History Podcasts

The New Republic

The New Republic

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Dorothy Straight and her husband, Willard Straight, were both deeply influenced by The Promise of American Life, a book written by the journalist, Herbert Croly. In 1914 Croly was invited to meet Dorothy and Willard at their Long Island home. While there, Croly commented that Norman Hapgood, the recently appointed editor of Harper's Weekly, had failed to turn it into the liberal journal that America needed. Dorothy suggested that the three of them should start their own journal.

The first edition of the New Republic appeared on 7th November, 1914. Willard Straight supplied the money and Herbert Croly became its first editor. The magazine was run by a small editorial board that included Croly's friend, Walter Lippmann. All outside contributions were submitted to the editorial board and had to be accepted by all members before it could appear in the magazine. Early contributors included Walter Weyl, Randolph Bourne, Charles Beard, Amy Lowell, Henry Brailsford and H. G. Wells.

When it was first published, the New Republic had 32 pages, including self-cover, and contained no illustrations. Its first edition sold 875 copies but after a year the circulation reached 15,000. The New Republic became a strong supporter of Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive movement.

On the outbreak of the First World War, Herbert Croly argued for American neutrality. The New Republic published articles by British critics of the war such as Norman Angell and Harold Laski. However, after the sinking of the Lusitania, Croly urged American entry into war. After Congress declared war on Germany, the New Republic gave Woodrow Wilson its full support. This upset those that still believed in neutrality and Max Eastman, editor of The Masses, complained that the New Republic had become a mouthpiece of President Wilson.

After the war Herbert Croly became much more critical of Woodrow Wilson and described the Versailles Treaty as "a peace of annihilation". He also disliked the League of Nations, an organisation that "would perpetuate rather than correct the evils of the treaty." Sales of the New Republic reached 43,000 during the First World War but declined during the 1920s.

Willard Straight died during the influenza epidemic in 1918 but Dorothy Straight continued to fund what had now become a loss-making venture. Herbert Croly continued to persuade some of the most prominent literary figures in the United States and Britain to write for the journal. This included Edmund Wilson, Waldo Frank, Jane Addams, Bertrand Russell, H. Wells, Virginia Woolf and John Maynard Keynes.

Bruce Bliven replaced Herbert Croly as editor of the New Republic in 1930. Bliven continued the tradition of the New Republic to argue for left of centre solutions to America's problems and in 1932 supported the socialist candidate, Norman Thomas, for president. Four years later, Bliven switched to Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Writers who wrote for the New Republic between the wars included H. L. Mencken, John Dos Passos, Willa Cather and Michael Gold. In 1946 Henry A. Wallace became editor and under his leadership circulation reached a all-time high of nearly 100,000. Wallace resigned in December, 1947, when he decided to run for the presidency. He was replaced by Michael Whitney Straight, the son of the magazine's founders. Circulation of the New Republic fell to 30,000 in the 1950s and one commentator described it as "that faint voice of the left".

As conscientious objectors we turn to your journal because, more powerfully than any other, it has expressed in subtle analyses our abiding faith in humane wisdom. You have never countenanced the evil doctrine of the brute coercion of the human will. You have preached and practised the virtue of tolerance, the kind of tolerance for the lack of which the state grows mechanized and conscienceless.

You know something of the machinery of unfair play. You understand the tyranny of sham shibboleths. You appreciate the menace of military psychology. We appeal to you, strategically situated as you are, to assist the cause of the conscientious objectors. We beg you to note the following facts:

In the evolution of the human mind we discover a gradually widening hiatus between physical competence and intellectual moral competence. So deeply imbedded in our life values is this distinction that we feel rather ashamed of being too expert physically. The man of blood and iron does not appeal to our finer perceptions as a being altogether worthy of our worshipful attention. (The God whom we worship is neither a jingo nor a militarist.) But Voltaire - he of the skinny shanks and the anemic face - what exuberant pride wells up in the greatest and in the least of us at the sound of that marvelous name! And soft-spoken Jesus - what fitting tribute can the reeling world lay at the feet of him who died that goodwill and loving kindness might assuage the hearts of inimical men.

The complexity and richness of life have permitted, and increasingly so, the more or less free play of all modes of energy. There are many men best adapted by training and temperament to the performance of physical acts of heroism; there are some men more naturally suited to the performance of intellectual deeds of courage, while yet some others shine in deeds of moral bravery.

Why sanction the inhuman device of forcing all manner of men into the narrowly specific kind of devotion for which so many of them are hopelessly unfit? Tolerance arises from the existence of varying types of doers, all willing to respect one another's special competence. It is not too extreme to assert that in wartime (as in peacetime) some of the most heroic deeds are performed by those who do not (and, if called upon, would not) take up arms in defense of the cause. There are other forms of bravery than the purely military one. Let us be reasonable.

The one ineradicable fact which noamount of official intimidation can pulverize out of existence is that there is a type of man to whom (military) participation in war is tantamount to committing murder. He cannot, he will not commit murder. There is no human power on God's earth that can coerce him into committing (what he knows to be) the act of murder. You may call him sentimentalist, fool, slacker, mollycoddle, woman - anything "disreputable" you please. But there he is, a tremendous fact. Shall he be maltreated for his scruples? Or shall he be respected (as his denders are) for his conscientiousness? We cannot leave so momentous an issue to chance or to the cold machinery of administration. Men of sensitive insight must help prepare a social setting within America sufficiently hospitable to all conscientious objectors.

It is good to remind ourselves of our in- stinctive respect for conscientious objectors. When a man is called to serve on a jury empaneled in a murder case, he may be honorably excused from duty if he has conscientious objections to the death penalty. When we think sanely we are not averse to honoring the man of conscience provided he be an active friend of mankind and not a mere ease-taker. The test of manhood lies in service; not in one particular kind of service (suitable to one particular type of mind and body) but genuine service genuinely rendered to humanity.

Hence the philosophic value of tolerance. To keep alive genuine tolerance in wartime is the greatest single achievement to which rationalists can dedicate themselves. America is caught in this insidious entanglement; obsessed with the tradition - the mere outward form and symbol - of liberty of conscience, she has failed to realize the living need of a real grant and a substantial practice of our vaunted freedom of conscience. It is not the tradition we lack; only a vital belief in that tradition.

In times of precarious peace, when the social classes wage an almost relentless warfare and the daily grind of poverty and distress lays armies of the proletariat low, life for the disadvantaged groups is made more or less livable only by the thought that between them and their official superiors certain constitutional and humane guarantees of tolerance exist as safeguards of mutual understanding. There is room for difference of opinion. There is a breathing space for discussion.

How desperate must the social situation have become if large numbers of conscientious and law-abiding citizens have begun to feel an appalling sense of uneasiness in the presence of huge inscrutable forces, far beyond their power of control or sympathetic understanding. Why this amazing disquietude? The answer is simple and straightforward. There is no longer the sense - so natural and dear to free men - of being able to appeal from manifestly unfair decisions. Too many subordinate officials are being vested with a tremendous authority over impotent human beings.

The New Republic was founded to explore and develop and apply the ideas which had been advertised by Theodore Roosevelt when he was leader of the Progressive Party.

They still live in a world in which fundamental democratic progress comes by telling, and persuading, and showing how, and propagating reasonable opinions, and better social feeling. The real world is a world in which privilege can only uprooted by power.


NEW REPUBLIC, THE. The New Republic has been one of the most important journalistic outlets for a new form of liberalism that appeared in the United States, particularly in its eastern and midwestern cities, during the decades around 1900. This new liberalism, which arose as a response to the industrialization of the nation's economy, stressed the recognition of mutual obligation and the development of an integrated public interest rather than the pursuit of private, individual interests.

The magazine was founded in New York City by Willard and Dorothy Straight, a wealthy couple active in humanitarian social causes, and journalist Herbert Croly. Croly recruited Walter Lippmann and Walter Weyl as fellow editors. All three men had recently published important statements of the new liberal faith and they hoped to use the journal, which debuted on 7 November 1914, to steer American political culture along a middle course between laissez-faire individualism and Marxist socialism.

Each week's issue opened with short editorial paragraphs, continuing with longer editorials, signed articles by contributors and editors, correspondence, and literary and artistic material. New York City icons such as the philosopher John Dewey and the historian Charles A. Beard quickly took advantage of the new publishing outlet. Articles on reforms such as feminism, civil rights, and workers' right to organize were accompanied by important statements of the new cultural modernism from artists such as Robert Frost and critics Randolph Bourne, Van Wyck Brooks, and Floyd Dell.

Circulation leapt to around forty thousand during American involvement in World War I during 1917 and 1918, as the journal was widely seen as an unofficial voice of President Woodrow Wilson's administration. Editors and contributors strongly supported American intervention, alienating many of their political allies. They hoped that the war would lead to national unity and a worldwide democratic revolution, and were shocked by the punitive terms of the Versailles Treaty.

During the politically conservative 1920s, circulation plummeted. Weyl died in 1919 and Lippmann abandoned the journal along with his hopes for a rational public. Croly continued as editor, increasingly identifying liberalism as a moral phenomenon. Critics Edmund Wilson, Robert Morss Lovett, Waldo Frank, and Lewis Mumford offered expanded cultural coverage. The journal pushed for an alternative to the major parties, and was guardedly hopeful that the Communist reforms in the Soviet Union after 1917 would produce a mature, democratic state.

A new editorial staff of the long-time journalist Bruce Bliven, the economist George Soule, and the literary critic Malcolm Cowley turned the magazine away from Croly's philosophical approach after his death in 1930. They remained aloof, however, from President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, which seemed insufficiently radical even though it consolidated the farmer-labor-professional coalition for which Croly had long hoped. Only in 1937 did they shift course, vigorously defending Roosevelt against his increasingly vocal detractors.

Increasingly distrustful of the capitalist economy, liberals heatedly debated the Soviet experiment during the 1930s. Bliven's and Cowley's faith that Communism would evolve into democracy was countered by contributors Beard and Dewey, whose critical views of Joseph Stalin's regime finally won over the editors after the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939. The editors were, like many liberals, reluctant to involve themselves in another European conflict, calling for war on Germany only in August 1941. They continued throughout World War II to promote domestic issues, including the protection of civil liberties and full employment.

Former vice president and outspoken internationalist Henry A. Wallace, who became editor in 1946, opposed the anticommunist foreign policy of President Harry S. Truman, but his controversial third-party presidential candidacy led to a split with the magazine in January 1948. Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia two months later solidified the journal's support for the containment of communism abroad, although it opposed the domestic anti-communism of Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy.

The editors moved their office from New York City to Washington in 1950 to gain greater access to the nation's political machinery, but during the conservative decade that followed they once again emphasized cultural criticism over politics. They found a new political focus with the election of President John F. Kennedy in 1960, concentrating particularly on civil rights. Inspired by the spending programs of Kennedy's successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, the journal also reaffirmed its support for an activist federal government while strongly opposing the war in Vietnam. The antiauthority stance of the counter-culture and the violent rhetoric of the black power movement disturbed the editors, although they agreed that fundamental social reforms were necessary.

New owner and editor-in-chief Martin Peretz steered the journal toward a stronger anti-Soviet line in the mid-1970s, leading to an intense debate among the editors over support for the Nicaraguan contra rebels in 1986. Writers also began to question the ability of the state to promote social equality, and criticized the interest-group politics of the Democratic Party while reluctantly supporting its presidential candidates. As the century closed, The New Republic remained a preeminent forum for liberal debate.

Point of Divergence

Gen. Antonio Luna, General Mariano Trias, (from the North) Lt. Miguel Vazquel of the Palañag Detachment and in a desperate attempt to reinforce the south-eastern flank, Lt. Andres Bonifacio (from the south) charged towards the Manila territory after succeeding in the first phase of the Second Battle of Caloocan. The The Kawiteños immediately reinfroced the Pampanga troops and was able to reach up to Sta. Mesa, San Juan, Tondo, Binondo and even up to Calle Azcarrga. Meanwhile, from the south, a gung ho teenage Lieutenant Miguel Vazquel marched from Palañag after winning the Battle of Sucat-Pasay which was used as a hinge to attack Eastern Manila. 

As the two Filipino detachments met at Campo Neustro Señora del Carmel del Montaje y Agustino Recoletos (currently SSC-R, Manila) and caused a push towards Intamuros. Fifty meters away from Intramuros, General Wesley Merrit and Admiral Dewey lowered the Stars and Stripes and surrendered Manila to the Filipinos. The Treaty of Manila was signed as reparation and support of both parties.


In this tense situation, Great Britain worked to prevent a wider conflict by ending its seizure of American ships and offered to pay for captured cargoes. Hamilton saw an opportunity and recommended to Washington that the United States negotiate. Supreme Court Justice John Jay was sent to Britain, instructed by Hamilton to secure compensation for captured American ships ensure the British leave the Northwest outposts they still occupied despite the 1783 Treaty of Paris and gain an agreement for American trade in the West Indies. Even though Jay personally disliked slavery, his mission also required him to seek compensation from the British for slaves who left with the British at the end of the Revolutionary War.

Jay’s Treaty confirmed the fears of Democratic-Republicans, who saw it as a betrayal of republican France, cementing the idea that the Federalists favored aristocracy and monarchy. Partisan American newspapers tried to sway public opinion, while the skillful writing of Hamilton, who published a number of essays on the subject, explained the benefits of commerce with Great Britain.


Unlike the American Revolution, which ultimately strengthened the institution of slavery and the powers of American slaveholders, the French Revolution inspired slave rebellions in the Caribbean, including a 1791 slave uprising in the French colony of Saint-Domingue (modern-day Haiti). Thousands of slaves joined together to overthrow the brutal system of slavery. They took control of a large section of the island, burning sugar plantations and killing the white planters who had forced them to labor under the lash.

In 1794, French revolutionaries abolished slavery in the French empire, and both Spain and England attacked Saint-Domingue, hoping to add the colony to their own empires. Toussaint L’Ouverture, a former domestic slave, emerged as the leader in the fight against Spain and England to secure a Haiti free of slavery and further European colonialism. Because revolutionary France had abolished slavery, Toussaint aligned himself with France, hoping to keep Spain and England at bay ([link]).

Events in Haiti further complicated the partisan wrangling in the United States. White refugee planters from Haiti and other French West Indian islands, along with slaves and free people of color, left the Caribbean for the United States and for Louisiana, which at the time was held by Spain. The presence of these French migrants raised fears, especially among Federalists, that they would bring the contagion of French radicalism to the United States. In addition, the idea that the French Revolution could inspire a successful slave uprising just off the American coastline filled southern whites and slaveholders with horror.

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

  • Overall, we rate the New Republic Left biased based on story selection and editorial positions that frequently favor the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information and a clean fact check record.

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: LEFT
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Magazine
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic


The New Republic is a liberal American magazine of commentary on politics and the arts published since 1914. Founded by major leaders of the Progressive Movement, it attempted to find a balance between progressivism focused on humanitarianism and moral passion. On the other hand, it sought a basis in the scientific analysis of social issues. According to their about page, “For over 100 years, we have championed progressive ideas and challenged popular opinion. Our vision for today revitalizes our founding mission for our new time. The New Republic promotes novel solutions for today’s most critical issues. We don’t lament intractable problems our journalism debates complex issues and takes a stance. Our biggest stories are commitments for change.”

The current editor-in-chief is Win McCormack. You can view their Masthead here.

Funded by / Ownership

The New Republic has changed ownership many times during the 2000s, with Win McCormack purchasing the magazine in February 2016. Win McCormack is an Oregon-based publisher and editor-in-chief of the Tin House quarterly and Tin House Books. McCormack is also a political activist who served as Chair of the Oregon Steering Committee for Gary Hart‘s 1984 presidential campaign. He was chair of the Democratic Party of Oregon’s President’s Council and a member of the Obama for President Oregon Finance Committee. The New Republic earns revenue through advertising and subscriptions.

Analysis / Bias

In review, the New Republic produces high-quality, in-depth journalism that leans left in story selection. The New Republic frequently uses loaded emotional headlines such as this: White Nationalism Is an International Threat and this The Profound Emptiness of Beto O’Rourke. The New Republic also frequently publishes negative articles on Donald Trump: How to Piss Off Donald Trump. This article and most others are properly sourced to mostly mainstream left-leaning publications such as The Washington Post, Huff Post, and The Daily Beast.

Editorially, the New Republic typically endorses Democratic candidates such as Barack Obama. Further, editorials often align with liberal policies such as environmentalism, equal rights, and Universal Healthcare.

Failed Fact Checks

Overall, we rate the New Republic Left biased based on story selection and editorial positions that frequently favor the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information and a clean fact check record. (D. Van Zandt 5/13/2016) Updated (6/28/2020)

The Contact To NATO

Philippine President Benigno Aquino III Was Killed By Headshots From The People's Liberation Army, So The Korean-Filipino Politician Lucio Kang Was Elected As The President Of The Exiled Philippine Republic. Kang Contacted The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) To Help To Defeat The Chinese Troops, When The News Was Spread Into The Southeast Asia, The Association Of Southeast Asian Nation (ASEAN) Also Joined To End The Communist Regime Of China. Later On, UN Kicked Out The People's Republic Of China In The Member States After It's Invasion To The Philippines

Star Wars' The Old Republic Era Explained

The Old Republic era takes place several thousand years prior to the first movie in the Skywalker saga, Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace. The reach of the government now referred to as the Old Republic expanded as time went on, and eventually, it established its capital on the planet Coruscant. It was during the early days of the Old Republic that a faction of the Jedi broke away from the Jedi Order to embrace the dark side of the Force, a practice that was forbidden by the Order. This led to the birth of the Sith, and a war between the Jedi and the Sith known as the Hundred Year Darkness. At the end of the conflict, the Jedi were victorious and the Sith were banished.

Soon after, the Jedi Order built the Jedi Temple on Coruscant and developed close ties with the Old Republic, and helped ensure peace in the galaxy for the centuries that followed. The ways of the Old Republic brought them into conflict with other civilizations, such as the Mandalorians and the Zygerrians. Further complicating matters for the Old Republic was the return of the Sith, who secretly rebuilt and became even more powerful in their long absence. Continuous wars with their numerous enemies is eventually what brought the Old Republic to its knees. It was one of these conflicts that were the focus of the classic Knights of the Old Republic video game that told the story of Darth Revan, who is now officially Star Wars canon. In the end, the Jedi defeated the Sith - who survived because of Darth Bane instituting the Rule of Two - and the Old Republic was succeeded by the Galactic Republic.

Jefferson and the New Republic

There were three major steps to creating the United States of America. The first step was for the 13 American colonies to obtain independence from England. The second step was to convert 13 colonies into 13 states with a central government and strong states rights. The third, and perhaps the most difficult, was to convince the 13 states to agree to government by the people and for the people - a republic - instead of a monarchy, or rule by king. Not one of these three steps was easy to accomplish.

Step One: Independence from England? Not all the colonists wanted independence. Not only did the founding fathers have to defeat the most powerful, at the time, nation in the world, they also had to convince, ignore, or defeat American colonists who did not want to break from England. We call this struggle the Revolutionary War.

Step Two: The United States did defeat England. The 13 colonies did come together as the 13 states. The first attempt at a constitution, the Articles of Confederation, gave too much power to the individual states, and not enough power to a central government. This first constitution was not a success. The Articles were too weak.

Step Three : The Articles were replaced with the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. The Constitution laid out how the federal government of the United States would operate with three branches - the Legislative Branch (Congress), the Executive Branch (Pres, VP, and Cabinet), and the Judicial Branch (Federal and Supreme Courts.) The power of each branch was clearly stated. The Constitution also included a system of checks and balances, so that one branch would not become too powerful. A Bill of Rights was added, with more safeguards and guarantees of individual and states rights. All 13 states agreed to sign this new Constitution into law. This vision of government not only worked, it is still in place today.

Addition of New Land: Under the direction of Thomas Jefferson (author of most of the Declaration of Independence and the 3rd U.S. President), land was purchased from Napoleon of France, so much land that the United States doubled in size in 1803. We refer to this as the Louisiana Purchase. After the sale, this huge amount of land, now owned by the United States government, was renamed the Federal Territory of Louisiana. After the Lewis and Clark expedition returned from their exploration of this vast new land, full of excitement about what they had found, people began to move west.

So, in a very short amount of time, under the direction of incredible leaders like Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and many others, the United States was born, organized, and doubled in size.

Benevolent Societies

Benevolent societies were a new and conspicuous feature of the American landscape during the first half of the nineteenth century. Originally devoted to the salvation of souls, although eventually to the eradication of every kind of social ill, benevolent societies were the direct result of the extraordinary energies generated by the evangelical movement--specifically, by the "activism" resulting from conversion. "The evidence of God's grace," the Presbyterian evangelist, Charles G. Finney insisted, "was a person's benevolence toward others." The evangelical establishment used this powerful network of voluntary, ecumenical benevolent societies to Christianize the nation. The earliest and most important of these organizations focused their efforts on the conversion of sinners to the new birth or to the creation of conditions (such as sobriety sought by temperance societies) in which conversions could occur. The six largest societies in 1826-1827 were all directly concerned with conversion: the American Education Society, the American Board of Foreign Missions, the American Bible Society, the American Sunday-School Union, the American Tract Society, and the American Home Missionary Society.

The Distribution of Religious Literature

The American Tract Society, founded in 1825, was one of the most influential of the scores of benevolent societies that flourished in the United States in the first decades of the nineteenth century. The Tract Society, through the efforts of thousands of families like the one shown here, flooded the nation with evangelical pamphlets, aimed at converting their recipients and eradicating social vices like alcoholism and gambling that impeded conversion. In the first decade of its existence the American Tract Society is estimated to have distributed 35 million evangelical books and tracts.

Family handing out tracts. Woodcut by Anderson from The American Tract Magazine, August 1825. American Tract Society, Garland, Texas (205)

Evangelical tracts, American Tract Society. [Are you saved.] YA Pamphlet Collection. Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (201)

Evangelical tracts, American Tract Society. [Everlasting punishment.] YA Pamphlet Collection. Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (202)

Evangelical tracts, American Tract Society. [To the parents of Sabbath school children.] YA Pamphlet Collection. Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (203)

Evangelical tracts, American Tract Society. [Misery of the lost.] YA Pamphlet Collection. Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (204)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel07.html#obj201

Mission to Sailors

Missionary societies in nineteenth-century America left no stone unturned or no place unattended to convert their fellow Americans. This church was built by the Young Men's Church Missionary Society of New York to minister to visiting seamen. A floating church, built to a similar design, was moored on the Philadelphia waterfront.

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel07.html#obj206

Missions to the Old Northwest

The evangelical community was extremely anxious about the supposedly deleterious moral impact of westward expansion. Consequently, strenuous efforts were made to send ministers to serve the mobile western populations. In this issue of the Home Missionary, the journal of the American Home Missionary Society, a map of the surveyed parts of Wisconsin was published with a letter from a "correspondent at Green Bay," who asserted, like the man from Macedonia, "that an immediate supply [of ministers] is demanded." The executive Committee of the Society decided "to make immediate and energetic efforts to supply Wisconsin with the preaching of the Gospel.

The surveyed part of Wisconsin. Map from The Home Missionary, volume XII, November 1839. New York: N. Currier, c. 1839. General Collections, Library of Congress (208)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel07.html#obj208

Missionaries' Reports

This table, compiled from data from the missionaries of the American Home Mission Society, reports on revivals in progress and other missionary activities under their auspices in 1841-1842.

Missionary Table from The Seventeenth Report of the American Home Missionary Society. New York: William Osborn, 1842. American Home Missionary Society Papers, Amistad Research Center, Tulane University, New Orleans (207)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel07.html#obj207

Circuit Preachinge

The Methodist Circuit rider, ministering to the most remote, inhospitable parts of the nation, was one of the most familiar symbols of the "evangelical empire" in the United States. The saddle bags, seen here, belonged to the Reverend Samuel E. Alford, who rode circuits in northwestern Virginia, eastern West Virginia, and western Maryland.

The Circuit Preacher. Engraving of a drawing by A. R. Waud, from Harper's Weekly, October 12, 1867. Copyprint. Prints and Photographs Division, Library of Congress (209)

Saddle bags. Leather, used c. 1872-1889. Lovely Lane Museum of United Methodist Historical Society, Baltimore (210)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel07.html#obj209

Religion Indispensable to Republican Government

Tocqueville's impression of American attitudes toward the relation of government and religion was formed on his tour of the United States in the early 1830s during the high tide of evangelicalism:

I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion for who can read the human heart? but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

Democracy in America. Alexis de Tocqueville, Translated by Henry Reeve. London: Saunders and Otley, 1835. Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (211)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel07.html#obj211

A Thousand Years of Happiness

Time lines that traced sacred history from Adam and Eve to contemporary times were a popular form of religious art in earlier periods of American history. The one seen here, prepared by the well-known engraver, Amos Doolittle, states that in 1800 Americans entered a "fourth period" in which Satan would be bound for "1000 years" and the church would be in a "happy state."

The Epitome of Ecclesiastical History. Engraving by Amos Doolittle. New Haven: 1806. Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (212)

Watch the video: Novemberrevolution I musstewissen Geschichte (May 2022).