Clerical Exclusion Article Summary

Bob Sudduth His 5206 Early American Republic Dr. Specht Spring, 2009

Summary of “The Exclusion of Clergy from Political Offices in American States: An Oddity in Church-State Relations.” Silverman, William. “The Exclusion of Clergy from Political Offices in American States: An Oddity in Church-State Relations.” Sociology of Religion, Vol. 61, No. 2 (Summer, 2000), 223-230. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3712287

William Silverman examines the relationship between American states of the Early Republic and the clergy. Specifically, he identifies the thirteen states that had constitutional provisions which excluded clergy from holding political office and the possible motivation(s) for these exclusions. The states which prohibited clergy from holding political office (in order by date of constitutional exclusion): North Carolina, Delaware, Maryland, Georgia, New York, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Virginia, and Texas. These states are mostly southern states or border states. Nearly all of these states had abolished the exclusions by 1880. Some maintained this component well into the twentieth century. Maryland did not remove this exclusion, but the provision was ruled unconstitutional by a 1978 Supreme Court decision (McDaniel v Paty.) Silverman explains that early historical accounts do not reveal the motivation that states used to implement this measure. Records of deliberations and explanations are only cursory amd fail to clarify why the delegates voted the ways that they did. Silverman examines the theory that anti-Catholic motivation may have been the cause for these exclusions. He quickly points out, however, that this was most likely not the case. The timing and placement was all wrong. The constitutional provisions were adopted before large

Bob Sudduth

scale Catholic immigration. Further, the adoptive states do not correspond with states that had a large Catholic population. The suggested theory is a three part theory. Clergy were most likely to be excluded in states that had high concentration of loyalists, states that had an established church, and states which had experienced large amounts of suffering during the American Revolution. Silverman explains each of these three points and attempts to support with historical evidence. He concludes that the historical record does support this three pronged theory. Silverman makes one more point upon closing. The conflict between the state and the church’s authority is often the result of “settling old scores” (229.) People viewed the church’s role during the war as a cause for retribution. The church supported England, England caused suffering, therefore the church should be punished. He hints that similar motivation could be a cause for contemporary church-state conflicts.

2