Chapter 20
Sunday Laws in the United States in the Latter Part of
the Nineteenth Century
BY 1890, most of the states of the United States had
strong Sunday laws prohibiting secular labor on Sunday. It is amazing that
one hundred years of dialogue and debate since the enactment of the first
amendment of the Constitution had not convinced most American legislatures
that any form of coerced Sunday observance, whatever the proffered reason,
was wholly inconsistent with the Bill of Rights of the American
Constitution.
In 1890, the only states which did not have Sunday laws
were Arizona, California, and Idaho, three western states. It is amazing
that almost all the other states enacted Sunday laws during the 1880s. It
was at this time that strong religious groups, including such
organizations as the Christian Women’s Temperance Union, together with
several religious organizations, fought vigorously to have Sunday laws
enacted, in the expectation that such laws would greatly increase the
moral and spiritual tone of the nation. Eventually, Senator Henry William
Blair led the crusade for the enactment of a strong Sunday law.
In a letter to the New York Mail & Express,
April 19 1890, Senator Blair expressed strong opinions concerning his
conviction that the United States of America must maintain a government
and a system of education that was distinctively Christian. In the letter
he claimed that only a homogeneous people could be great. He claimed that
no nation could exist with more than one language, one religion, and one
general form of education for the masses of the people. He expressed the
opinion that in a short period of time, Americans would demand that only
the Christian religion be retained in America. He said,
I do not believe that it is possible that the American
nation will develop in the direction of toleration of all religions—that
is, so called religions. Whether the general public conviction shall be
right or wrong, I yet believe that instead of selecting and finally
tolerating all so-called religions, the American people will, by constant
and irresistible pressure, gradually expel from our geographical
boundaries every religion except the Christian in its valid forms. New
York Mail & Express, April 19, 1890, quoted in William Blakely,
American State Papers Bearing on Sunday Legislation
Senator Blair’s convictions formed the basis of his
crusade to institute a national Sunday law that would prohibit all
citizens of the nation from any form of work, commerce, or other secular
pursuits on the first day of the week. His proposed Sunday legislation led
to vigorous, and often bitter debate.
The proposed legislation was especially repugnant to
Sabbatarian groups in the United States. The opposition to the proposed
legislation was led by a Seventh-day Adventist minister, Professor Alonzo
Jones. Jones, a thorough student of history, proved more than a match for
the senator. Jones’ powerful and persuasive arguments eventually won the
day, and the strong thrust for the introduction of a national Sunday law
was derailed.
The defeat of the national Sunday bill did much to
weaken the hand of the states who had previously legislated prohibitions
on certain secular activities on Sunday. However, this was not before
significant numbers of American citizens had been imprisoned or fined for
carrying out secular work and other activities on the first day of the
week. An example of the tragic consequences of Sunday legislation is
offered in a speech delivered by Senator Robert H. Crockett, grandson of
David Crockett, the famous frontier man who opened up great stretches of
the western part of the United States, including the territory of
Arkansas. Speaking before the State Senate of Arkansas in 1887, Senator
Crockett supported a bill introduced into the legislature that would grant
immunity to Sabbatarians from the penalties inflicted for working upon
Sunday. In his famous address, he spoke in glowing terms of the pioneers
who opened up the territory of Arkansas through hard labor and honest
toil, and who had cleared the land, raised up industries, and begun to
make the state prosperous. He spoke of his tour through the northwest of
the state, lecturing and seeking to increase the immigration to that part
of Arkansas. As a result of his and others’ efforts, he said,
Many came and settled up our wild lands and prairies,
and where but a few years ago we heard in the stillness of the night the
howl of the wolf, the scream of the panther, and the wail of the wildcat,
these people for whom I am pleading, came and settled. . . . Instead of
the savage sounds incident to the wilderness, now are heard the tap, tap,
tap of the mechanics hammer, the rattle and roar of the railroad, the busy
hum of industry, and softer, sweeter far than all these, is heard the
music of the church bells as they ring in silvery chimes across the
prairies and valleys, and are echoed back from the hill-side throughout
the borders of our whole state. Blakely, p. 210, 211
And then Senator Crockett presented his plea for the
sabbatarians.
These people are, many of them, Seventh-day Adventists
and Seventh-day Baptists. They are people who religiously and
conscientiously keep Saturday, the seventh day, as the Sabbath, in
accordance with the fourth commandment. They find no authority in the
Scripture for keeping Sunday, the first day of the week, nor can anyone
else. All commentators agree that Saturday is and was the Scriptural
Sabbath, and that the keeping of Sunday, the first day of the week, as the
Sabbath, is of human origin, and not by Divine injunction. The Catholic
writers and all theologians agree in this.
These people understand the decalogue to be fully as
binding upon them today as when handed down amid the thunders of Sinai.
They do not feel at liberty to abstain from their usual avocations,
because they read the commandment, "six days shalt thou labor,"
as mandatory and they believe that they have no more right to abstain from
labor on the first day of the week than they have to neglect the
observance of Saturday as their Sabbath. They agree with their Christian
brethren of other denominations in all essential points of doctrine, the
one great difference being upon the day to be kept as the Sabbath. They
follow no avocations tending to demoralize the community in which they
live. They come among us expecting the same protection in the exercise of
their religious faith as is accorded to them in the states of Europe, in
South Africa, Australia, the Sandwich Islands [Hawaiian Islands], and
every State of the Union except, alas! that I should say it, Arkansas!
Sir, under the existing law, there have been in Arkansas within the last
two years, three times as many cases of persecution for conscience’s
sake as there have been in all the other States combined since the
adoption of our national Constitution. Blakely, p. 211, 212
Senator Crockett then offered tragic examples of
religious persecution in the courts of Arkansas. In his own words, here is
an example.
Let me, sir, illustrate the operation of the present
law by one or two examples. A Mr. Swearingen came from a Northern State
and settled a farm in Benton county. His farm was four miles from town,
and far away from any house of religious worship. He was a member of the
Seventh-day Adventist Church, and after having sacredly observed the
Sabbath of his people (Saturday) by abstaining from all secular work, he
and his son, a lad of seventeen, on the first day of the week went quietly
about their usual avocations. They disturbed no one—interfered with the
rights of no one. But they were observed, and reported to the grand jury—indicted,
arrested, tried, convicted, fined; and having no money to pay the fine,
these moral Christian citizens of Arkansas were dragged to the county jail
and imprisoned like felons for twenty-five days—and for what? For daring
in this so called land of liberty, in the year of our Lord 1887, to
worship God!
Was this the end of the story? Alas, no, sir! They were
turned out; and the old man’s only horse, his sole reliance to make
bread for his children, was levied on to pay the fine and costs, amounting
to thirty-eight dollars. The horse sold at auction for twenty-seven
dollars. A few days afterwards the sheriff came again and demanded
thirty-six dollars—eleven dollars balance due on fine and costs and
twenty-five dollars for board for himself and son while in jail. And when
the poor old man—a Christian, mind you—told him with tears that he had
no money, he promptly levied on his only cow, but was persuaded to accept
bond, and the amount was paid by contributions from his friends of the
same faith. Sir, my hearts swells to bursting with indignation as I repeat
to you this infamous story. Quoted in ibid., p. 212, 213
Concluding his plea for Sabbatarians and the passage of
the bill that would exempt Sabbatarians from the Sunday laws of 1885, he
said,
On next Monday, at Malvern, six as honest, good, and
virtuous citizens as live in Arkansas are to be tried as criminals for
daring to worship God in accordance with the dictates of their own
consciences, for exercising a right which this government, under the
Constitution, has no power to abridge. Sir, I plead, in the name of
justice, in the name of our republican institutions, in the name of these
inoffensive, God-fearing, God-serving people, our fellow citizens, and
last, sir, in the name of Arkansas, I plead that this bill may pass, and
this one foul blot be wiped from the escutcheon of our glorious
commonwealth. Quoted in Blakely, p. 213
Senator Crockett’s plea found favor with the Arkansas
senators and the Sunday law of 1885 was repealed.
William Blakely provided brief accounts of others who
suffered in other states of the Union, including Tennessee, Georgia,
Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. He details one case where a Sabbath
keeper died due to fever he contracted from the unsanitary conditions in
the prison.
It is a sober reality that such violations of individual conscience are
again returning to the United States. Vigilance in the light of past
history is the only hope for freedom. The majority opinion in Smith vs.
the State of Oregon (detailed in chapter 7 entitled "Erosion of the
First Amendment") has greatly limited the protection under the first
amendment. The July 2 1997 Supreme Court decision which cut down the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, emphatically demonstrated the Court’s
determination to limit religious freedom under the first amendment.
|
