Connect with us

Education

The Itinerant Preacher Who Helped Secure the Separation of Church and State

Published

on

The Itinerant Preacher Who Helped Secure the Separation of Church and State

The robust, if perpetually contested, religious freedom that Americans enjoy today is one of the most important legacies of our founding. Thomas Jefferson and other revolutionaries like James Madison fought to separate the church from the state. As men of the Enlightenment, they were skeptical of dogma and prized the human mind’s capacity to reason. But they confined their trust to the reason of wealthy, educated men. Leland, too, believed in reason, but he drew that belief from a major tenet of the Reformation: that ordinary men and women had the capacity to interpret God’s will for themselves.

Self-taught and rough-edged, Leland traveled constantly, giving thousands of sermons and baptizing more than 1,500 people over the course of his life. By his own calculations, he logged enough miles to circle the globe four times. Born into a Congregational family in central Massachusetts in 1754, Leland had only a basic education, but he read voraciously. He was deeply moved by a series of evangelical revivals then sweeping through the colonies, known as the Great Awakening, which in turn reanimated a core notion of the Reformation: that individual conscience, illuminated by God and Scripture, is the ultimate authority in matters of faith. As explained by the likes of popular revivalist preachers like George Whitefield, those who sincerely accounted and repented their sins could experience conversion and be reborn. Thereafter, God’s spirit entered the body, offering not only the promise of salvation but also a measure of divine guidance — or “new light.”

Advertisement

This growing New Lights movement spoke especially to those outside the colonial gentry, like Leland, who saw little need for clergy or other authorities to tell them how to relate to God. The more radical among them felt emboldened to raise questions about established authority that went beyond matters of faith and into the realm of politics. Baptists, in particular, insisted on congregational autonomy and, fiercely protective of individual conscience, strongly opposed any state establishment of religion.

Leland studied the Bible closely and concluded that infant baptism was not only wrong but tyrannical, because it bound children to the church without their consent. When he was 20, he joined the Separate Baptists, who reserved baptism only for converted believers. Like many other self-educated converts, he almost immediately set out as an itinerant preacher on an eight-month sojourn through Virginia. It was there, working hundreds of miles to the south as an eager “volunteer for Christ,” that he had the experiences that solidified for him the importance of religious liberty.

Advertisement

An engraving of John Leland in the 1800s by T. Doney. T. Doney, N.Y.

Leland first arrived in Virginia in 1775, as independence seemed increasingly inevitable and people were debating the meaning of liberty and the role of ordinary people in government. As he made his way across the state, on horseback or on foot, word began to spread about the genial and charismatic speaker. New Light preachers were known for using everyday language to connect with their audiences, and Leland was also renowned for his humor.

Advertisement

New Lights met on an egalitarian footing, addressing one another as “brother” and “sister,” washing one another’s feet and exchanging the kiss of charity. They denounced wealth and pride and rejected popular pastimes like horse racing, cockfighting and dancing. Rather than spend Sunday morning sitting in pews arranged by social importance, awakened Protestants attended noisy, emotional gatherings on any day of the week, often outdoors. Their ministers did not read scholarly sermons on intricate doctrine but preached from the heart, extemporaneously.

Roughly 40 percent of Virginia’s population was enslaved, and many worshiped Allah or their own deities. White settlers from New England and the Mid-Atlantic had also been moving to the Virginia backcountry for decades, and many of them, carrying the religious fervor of the Great Awakening, were eager to hear from New Light ministers. Standing on tobacco barrels or crude stages near courthouses, crossroads and ferry landings, itinerants like Leland attracted large crowds of supporters and curious onlookers.

Across the colonies, enemies of the Great Awakening harassed dissenters with legal penalties and mob violence; nowhere was persecution more intense than in Virginia. On his preaching tours, Leland would have heard stories about the violence from earlier years and seen firsthand that much of it continued. Opponents frequently harassed or even attacked the preachers and their listeners.

Advertisement

The hostility toward New Lights came not from London, which had granted colonists the limited protections of the Act of Toleration. Rather, it was Virginia’s gentry, the grandees of the established Anglican Church, who used their control of the county courts and the House of Burgesses to contain the evangelical challenge. Most political offices were open only to members of the Church of England, and residents faced fines for failing to attend Anglican services. Dissenters, like everyone else, had to pay vestry taxes for the salaries of Anglican ministers, even as their own ministers and meeting houses were subject to costly licenses. Only Anglican ministers could legally marry people.

This was no kind of freedom. Leland and many Virginia Baptists increasingly came to see the patriot cause as much a battle for freedom from establishment religion as it was freedom from the Crown.

Advertisement

The question of religious freedom came to a head the following year, in 1776. Most of the 13 colonies had established churches. How would any union of states address those establishments? Would they embrace religious freedom in the face of revolution? And what would that religious freedom look like?

As states formed new governments, they took divergent paths. Some, like New York, did away with a state-supported church. A few others retained an established church but allowed people to designate which denomination to support with their taxes. Some declined to establish a particular denomination but nonetheless supported a small core of Protestant churches with public money or required religious tests for office.

In Virginia, the campaign for religious freedom proved especially intense and consequential. The state adopted a Declaration of Rights to guide its government, which included language declaring that “all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion,” but remained silent on the status of the Anglican Church, which continued to draw on taxpayer funds. It quickly became clear that most members of the new Virginia Assembly interpreted the language as guaranteeing only tolerance within the established order. For reformers, this was not nearly enough.

Advertisement

“The liberty I contend for, is more than toleration,” Leland would later write. “The very idea of toleration, is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest, to grant indulgence; whereas, all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians.”

The need for military recruits to fight in the War of Independence forced Virginia’s reluctant lawmakers to accommodate evangelicals who explicitly linked their support for the cause of liberty — and their willingness to fight — to ending what some Baptist preachers called “ecclesiastical tyranny.” The evangelicals flooded the Assembly with petitions calling for the disestablishment of the official church. One Baptist-led petition drew an astounding 10,000 signatures, spread across 125 pages and stitched together into one continuous roll. This, along with pressure by legislative allies like Jefferson and Madison, got them some concessions: The Assembly repealed taxes that paid Anglican ministers and allowed ministers from other denominations to marry people. But convinced that religion was key to social order, it voted down complete disestablishment and full religious freedom.

Advertisement

The victory at Yorktown, Va., in October 1781 ended the war, but the battle over religious establishment continued. By 1784, the Virginia Assembly had revived a bill for a general tax to fund Anglican ministers — who were now called Episcopalians after severing their ties with the Church of England. Taxpayers would be forced to pay church taxes but could choose their own denomination.

While many dissenters agreed to that compromise, Leland and his fellow radical Baptists rejected any state involvement in religion. Liberty of conscience was “inalienable,” in Leland’s view, so “the legitimate powers of government extend only to punish men for working ill to their neighbors, and no way affect the rights of conscience.” Convinced that any preacher paid by the government turned from “a Gospel ambassador” into “a minister of state,” Leland helped lead a successful Baptist petition drive that doomed the legislation.

Instead, in 1786, Virginia passed Jefferson’s Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, a direct precursor to the First Amendment and one of three achievements, along with writing the Declaration of Independence and establishing the University of Virginia, that Jefferson saw fit to have memorialized on his tombstone. One historian called it “the mother of all church-state separation statutes.” The act decreed that people could not be compelled to attend or support a church against their will, and it asserted freedom of religion as a natural right. What Leland and his fellow Baptists had fought for in Virginia since before the Revolution had finally come to pass.

Advertisement

Virginia had embraced religious freedom, but Leland’s work was by no means finished. In 1787, the Constitutional Convention, meeting in Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation, instead produced an entirely new system of government. The new Constitution had to be ratified by nine of the 13 states to become law. Supporters and opponents, known as Federalists and Anti-Federalists, squared off.

Leland was against the proposed Constitution, largely on the basis that religious liberty was not “sufficiently secured.” While the Constitution, unlike many state charters, imposed no religious test for office, it also did not explicitly forbid a religious establishment. It was “very dangerous,” Leland warned, to leave religious liberty up to “the Mildness of Administration,” rather than building a “Constitutional Defence.” Doubtful that state bills of rights could compensate for the Constitution’s silence on fundamental liberties, he joined the calls for a federal bill of rights.

Advertisement

Leland had by then developed a large following, and his views were influential in Virginia, where Baptists constituted a formidable voting bloc. When Madison, a Federalist, decided in early 1788 to run for election to Virginia’s Ratifying Convention, he courted Leland at the urging of his political advisers, who warned him that Leland, having “much weight with the people,” was against the new Constitution. They urged Madison to meet with him. He most likely did, and it is equally likely that he assured Leland he would protect religious freedom.

With Leland’s support, Madison was elected to represent Virginia at the Convention. His vote contributed to the narrow margin that made Virginia the 10th — and by far the largest and most influential — state to ratify the Constitution. The following February, in 1789, Madison sought election to the first session of Congress, charged with putting the new Constitution into effect. To allay Baptist fears over religious liberty, Madison pledged to introduce a bill of rights. Once again, Leland helped swing the election in Madison’s favor, though he was modest in his warm letter of congratulation. “If my Undertaking in the Cause conduced Nothing else towards it,” he wrote, “it certainly gave Mr. Madison one Vote.”

In Congress, Madison dutifully pressed for a bill of rights. His 20 proposals became 12 amendments, 10 of which the states ratified. Virginia cast the decisive vote in December 1791. Added to the end of the Constitution, they became the Bill of Rights, limiting the powers of the federal government and guaranteeing individual civil and procedural rights. The First Amendment stipulated that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Leland reportedly wrote Madison that the Baptists were “entirely satisfied.”

Advertisement

Leland continued his work for years, but even as other evangelicals began to enter the establishment, he remained an outsider. In 1792, he moved his family to the small town of Cheshire in western Massachusetts, where he continued to argue for the complete disestablishment of the church at the state level.

If modern Americans have heard of Leland at all, it is usually in connection with the “mammoth cheese.” In July 1801, Leland suggested that the farm women of his Baptist community in western Massachusetts produce what he would bill as “the greatest cheese in America — for the greatest man in America.” The cheese was a gift for Thomas Jefferson, Leland’s hero as a champion of religious freedom and republicanism, who was narrowly elected in 1800 to the presidency. The women responded with zeal, producing a monstrous wheel of cheese that required the milk of 900 cows, weighed 1,235 pounds and measured more than four feet in diameter. They decorated the top with the third president’s personal seal: “Rebellion to Tyrants Is Obedience to God.”

Advertisement

Leland transported the cheese from Cheshire to Washington by sleigh, sloop and wagon, preaching along the way to enthusiastic crowds keen to hear the “mammoth priest.” On New Year’s Day in 1802, Jefferson personally accepted the cheese and had it displayed in the East Room of the White House, where it remained for at least a year until, according to one account, it became a maggot-filled mess that was dumped into the Potomac.

Two days after presenting the cheese, Leland preached to Congress at Jefferson’s invitation. A Federalist congressman from Massachusetts named Manasseh Cutler, who was also a Congregational minister, judged the colorful cleric “a poor ignorant, illiterate, clownish creature” who preached in typical evangelical style — he “bawled with stunning voice, horrid tone, frightful grimaces, and extravagant gestures.” Cutler claimed that “shame or laughter appeared in every countenance.”

In his condescension, Cutler betrayed his fears about religious populism and the young nation’s future. Nearly powerless in the 18th century, evangelicals went on to become a force in the 19th century, providing ordinary Americans with their own unique voices in religion and politics. Freed from state control, evangelicals flourished in a competitive religious marketplace, honing the populist techniques — mass preaching, moral crusades, political mobilization — that would continue to define American politics to the current day.

Advertisement

Leland helped make evangelicals’ triumph possible, but he increasingly disagreed with them. As they became more mainstream in the decades after the Revolution, it seemed to Leland that they began to mimic the establishment they had once fought. They forgot their previous struggles for religious freedom and instead promoted sabbath laws and denounced Catholicism. Leland objected to their emphasis on building institutional power, which seemed to him more concerned with fleecing common Americans than saving their souls. Evangelicalism, Leland feared, was turning its back on poor, self-educated, self-supporting itinerants like him.

Back in 1802, on the same New Year’s Day that Leland delivered his mammoth cheese, Jefferson forged a line that would echo far beyond its moment, shaping legal arguments and appearing in Supreme Court opinions as if part of the Constitution itself. Writing to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut to explain his reluctance to proclaim public days of fasting and thanksgiving, Jefferson observed that the First Amendment’s establishment clause had “built a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Advertisement

Scholars and jurists continue to disagree over the meaning of Jefferson’s metaphor. Did he merely mean that everyone should be able to worship as they wished without discrimination or partiality, or something more?

For Leland, the problem was not merely favoritism among Christian sects; it was the very notion of a “Christian Commonwealth,” a notion that in his view should be “exploded.” He certainly believed that evangelical Christianity was the surest way to God. Yet, echoing the language of Jefferson’s Virginia statute, Leland proclaimed that all should be free to worship “either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods.” It was precisely such convictions about spiritual independence that led Leland to yoke his pulpit to political activism. “Let Christianity operate in its own natural channel,” he wrote, “and it is a blessing of immense worth, but turn it into a principle of state policy, it fosters pride, hypocrisy and the worst kind of cruelty.”

Leland died in 1841 at 86, eight years after Massachusetts — the last holdout among the states with official churches — disestablished the Congregationalists. Like his hero Thomas Jefferson, Leland composed his own epitaph. And like Jefferson, he noted his fight for religious liberty, commemorating his 67-year “labor to promote piety, and vindicate the civil and religious rights of all men.”

Advertisement

Education

Opinion | 13 George Washington Interpreters on Embodying an Icon

Published

on

Opinion | 13 George Washington Interpreters on Embodying an Icon

He was a father figure

Advertisement

He was flawed

He was just a
dude

In our national memory, George Washington is a mythic figure, cast in metal, carved in stone. His leadership, first as general, then as president, is so intertwined with the roots of this country that it is sometimes hard to separate the man from the idea of America. How does one imagine the living presence of such an icon, much less embody him?

There is a small fraternity of men bold enough to try. At historical parks and commemorations from Virginia to Seattle, these interpreters (their preferred term) transform themselves into Washington. Each has his own approach, but what all their representations seek to capture is a legacy that has endured from his time to ours. If America, at least in part, is an idea, then our national project becomes, like theirs, an act of interpretation, an imperfect attempt to translate some idealized vision into the messy reality of our own time.

Advertisement

— Ezekiel Kweku

“By some strange quirk
of genetics, I have
Washington’s exact
dimensions. Where my
sleeves fall on my wrist,
the size of my chest, the
size of my thighs, where
the breeches fall to my
knees, are all identical.”

Advertisement

John Koopman, 67, often performs
while riding his horse, Bear. He
has portrayed Washington for 20 years.

Advertisement

James Fryer, 70, wears a replica of a general’s uniform that Washington designed himself. He recently completed training to portray Washington for the nonprofit Historic Philadelphia.

“Some people portray George as a marble statue. I don’t do a marble George. I am interested in talking to everyone, even those who yell at me because George was a slave owner. I want to respect them, try to educate them, or maybe even inspire them.”

Advertisement

Vern Frykholm, 77, was moved to bring his interpretation of Washington to Washington State, where he lives, after seeing a 2011 performance in Pennsylvania.


Dean Malissa, 73, signs his personal
correspondence, including emails,
as Washington did: “Your Most Humble
and Obedient Servant.” He became
the Official George Washington
at Mount Vernon in 2004, and held
that role for nearly 20 years.

Advertisement

“I describe him sometimes as just a dude. I look at him and think, I could see myself in the same world, making similar bad decisions or similar good decisions.”

Advertisement


Daniel Cross, 39, portrayed a young Washington at Virginia’s Colonial Williamsburg until last year. He now works with organizations around the country.


Curt Radabaugh, 62, has 13,000 history books in his personal library, including several hundred about Washington. He is a veteran of the U.S. Marines and a retired police officer.

Advertisement

“He’s a mentor, a father
figure, and not only in the
sense that he’s a patriarch
of the country. Because
I grew up without a
father, he kind of became
my surrogate father.”

Advertisement

Brian Hilton, 58, says he researches
Washington’s era every morning before
his children get up and at night after
they go to bed. He is a high school history
teacher near Richmond, Va.

Advertisement

Daniel Shippey, 57, partners on interpretations with his wife, Kelly, who portrays Martha Washington. Kelly researched 18th-century hair techniques to create her husband’s costume hairstyle. They live in Virginia.

“You’re playing the myth of George Washington as well as the historical figure. I make his voice a little firmer and deeper than it probably was in real life. I play him a little funnier than he probably was. In reality, if you came to see him, he probably wouldn’t talk to you as much as I do.”

Advertisement

Doug Thomas, 53, is Washington’s second cousin nine times removed.


John Godzieba, 67, has reenacted
the crossing of the Delaware as
Washington every Christmas for the
past 16 years at Pennsylvania’s
Washington Crossing Historic Park.

Advertisement

“In many ways I don’t look like him. My eye color is wrong. My nose is wrong. My hair color is wrong. I wouldn’t have cast myself in this role.”

Advertisement


Ron Carnegie, 64, has portrayed Washington at Colonial Williamsburg for 20 years.


Ryan Williams, 37, is a veteran who specializes in playing a young Washington during the French and Indian War. He lives in Virginia.

Advertisement

“Some people portray
Washington almost
like a superhero.
I like to bring out that
he has faults. He’s a
person like you or me.”

Advertisement

Michael Grillo, 64, is a historical
tailor who hand-sews his own clothes
for reenactments. He also makes
period props, including two American
battle flags and pewter mugs
engraved with Washington’s crest.

Martin Schoeller is a photographer and director known for his close-up portraits of everyone from world leaders and celebrities to female bodybuilders. For this project, he used a large format camera to photograph 13 historical interpreters of George Washington — many of whom arrived in full uniform — over three days in Virginia and New York City.

Advertisement

Additional reporting by Tenzin D. Tsagong. Interviews have been edited and condensed for length and clarity. Top quotes from Brian Hilton, Daniel Shippey and Daniel Cross.

Produced by Sara Barrett, Danny DeBelius and Sam Whitney. Additional production by Olivia James.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Education

This Little Robot Cleans Windows

Published

on

One task the robots can take from us? Cleaning. Especially hard-to-access windows. So when writers Caroline Mullen and Evan Dent found this little guy — whose government name is “EcoVacs Winbot Mini” — they were intrigued. Could he clean the uncleanable? Caroline and Evan put their robot friend to the test at both the Wirecutter office and a high-rise apartment. Is a robo-window cleaner more effective than scrubbing yourself?

Continue Reading

Education

Video: School Year Cut Short and Aid Delivery Slowed Amid Fuel Crisis in Cuba

Published

on

Video: School Year Cut Short and Aid Delivery Slowed Amid Fuel Crisis in Cuba

new video loaded: School Year Cut Short and Aid Delivery Slowed Amid Fuel Crisis in Cuba

A U.S. oil blockade imposed by the Trump administration has set off an increasingly agonizing energy crisis that has brought transportation largely to a standstill. In an effort to save energy resources, the government ended the school year early.

By McKinnon de Kuyper

June 22, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending