House Debates Regarding Religion Clauses, 8-20-1789

Of Debates in Congress

Amendments to the Constitution

Thursday, August 20, 1789

1 Annals of Cong. 757 et seq. (J. Gales ed., 1834)

In the debate below, the House of Representatives continued its consideration of the Religion Clauses and the wisdom of including an exception for those “religiously scrupulous” from being compelled to bear arms.

In general, this exception was strongly supported and favored, and the reasons for its final omission are not clear.

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie Religious Institutions Group

* * * *

Pg. 795

The House resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of the whole on the subject of amendment to the constitution.

Mr. Ames’s proposition was taken up. Five or six other members introduced propositions on the same point, and the whole were, by mutual

Pg. 796

consent, laid on the table. After which, the House proceeded to the third amendment, and agreed to the same.

On motion of Mr. Ames, the fourth amendment was altered so as to read “Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.” This being adopted,

The first proposition was agreed to.

Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, “No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.” He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.

Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, they would rather die than use them? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to bear arms.

Some further desultory conversation arose, and it was agreed to insert the words “in person” to the end of the clause; after which, it was adopted, as was the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth clauses of the fourth proposition; then the fifth, sixth, and seventh propositions were agreed to, and the House adjourned.

* * * *