters? The history of Europe is a chronicle of wars fought over which denomination should have the ear of kings.

I do not propose to banish God from the hearts of men—I propose only to banish the magistrate from the sanctuary. Let every citizen worship according to the dictates of his own conscience, and let no man be taxed for another’s creed. This is not irreligion, sir. It is the fullest expression of religious liberty.

If posterity should ever attempt to erect one faith above another, they will find the same tyranny dressed in different vestments.

I remain, with great respect,

Madison

*   *   *

Leatherwood, Virginia, November 10, 1784

My Dear Madison,

You speak of liberty of conscience as though it were a thing that exists in a void. But conscience must be formed before it can be free. Where will the youth of your godless republic learn the difference between liberty and license? In the counting-house? At the gaming table?

I see the future you imagine, and I confess it frightens me. A people who believe in nothing will eventually believe in anything—or in whoever speaks loudest. Without the anchor of faith, every passion becomes permissible, every appetite its own justification.

Mark my words: your high wall will one day become a battlefield, and men will fight bitterly over where to place each stone.

Yr humble servt,

Henry

*   *   *

Monticello, August 22, 1813

Dear Adams,

Your recent letter set me to wondering what posterity shall make of our Virginia Statute. We drove the wedge between church and state with such confidence—but will future generations wield it wisely, or turn it into a cudgel?

I can imagine a time when men will argue endlessly over the meaning of our separation. Some will demand that government be not merely neutral, but actively hostile to any expression of faith in the public square. Others will insist that any acknowledgment of Providence in public life is an establishment of religion. Both extremes will claim us as their champions.

The truth, as you and I have long agreed, lies in the middle ground—but middle ground is difficult to defend when zealots occupy both flanks.

Your friend,

Th. Jefferson

*   *   *

Quincy, September 14, 1813

Dear Jefferson,

You ask whether posterity will wield our principles wisely. I confess I have my doubts—not because the principles are unsound, but because human nature is what it is.

I can easily imagine a future in which judges parse the meaning of every religious symbol as though they were deciphering ancient hieroglyphics. A cross upon a hill? A commandment carved in stone? A prayer before a public assembly? Each will provoke litigation, and lawyers will grow fat upon the confusion.

Meanwhile, the common man will wonder how we ever came to argue over such trifles, while the republic groans under weightier burdens.

Yrs as ever,

John Adams

*   *   *

Montpelier, March 3, 1823

To Posterity,

I have outlived my old adversary, Henry, and I confess that time has softened my certainty. We built a wall to protect both the garden of faith and the wilderness of politics from encroaching upon each other. Whether that wall has become too high or too low, too porous or too rigid, I cannot say.

This much I know: liberty of conscience is the most sacred of all liberties, for it is the liberty upon which all others depend. Guard it jealously—not by silencing believers, nor by privileging any creed, but by trusting free citizens to seek truth according to their own lights.

Yr obt servt,

Madison

* * * * *

If they only knew… that their carefully constructed wall would become one of the most litigated boundaries in American history. That courts would debate whether a cross on public land, a prayer at a football game, or a crèche in a town square violated the Constitution. That politicians would invoke the founders’ faith while others would insist they were deists who wanted religion banished from public life. Henry and Madison would recognize the argument—they just wouldn’t believe we’re still having it, two hundred and fifty years later, with no end in sight.

Questions for Reflection

1. Was Patrick Henry right that public virtue requires public religion—or was Madison correct that government support corrupts faith?
2. How would the founders view today’s debates over religious displays on public property?
3. Has the ‘wall of separation’ become too high, too low, or about right?

Share your thoughts in the comments—and if this made you think, please click ‘Like’ to help others discover these letters.