The Exclusion of Clergy from Political Office in American States: An Oddity in Church-State Relations
William Silverman
During the early nineteenth century thirteen American states had provisions in their state constitutions which prohibited clergy from holding political offices. Most states dropped this provision from their constitutions before 1880. Most of the states with these provisions in their constitutions were southern or border states. How can we explain why some states did or did not exclude clergy from political office? The timing of adoption of these rules shows that they were not adopted to limit the influence of the Roman Catholic church. It was not part of the nineteenth-century nativist campaigns against the Catholic church. Some evidence is presented to support the hypothesis that discrimination against clergy was a way of taking revenge against Great Britain, the pre-revolution colonial power.
During the first century after American independence thirteen states had provisions in their state constitutions which did nor allow clergy to hold political office. Article 39 of the New York State Constitution of 1777 illustrates the way these constitutional provisions are worded.
And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the cure of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function; therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever shall, at any time hereafter, under any pretence or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this State (Thorpe 1909, vol. 5: 2637).
This provision was included in the first constitution written for New York State in 1777 after the Colony of New York declared itself independent of Great Britain. This provision was retained when the New York State Constitution was revised in 1821. But when the State Constitution was again revised in 1846 the provision was dropped. In 1872, when the New York State Constitution was again revised, a member of the Convention proposed that the exclusion of clergy from political office be revived. But this proposal was rejected.
Some state constitutions identified other categories of people who were not allowed to hold political office, such as duelists and suppliers of the army or navy. The Missouri Constitution of 1820 excluded people convicted of bribery, perjury, or "other infamous crimes" from political office. It is odd to put clergy in the same category as duelists and perjurers....
Hammond (1994) suggests...[a] hypothesis to explain why some states excluded clergy from political office. He suggests that clergy were discriminated against as a way of attacking the colonial power, Great Britain. Before and during the American Revolution many of the clergy and laity of the Anglican Church, known then as the Church of England, were Loyalists who identified with the King and opposed American independence.
There is a great deal of historical evidence that the Church of England and its clergy were often opposed to the revolution. Sweet notes that "Of all the colonial religious bodies, the Church of England contributed by far the largest proportion of loyalists" (Sweet 1947: 52; cf., Greene 1959: 73; Holmes 1978; Perry 1976: 135). Missionaries who were paid by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel were especially likely to be Loyalists. At ordination they swore an oath of allegiance to the King. Many of them regarded these oaths as binding (McConnell 1890: 205--206). Reverend Samuel Seabury, who later became one of the first American Episcopal bishops, opposed the American Revolution....
Attempts to impose control by the Church of England on the American colonies were resisted (Van Tyne 1913). Proposals to appoint Anglican bishops for the American colonies stirred up bad feelings against the Church of England in several colonies. The colonists did not want to be taxed for the support of Anglican bishops (Van Tyne 1922: 351). Some people feared that bishops would usurp civil authority (Greene 1959: 73-74)....
<http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0SOR/2_61/63912436/print.jhtml>