Source: The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, Date 01 March 1964
Writers in the twentieth century have often entertained themselves (and presumably their readers) by taking pot shots at their particular betenoire, the despised Puritan. If Americans are not spontaneous in their sex relations as some writers would like, it is ascribed to repressions inherited from Puritanism. If they are stingy or ungenerous on occasion, that too must come from their Puritan heritage. If they lack the French joie de vivre, it can be blamed on Puritanism.
In vain, I suspect, some scholars, notably Samuel Eliot Morison and Perry Miller, have shown that the Puritan of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was not that way. In reality, he was not always stern, joyless, and forbidding. However valuable such work may be, it could not be expected to stem the torrent of ad verse criticism manufactured by “imaginative” writers and journalists. Most of them probably could not care less what the Puritan of earlier times was like. They were after more consequential game. For Puritanism as it is popularly conceived and described is none other than the American tradition of virtue and morality.
The historical confusion engendered by such oversimplified misappellations can be passed over for the moment. The point is, Puritanism was used as a symbol of distaste; and, since the characteristics ascribed to Puritanism were in reality characteristic of American ways, the assault upon this symbol was an assault on the American tradition. The discrediting of the one tended to undermine the other.
There was, then, an American tradition of morality and virtue. It is most difficult to delineate, however. Morality and virtue have usually been associated with religion. Indeed, they may be in separably joined in some way. George Washington maintained that they were. In memorable words, he declared:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness – these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Yet the United States did not have an established religion, nor was Washington advocating one. There were already a considerable variety of sects, and more would arise or come in the future. However, traditions are not laws, as I have already pointed out. It is possible to have a tradition of morality and virtue – which, in turn, is dependent upon religion – without its being legally prescribed. Indeed, America had one.
This was made possible by the fact that morality was primarily an individual matter. To put it more directly, only individuals could be moral according to the prevailing ethos. For action to become moral it meant that individuals should have made choices. Thus, prescribed morality was antithetical to the tradition. The corollary to individual morality was individual responsibility. When an individual chose his course of action, he became responsible for its consequences. If he affronted the community codes of behavior, he would be made to feel the contempt and displeasure of that community. If he violated laws, he would be held responsible by punishment. In like manner, individuals received the rewards of their endeavors. This was facilitated by provisions for private property, by definite distinctions between what belonged to one man and what to another, and by community approval of those who justly acquired wealth or fame.
To my knowledge, no one has attempted to rank the virtues which were admired in the American tradition. It is doubtful that it could be done, for Americans did not go in for hierarchies. But certain virtues were prominent. According to one historian, the following were the leading virtues in the middle of the eighteenth century: “patriotism, public service, industry and frugality, justice, and integrity.” Another historian, writing of the nineteenth century American, attributes these virtues to him:
The American had a high sense of honor and would not tolerate acts dishonorable by his standards. Words like truth, justice, loyalty, reverence, virtue, and honor meant much to him . . . . He admired industry, temperance, sportsmanship. . . . He recognized the sovereignty of the individual conscience, consulted it on most matters, and yielded the same privilege to others.
But a random listing of virtues does not do justice to the tradition. After all, virtue and morality were the mortar which held the bricks of the American tradition together. These virtues were not chosen at random; they were an integral part of the structure of the life of a people. Liberty, individualism, voluntarism, personal independence, and individual responsibility can only be made to work by a people who have developed virtues which will buttress these ideas and practices. For people in general to concur in practices by which each man receives the fruits of his labor, they need to have a set of values in keeping with these practices. These values must exist in intricate interrelation, not in careless disarray.
High on the list of American virtues were industry, thrift, and frugality. Hard work was not only a practical means to acquir ing goods but also a positive good itself . Undoubtedly, many believed that an idle mind was the devil’s workshop, but there was also the consideration that a man who had worked hard all day could sleep the sleep of the just. Work was the sovereign prescription for sorrow, for heartache, and for vague discontent. It kept the young out of mischief and filled the long hours of the aged. Work was not so much a curse to be avoided as a blessing to be sought. It was the means by which an individual assumed responsibility for himself and his own, achieved independence, and showed himself to be a man.
Thrift, too, was a positive virtue. If capital accumulation was the aim, a penny saved was indeed a penny earned. Waste not, want not, was the negative way of justifying frugality, but the practice had deeper sanctions. That which we hold is a gift of God, held in stewardship from him. To treat it casually or carelessly would be to hold the giver in contempt. The counter vices to these virtues were laziness, extravagance, and wastefulness. These vices were universally condemned in an earlier America. Indeed, it was generally held that those who were deprived in some way were usually to blame because they had yielded to the vices and not practiced the virtues.
Simplicity was much admired by Americans. This probably reached its peak, so far as public affairs were concerned, during Andrew Jackson’s time. But republican simplicity had been advocated and practiced by Jefferson also. Simplicity of manners, directness of approach, straight forwardness of action were the standards Americans applied to behavior. They disapproved of pomp, “putting on airs,” an undue complexity, and deviousness. Rhetorical flourishes were all very well in a public speech, but ordinary business should be conducted without obscurity.
This preference for simplicity can be understood; it had an important role in the ethos. If men are to look after their own affairs, if each man is to be responsible for himself, if he is to make choices, the alternatives must be clear. Questions must be raised above the level of complicating circumstances. In effect, this means that they must be posed as moral alternatives, in most cases.
Many twentieth century writers have derided the tendency of Americans to turn questions into moral problems. Yet it is not at all clear how they would propose alternatives to most men. Moral choices can be and are made by simple men who could not hope to understand all the factors in a complicated situation. Indeed, it is doubtful that anyone knows all the particulars of a given situation, or that they could reach a decision if they did. Simplicity is required for individual responsibility and for choice.
Self-respect was another of the major virtues in the American tradition, along with its corollary, respect for others. To be self-respecting meant that one was self-supporting, independent, dependable, conscious of the good opinion of his neighbors, honest, and able to contribute in some way to common tasks. Somewhat of disgrace was attached to falling short of any of these. In his own eyes, a man lost stature by failing to provide for himself. To his neighbors, his virtue was at least suspect. Respect for others involved a consciousness of distance between you, a distance to be bridged only when both parties desired. This meant that another’s property was something you used only at his invitation, his time you imposed on at his behest, and his religion, beliefs, and habits you tolerated so long as they did not too grossly off end the taste of the community. American communities were apt to uphold moral standards, not so much by laws as by informal reproval of undesired conduct.
The Moral Adhesive
These virtues were knit together and given force by the religious and philosophical heritage which most Americans shared. Most Americans have been and are Christian, nominally, devotedly, or haphazardly. Within Christianity, the tone was set by various Protestant sects, at least until the twentieth century. Moreover, these were distinctly colored by English Protestantism, which was heavily suffused with Calvinism in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The Puritans contributed to the American ethos the conception of each man having a calling, of the importance of work, of the practice of thrift and frugality. From the Quakers came the emphasis upon the individual conscience, upon an inner light, and upon the command to obey its promptings. The Baptists insisted upon religion being freed from political control and upon the right of a man to choose how he would worship.
Many of these sectarian belief s were fused or transcended by revivalists in the Great Awakening, which occurred in the middle of the eighteenth century. Thereafter, most of Protestantism came to share a common ethos. One writer lists the characteristics of American Protestantism in the early nineteenth century, and follows them with these comments:
It is notable that each of these characteristics emphasizes the free decision of the individual will. Christianity in America has emphasized these expressions of a change of heart and of the conversion of the individual: the pious practice of the believer, the revival in the society, and missionary effort to the unconverted. Fundamental to all of this is a fresh grasp on a free and inward decision of the spirit as essential to real religion, and a corresponding rejection of any coercion in religious belief.
The personal piety which religion promoted was evinced in the moral life and the practice of those virtues enumerated above, and others.
But this is to affirm what has not yet been demonstrated, i.e., the connection between religion and morality. To make this demonstration, it will be useful to raise some ultimate questions. Why is self-respect a virtue? Why should men be honest? Why should they tell the truth? Is it good to be independent? In short, what makes those things virtues which men have so denominated?
In our day, there are many intellectuals who doubt that there is any necessary connection between religion and morality. They profess to see no need for a metaphysical realm in which the physical must subsist and have its being. For them, the above questions can be answered pragmatically, so far as they need to be answered. Thus, they might say that it is important that people be honest in order that society may function smoothly. If people did not tell the truth, they would stop trusting one another, and relationships would deteriorate. In brief, they argue that human reason and social needs form a sufficient base for rules of behavior.
It is not for the historian to answer these ultimate questions that have been posed. His task is completed when he has described what men believed and did – and what the consequences were. Thus, so far as the questions are philosophical or theological, they fall outside the area of my competence. But so far as the actual beliefs that men have held and the relationship of these to the practices of morality and virtue are concerned, these are very much historical questions.
There is no doubt in my mind, then, that American morality was closely connected to religion and philosophy. Nor do I wish to imply that this was merely a fortuitous nexus. Powerful sanctions usually accompany the taboos and imperatives which a people accept. The rationalist may conclude, for example, that murder is an obvious evil, that all men will readily concur with him in this opinion. Surely, he might think, there is no need for supernatural sanctions against murder. The matter may be otherwise, however. Remove the sense of awe and mystery which men have before God and who is to say that you do not contribute to the removal of the awe and mystery which envelops human beings and protects them from one another ordinarily?
At any rate, the American tradition of virtue and morality had deep religious sanctions. These religious beliefs can be set forth in philosophic terms, though it must be understood that most Americans could not have articulated them in this way. Generally, Americans believed that they lived in a created universe. They believed in a Creator, God transcendent, who stood outside the humanly conceived dimensions of time and space and who made this world.
The common appellation for God in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was Providence. God as provider meant different things to different people, of course, depending upon the amount of learning and depth of thought about it. In general terms, though, it meant that he had provided whatever existed in nature, i.e., the universe, its laws, man and his nature, the materials with which men worked. President John Adams captured this conception in the closing words of his Inaugural Address:
And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing upon this nation and its Government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of His providence.
The great support of morality in these religious beliefs was the conviction that this created universe was pervaded by a moral order. By the eighteenth century, many thinkers interpreted this moral order in terms of natural laws. From this point of view, to say that there is a moral order in the universe means that this universe works according to laws. But whether it be understood as natural law or Divine injunction, the belief in a moral order made morality and virtue imperative. Those acts are morally good which are in keeping with moral order; virtues are those principles of action which are consonant with the order.
Let us revert to an earlier question. Why is it good to be independent? Because this universe is pervaded by a moral order. Because man is a moral being. Because choice is essential to morality. Because independence is necessary to free choice. How may a man become independent? He may do so by practicing industry, thrift, and frugality. Industry, thrift, and frugality lead to independence because there is an order in the universe, an order in which rewards are likely to be proportioned to effort, in which possessions may be augmented by careful husbandry, in which thrift will be rewarded by increased savings. It may appear a quibble, but let it be noted anyhow: these actions are not good because they have good consequences; they have good consequences because they are good – i.e., that they are in keeping with the moral order. Self-respect begets respect for others; honor begets honesty ; fidelity begets faithfulness.
An Optimistic View
The belief in the existence of a moral order had many attendant results for Americans. It meant that the triumph of right was established and certain. There could be no ultimate tragedy : right would win ; justice would triumph; goodness would over come. Observers have of ten re marked that Americans were op timistic. Recent interpreters have tended to ascribe this to their ex perience and environment. Let us suggest a deeper source, the be lief in an ultimately triumphant moral order.
This belief served as a profound basis for freedom for Americans. In the first place, it was cond u cive to faith. The man who lacks faith will be easily inclined to the view that he must do everything himself, that if men are not com pelled they will not act in desired ways, that someone or a group must provide a master plan else society will come to pieces, and chaos will reign. The man with faith in an order higher than himself can be content to leave other men to their devices, secure in his knowledge that God is not mocked, that right will triumph, and that his major task is to see that he is not destroyed in the process. He can believe that an economic order may work justly without society’s intervention by way of a master plan. There is an order in the universe that brings a harmony out of the diverse activities of men if it is not interfered with by rules devised by men and promulgated in the society, if aggression is estopped, and if freedom prevails in the market.
Second, such a belief in a moral order can serve to promote liberty because it is to the advantage of men to come to know the order. They can do so most adequately if the greatest liberty prevails. The consequences of actions are not obscured ; the rewards of endeavors can be viewed without obstruction. In this view, no amount of human effort can thwart the moral order, of course, but human intervention can great ly confuse the onlooker. For example, he may ascribe his prosperity to human agency, or his discoveries to invention. It is extremely important for men to dis cern cause and effect clearly, for their actions will tend to be pred icated upon conclusions about this. Liberty is an important condition of such discernment.
Third, the individual responsibility that follows from living within a universal moral order is essential to the working of liberty. If each man is to have liberty, he must assume responsibility for himself. If he does not, or if society does not impose it upon him, he will suffer, and he may use his suff ering as an excuse for compulsory social action.
A tradition of virtue and morality took shape in America, then. It was supported by religion and buttressed by philosophy. It was made manifest in numerous customs and practices : in individualism, in voluntarism, in limited government, in extended liberty, in laws which placed the primary responsibility for his actions upon the individual. Individuals were impelled to work, to strive, to accomplish, because they assumed the responsibility for their well-being. Above all, the belief in a moral order was demonstrated by the things which Americans did not attempt to do by compulsion: by permitting voluntary religious associations, by leaving the individual free to work out his own salvation in his own way, by not planning the economy, by not presuming to control the behavior of other nations, by resting the government on the free choice and activity of the citizenry.
Remove the Temptation
This system was not founded upon the notion that men are naturally virtuous or morally good, though some could be found who would subscribe to such propositions, but upon the view that there is a moral order in the universe, that all men’s schemes will come to nought if they are in opposition to it, and that it is better to remove the temptation for interfering as far as possible from men by checking power and limiting its legitimate use by government.
There should be no doubt that long strides toward the abandonment of this tradition have taken place in the twentieth century. According to much of current economic thought, those who practice thrift are enemies of prosperity because they lower consumption and slow the wheels of production. Hard work may be a virtue in some circles, but the good life is portrayed in America as a play life. As for frugality, articles have actually appeared suggesting that waste is necessary to full production and employment. My impression is that self-respect and personal independence are not highly rated. today. Sociability is a much higher virtue. At any rate, less and less is left to the individual and more and more power is assumed by governments.
The philosophical props have been knocked from under the American tradition; theologians and preachers have long since ceased to support it with one voice. Intellectuals, many of them, have come to doubt that there is any order in the universe, much less a moral one. The Darwinians promulgated a constantly changing universe, one in which the only enduring quality was change itself . The Marxists turned the old order upside down, made technology rather than man the mover in this world. They and other socialists thingified society (with help from some conservatives) , and reduced the individual to a cog in its giant wheel. Environmentalists denied the freedom and responsibility of the individual, and pragmatists proclaimed that these were meaningless .questions. Nietzsche declared that “God is dead,” and his disciples attempted to raise man in His stead. Preachers of the Social Gospel emphasized the reform of society and worked for the Kingdom to come, a kingdom which bore a striking resemblance to the materialistic utopias advanced in the nineteenth century. Meliorists set out to create their own moral order, one at considerable variance from that made by the Creator. In short, the older beliefs were turned upside down. The tradition was undermined.
Emphasis on Planning
These intellectual developments set the stage for many twentieth century practices and attitudes which are by now familiar. If there is no moral order in the universe, the economy must be planned, else chaos will result. Man, or society, must plan and do everything. If the United States does not exert its power and influence in the world, great harm will presumably result. Who knows what France might do with atomic bombs? If men are left to their devices – are left at liberty – what might be the consequences? Children must be propagandized, adults kept at work, the aged supervised or provided with suitable tasks. Lacking a faith in a moral order, men must engage in frenetic social activities to maintain order. Lacking a working belief in a transcendent God, men will play at being gods. They cannot accept freedom because they cannot predict the consequences of freedom. Hence, they are driven to more and more controls in order to have a predictable condition. Lacking a belief in immutable law, judges presume to make their own law.
Could George Washington have been right? Is there a connection between religion and morality ? More, is there a connection between these and the possibility of maintaining liberty ? In the American tradition, there was. Can it be that this connection subsists in reality? Those who maintain otherwise, or who act otherwise, need to demonstrate how they, of their own efforts, will maintain freedom without a moral order. The consequences of their experiments thus far are not such as to inspire faith in man’s unaided abilities. One wonders if any more journeys into the twilight zone of humanistic meliorism are warranted! The residues of the American tradition of virtue and morality point in another direction.
Clarence B. Carson (1925-2003) was a frequent contributor to The Freeman: Ideas On Liberty, and was Professor of History at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, and the author of 12 books including his noteworthy six-volume work: A Basic History of the United States.
Used with the permission of the Foundation for Economic Education.
The Americanist presents a variety of books, essays, and poetry which promise to offer you or your child readings which promote and defend the values of America’s Founders and Western Civilization as they once were defended in America’s Schools.
Unique formatting, editing, explanatory notes, or added Self-Educated Man materials of The Americanist collection Copyright © 2015 Steve Farrell, Founder and Editor-In-Chief of Self-Educated American. Copyright for the texts themselves are as indicated per work.