Samuel Wells and Dr. Christopher Hodson, History

With my grant I analyzed how early congressional Thanksgiving proclamations textually moved away from overtly Christian wording while simultaneously retaining a rhetorical Christian foundation. To illustrate my point I chose to analyze said declarations as textual examples of prayer. In order to do so, I first examined Congress’s original declaration of 1777. Second, by building upon a 1739 tract by Isaac Watts entitled “A Guide to Prayer,” I employed later proclamations to illustrate the genre’s continued reliance upon the rhetoric of prayer in the face of shifting ideological norms.

Writing in the early 1730s, Isaac Watts published the pamphlet “A Guide to Prayer.” Within its pages Watts separated prayer’s component into distinct divisions— invocation, confession, petition, pleading, and thanksgiving. Watts’s view of prayer held significant weight in colonial minds. Indeed, its pervasiveness may be illustrated through Congress’s first proclamation. Though political in nature, its author Richard Henry Lee structured content along religious lines. Following Watts’s lead, Lee opened by calling upon God. His invocation recognized the name of deity (Almighty God), while providing reasons for worshiping him (it being Americans’ “duty”). Following lines sought “farther blessings.”

I soon discovered that similarities with Watts’s divisions did not end here. Following his invocation, Lee addressed Watts’s next point: confession by enjoining a “penitent confession of…sins” upon all. Confessional imagery was made even stronger when Lee reminded all that individual shortcomings could only be set aright through the “merits of Jesus Christ.” Following confession, Lee detailed acts of petition, beseeching God’s aid. Like Watts, Lee pleads for deliverance from evil, the protection of his nation, and the spread of the gospel. Regarding the first, Lee asked the Lord to “prosecute … a just … war.” Lee’s supplication also bled over into petitions regarding his country. Blessings over American husbandry, manufacturing and houses of learning were each sought in turn. Lee pled for the “greatest of all human blessings, INDEPENDENCE and PEACE” to rest upon the nation. This last was particularly intriguing, as Watts employed the same phrase almost verbatim. Lee also sought a blessing upon the church by asking for “promotion and enlargement” of God’s “kingdom” on the earth.

I also found that “Thanksgiving,” Watts’s next heading, played a prominent role within Lee’s proclamation. As Watts exhorted, Lee mentioned mercies bestowed by Providence in times of war. However, even if one wishes sees Thanksgiving proclamations as prayer, the fact remains that, at least outwardly, Congress distanced themselves from Christian rhetoric in subsequent declarations. While feeling comfortable referring to “Jesus Christ” in 1777, later resolutions became more general. While declarations constantly recognized “Almighty God” in their opening line, Christ’s nature gradually became subsumed by his attributes. Classified alternately as “Benefactor,” “Providence,” “great Creator” or “Author of all…good,” non-personal rhetoric proved ever more pervasive.

Yet, in order to truly understand revolutionary limits between rhetoric and faith I found that subsequent congressional proclamations had to be compared both with Lee’s original, as well as Watts’s tract. Within this summary Washington’s proclamation serves as a representative text, as scholars tend to classify Washington as a Deist rather than Christian. If Christian rhetoric of prayer is to be seen as viable a decade after Lee’s resolution, it must exist where suspected to be most incongruent.

Within Washington’s declaration God no longer appeared as a physical being. Only His influence remained. No references to Lee’s “merits of Jesus Christ” appeared. Furthermore, Washington’s God no longer acted directly within history. Rather than bestow “bounties,” he sent “signal favors.” For Washington, such blessing were evident, not in Providential interposition, but in “opportunit[ies] given Americans to “establish … government for their safety and happiness.” Man, not God, now took responsibility for giving blessings. Deity could assist man—but only by allowing him to help himself.

Yet, even in the face of deep seated ideological change, I found that the rhetoric of prayer continued. Throughout Washington’s text, Watts’s injunctions still remained. Herein, confession and petition will provide examples of larger change and continuity. In the opening years of revolution Lee emphasized confession of an individual nature. Personal sin, caused men to “forfeit” the Lord’s “favor.” Washington’s words continued the tradition while altering the conception. “Transgression” was now viewed as “national” in nature. Washington’s rhetorical choice proved telling. “Sin” now appeared overly harsh for use in public proclamation. “Transgression,” seen as a mistake rather than offense against God, softened the feel even while recognizing Watts’s call for continued humility.

Continuing his proclamation, Washington petitioned Providence. Again, notable changes surfaced, even while following Watts’s blueprint. As Lee, he asked God for protection. Yet, pleas for country were more assured than Lee’s. Lee, unsure of success, sought protection of colonial liberties. Only as Providence “smile[d]” upon preparations for war would colonists experience “success.” Washington made no such move. While asking Providence to “render [the] national government a blessing to all,” Washington focused on his faith in humanity. Additional blessings would come, not by God alone, but through “constitutional laws” written by men. Such thought was furthered by Washington’s belief that such laws must be “faithfully executed,”—not by the distant heavens, but the will of common citizens.

At first glance, these examples appeared to bear out scholars who posited a declension of Christian thought among the nation’s founders. Textually speaking, Lee’s and Washington’s God bore only slight resemblance. While Lee saw a God which actively desired to assist those struggling for independence, Washington’s highlighted an impersonal deity which helped Americans to help themselves.

Yet, for all the aforementioned changes, I found that a Christian ethos of prayer still governed the declarations’ inner workings. Continued need to address Deity remained throughout. While true that God’s nature changed over the course of time, colonists still saw God (however far removed) in their midst. Even as He lost physical form, the declarations’ form argued that men still felt a need to confront their Creator and implore some form of aid while recognizing sin. For this reason, Watts’s instructions are adhered to throughout. The genre, though transformed, remained intact.

Through my research I was able to conclude that ignoring Christian foundations of congressional proclamations obscures views of American religiosity, forcing us to create narratives of religious decline where those highlighting continued tension are called for. Rhetorically analyzing not only what the founders said, but how they said it, adds nuance to the heated debate. It allows us to see not only how secular language remained moored to Christian foundations, but how Christian genres employed diverse textual traditions. If the resulting relationship was not exactly symbiotic, neither was it parasitic. Each felt a need to accommodate the other. As I sought to demonstrate while presenting my ORCA research at BYU’s 2011 English symposium, if an active God had disappeared from colonial texts He yet slumbered in their psyche.