A Virtuous Republic

I was particularly interested in Thomas Kidd’s discussion of how the leaders of the Revolution saw virtue as playing an integral role in the success of the new republic.  Religious rhetoric was an important way of rallying support around patriotic causes, but, even more than that, it was an essential building block of the new government.  This relationship worked both ways: republicanism was the most virtuous form of government, but it also required virtue to work.  Without a virtuous citizenry, despotism would reign.  This intertwining of republicanism and virtue persisted past the Revolution itself; Kidd shows how it was a major feature of Alexis de Tocqueville’s commentary on America. 

However, what I found most interesting was the complex relationship between religion and virtue.  If virtue is defined in its relationship to the public, does it matter what people believed privately?  Kidd points out that Tocqueville himself was “utterly pragmatic about the role of religion in society, writing that it did not matter whether a society accepted the true religion, as long as it accepted a publicly useful one.”  With this in mind, was religion an important motivating factor for those who fought for independence, or was it more of a universal language—a way for Americans to communicate, understand each other, and imbue their cause with meaning?  For example, Kidd cites Benjamin Rush, a Patriot from Philadelphia, who states that , “He would prefer that America’s youth learn the principles of Islam or Confucianism than learn no religion at all.”  Though Rush may have been exaggerating for effect, I think his statement forces us to look at whether it was religious beliefs or the more cultural dimensions of religion that motivated colonists.

In other words, Kidd focuses on the public usefulness of religion.  Does this mean that all religion is public?  Is there a private dimension to religion?  And, if so, does this private dimension just not matter when it comes to politics?