Review of: Roger Sherman and the Creation of the American Republic
Roger Sherman and the Creation of the American Republic by Mark David Hall (Oxford University Press, 2013)
Review by Gregg Frazer (The Master’s University)
Three themes emerge in Mark Hall’s very interesting political biography of Roger Sherman: a) Sherman’s participation in all of the significant political bodies and in creating all of the founding documents; b) Sherman’s approach to religious liberty and church-state relations; and c) the influence of Calvinist – or at least Reformed – political thought on the American Revolution and on many of the founders. Hall makes a very informative and convincing case in relation to the first two themes – and arguably the best case that can be made for the third.
Hall shows that whenever Connecticut was asked to send a representative to an important gathering or to craft an important document, she sent Sherman. He served on the Declaration of Independence drafting committee, the Articles of Confederation drafting committee, and was a prominent delegate to the Constitutional Convention. Furthermore, Sherman was no wallflower; he was an active and influential participant who was, in particular, “the driving force behind the Connecticut Compromise.” In his brief time in the first Congress, Sherman played an important role in the debates over the Bill of Rights and several foundational policy questions. In short, Hall effectively and persuasively places Roger Sherman in the pantheon of American founders – even as he suggests that it may be inappropriate to elevate any particular founders above the rest.
Sherman’s career was not limited to politics; he was an influential jurist, as well. In light of that fact and Sherman’s role in creating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and his authorship of a state law concerning religious liberty, Hall suggests that judges today should include Sherman’s views on religious liberty and church-state relations when appealing to the founders. Hall convincingly demonstrates that Sherman’s credentials in this area far exceed those of Thomas Jefferson in particular (despite the fact that James Madison is the only founder cited more often than Jefferson with regard to religious liberty). Hall rightly observes that the founders did not intend to establish a wall of separation between church and state and he is undoubtedly correct in attributing much of the reason for the Court’s error to its overemphasis on Jefferson at the expense of people such as Sherman.
These sections of the book are convincingly and persuasively argued with a wealth of supportive evidence. The result is an interesting and important case for Sherman’s prominence and for resurrecting his thoughts on church and state. Also very interesting is Hall’s narrative tracing Sherman’s political career in general. As William Casto has remarked: “Why can’t more histories be this enjoyable to read?” I found one quote from Sherman (that is employed by Hall for a different purpose) to be particularly intriguing. Responding to the effort by some towns to leave New Hampshire to join the new republic of Vermont, Sherman wrote: “to separate without the consent of the State to which they belong appears to me a very unjustifiable violation of the social compact.” I cannot help but wonder how a supporter of the American Revolution could make such an argument – especially just one year after he helped to draft the Declaration of Independence.
Similarly interesting, but not as persuasive, is Hall’s argument for the influence of Reformed political thought on the American Revolution and on many of the founders. In the interest of full disclosure, I must say that I disagree with him on this point, so while I tried to read with an unbiased eye, he and I begin with differing assumptions and approaches to the evidence. Without belaboring the issue, as I see it, the primary problem is overemphasis on mere affiliation rather than actual belief. Does everyone associated or affiliated with a Reformed church or an institution with a Reformed origin automatically hold to Reformed theology and political thought? Does the fact that schools such as Harvard and Yale were originally founded in the 1600s to produce Reformed ministers outweigh the fact that they were engulfed in Enlightenment thought by the 1700s? Should ministers and politicians affiliated with Reformed churches be identified as “Reformed” even though they have rejected Reformed theology? Should we assume that they accepted Reformed political theory and, if so, why?
In short, Hall’s claim may be true, but convincing proof would require a more detailed examination of individuals, churches, and schools and what they actually believed and taught. Affiliation labels can be misleading and making generalizations based on a (perhaps) singularly devout person such as Sherman may be problematic. That said, Hall makes as good a case as can be made for this view and those interested in the subject from either side are well-advised to read and consider his argument.
One other brief critical observation: in his efforts to downplay the admittedly frequently exaggerated claims of the influence of John Locke, Hall at times does not quite give Locke his due. Whether or not preachers were dominated by Lockean thought, they did cite Locke by name in their sermons as a source and accepted authority. Jefferson may have said that he drew from various sources for the Declaration, but Locke was one of four sources that he listed – and none of the four sources was a Reformer. Locke may have accounted for only 2.9% of the citations in a study of patriot references, but that put him 3rd on the list and there are no Reformed writers even on the list of 36 frequently cited thinkers.
Overall, I found Roger Sherman and the Creation of the American Republic to be very interesting and very informative. If Hall’s purpose is to promote Sherman awareness and to admonish scholars and jurists for largely ignoring him, he certainly achieves that. I highly recommend this book to scholars interested in religion and the American Founding and to general readers seeking an interesting political biography of a largely forgotten but important figure.
