Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State

Daniel L. Dreisbach, Professor in the Department of Justice, Law, and Society at American University, provides an in-depth historical analysis of Jefferson's letter of 1 January 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association and how a singular phrase in that letter has become the basis of interpretation for the proper relationship between church and state in constitutional law. Dreisbach argues that the architectural metaphor, "wall of separation between church and state," has become the "defining motif for the constitutional role of religion in American public lifeEit] has become a cherished symbol for a strict separationist policy that champions a secular order in which religious influences are systematically removed from public life." Dreisbach demonstrates that such a formidable barrier between religion and civil government was never intended by early 19th century religious dissenters, the framers of the First Amendment, or even Jefferson himself.Dreisbach provides a detailed analysis of the historical context of Jefferson's letter. He discusses the conflict between the Federalist clergy and Republicans during the 1800 election over Jefferson's religious views. Dreisbach notes the support of the Republican Baptists of New England for Jefferson and the basis for this support. The New England Baptists suffered as a minority faith under an established church ECongregationalism. There was mutual support between the Federalists and the Congregationalist clergy during the turn of the century, as evidenced by their alliance during the 1800 election. After Jefferson and the Republicans came to power, the New England Baptists hoped to find an ally of liberty in Jefferson and that he could somehow have an influential effect in favor of their disestablishment agenda. Jefferson's famous letter to the Danburry Baptists of Connecticut was his reply.Dreisbach notes that the Baptists were not enthusiastic about Jefferson's metaphor, 'wall of separation,' and that it may have done more harm than good for their cause. First, he states that "[t]he New England Baptists had framed their agenda in terms of disestablishment, but they did not want religious influences separated from public life and policy." Second, the Baptists might have feared that Jefferson's metaphor would be used against them by charging that they were advocates of separation (which they were not), a common charge used during this time to discredit religious dissenters. Dreisbach puts Jefferson's letter in context by interpreting it according to the time it was written and according to the man it was written by. He notes that "the word 'church,' rather than 'religion,' in Jefferson's restatement of the First Amendment emphasized that the constitutional separation was between ecclesiastical institutions and the civil state." Of greater importance, however, is Jefferson's jurisdictional interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Jefferson was first and foremost and advocate of states' righ

Thomas Jefferson's celebrated "wall of separation" metaphor has exerted a profound influence on American thought and practice regarding relations between church and state. This little book, thoroughly researched and carefully reasoned, examines the subject from several different perspectives. The author begins by analyzing the historical context of Jefferson's statement. Receiving a letter of courtesy from the Danbury Baptist Association, Jefferson consulted two cabinet officers on a draft response and replied within two days (on January 1, 1802) with a view to countering Federalist and clerical attacks on his supposed irreligion during the 1800 presidential election and to "sowing useful truths & principles among the people" (25). In close scrutiny of the letter, Dreisbach shows that Jefferson agreed with the Baptists that religion is a matter of conscience and went on to say "that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions," and that the American people had "declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State" (48, 148).As Dreisbach contends, Jefferson interpreted the First Amendment as prohibiting Congress from establishing religion; thus it prohibited him as president from designating days of thanksgiving or prayer. But the amendment did not separate religion and civil government. As president, Jefferson attended religious services in the Capitol, and he used rhetoric with religious content in official utterances. Moreover, the First Amendment did not prohibit the states from legislating with respect to religion. As governor of Virginia, Jefferson had issued religious proclamations. In sum, the "wall" of the letter "served primarily to separate state and nation in matters pertaining to religion, rather than to separate ecclesiastical and all governmental authorities" (56).A chapter considers uses of the "wall of separation" trope by Richard Hooker (1554-1600), Roger Williams (1603?-83), and James Burgh (1714-75), which Jefferson may have known. The author is unfortunately unclear and inconsistent as to whether Jefferson was familiar with Williams's use of the metaphor (78, 82). Another chapter shows that Jefferson and some worthy contemporaries used other metaphors to defend religious liberty-"effectual barriers," "great barriers," "certain fences," and a "line of separation"-and that recent observers have suggested the concept of a zone between two walls in which church and state could interact-all this with a view to evaluating the desirable characteristics of a wall.Jefferson's metaphor belatedly entered American thought and practice. His reply to the Danbury Baptists first became available to the public in Henry A. Washington's edition of Jefferson's works (1853; reprinted 1868 and 1871), and later in other editions of his writings. The phrase "wall of separation" fi

There is hardly a discusion of American church-state relations that does not invoke Thomas Jefferson's famous "wall of separation." I have long been interested in Jefferson and church-state relations and have read many books on these subjects, but this is the only book I know that explores the origins and uses of the "wall of separation" metaphor. It is a relatively short, but richly documented, book. The author points out that the metaphor was featured in church-state discourse long before Jefferson used it. The book brings to life the bitter presidential politics that provided the context for Jefferson's use of this figurative phrase. This also serves as a reminder that church-state controversies have been a part of American politics, including presidential electoral politics, from the earliest days of the Republic. Church-state disputes, unfortunately, remain an important and divisive part of public life. This is one book that, through exploring the past, helps us better understand the future. I highly recommend this book. Five stars.

This is the definitive biography of Thomas Jefferson's celebrated "wall of separation" metaphor. This thoroughly researched and engaging book examines the origins of the "wall of separation" metaphor and the historical and political context in which Jefferson used it. Professor Dreisbach also explores uses of the figurative phrase long before Jefferson and traces the metaphor's entrance into mainstream political and legal rhetoric. Students interested in how the "wall of separation" has shaped American church-state relations will not want to miss this important new book.

If you have ever wondered about the origins of the "wall of separation" metaphor or why it is so influential in American law and politics, then this is the book for you. It is the definitive work on the history of the celebrated metaphor that has informed the way many Americans, including influential judges and scholars, think about church-state relations. No other book provides more information and perspective on the historical, political, and legal development of this important trope and how it has shaped American church-state law and policy. The book challenges much of the conventional wisdom about the "wall of separation" metaphor, especially the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the figurative phrase, and questions the propriety of its use as a substitute for the text of the First Amendment. This trenchant book is scholarly, yet witty and engaging. It will appeal to the specialist and nonspecialist reader alike.