At the war’s end the unsettled issue of religious establishments returned. During its fall 1786 session, the General Assembly received several petitions for a general assessment, but no action was taken until 1784 when a bill for that purpose was drawn up. This bill’s primary sponsor was Patrick Henry, whose popularity would have ensured its passage, but he was soon elected governor. Even without Henry’s support the bill was set to pass until Madison secured a postponement of the final vote until the bill received public commentary. The issue had been complicated by a surprising change of heart by the members of the Hanover Presbytery, who sent in a petition in support of an assessment, albeit only if it was for all religions. This chapter demonstrates that this petition, often cited as proof of the dissenters’ distinct type of separationism, was actually a strategic move to ensure that the assessment, which they saw as a done deal, was at least more inclusive. Before the year was out, they realized their mistake and retreated from their compromise position.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

The General Assessment Returns: The Dissenters Mobilize 1783–1785

  • Debra Neill

摘要

At the war’s end the unsettled issue of religious establishments returned. During its fall 1786 session, the General Assembly received several petitions for a general assessment, but no action was taken until 1784 when a bill for that purpose was drawn up. This bill’s primary sponsor was Patrick Henry, whose popularity would have ensured its passage, but he was soon elected governor. Even without Henry’s support the bill was set to pass until Madison secured a postponement of the final vote until the bill received public commentary. The issue had been complicated by a surprising change of heart by the members of the Hanover Presbytery, who sent in a petition in support of an assessment, albeit only if it was for all religions. This chapter demonstrates that this petition, often cited as proof of the dissenters’ distinct type of separationism, was actually a strategic move to ensure that the assessment, which they saw as a done deal, was at least more inclusive. Before the year was out, they realized their mistake and retreated from their compromise position.