Prominent Carolinians Debating Ratification Of The US Constitution’s Religious Test Clause

Although (North Carolina’s) 1776 Constitution prohibited the establishment of any particular denomination, it required those who held civil office to be professing Protestants and forbade any man to hold office who denied “the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion”…

Henry Abbot (1740-1791) expressed concerns over the Religious Test Clause, saying that “if there be no religious test required, pagans, deists and Mahometans might obtain offices among us and (…) the senators and representatives might all be pagans…

Presbyterian Minister David Caldwell (1725-1824), the founder of an academy in Greensboro, North Carolina, also expressed concern over the US Constitution’s Religious Test Clause, writing that it would be “an invitation for Jews and pagans of every kind to come among us,” which in the future “might endanger the character of the United States.” While it is true that the U.S. Constitution’s Religious Test Clause, and later the First Amendment, applied only to the general (federal) government, accounts like these demonstrate the concerns many had if Protestantism was not assumed and promoted in civil office.

Sean McGowan, from “Reformed Christian Politics“, 2026

Share:

6 thoughts on “Prominent Carolinians Debating Ratification Of The US Constitution’s Religious Test Clause”

    1. Absolutely, Fred. And I found it fascinating that Greensboro’s own David Caldwell felt it ought to be a qualification for public office, and that he explicitly stated he did not want other kinds of folks in these positions of responsibility.

      1. At the Hillsborough 1788 convention where NC rejected the Constitution (essentially for its lack of a Bill of Rights), Caldwell spoke primarily about religious concerns regarding the US Constitution. He voted with the majority against ratification.

        1. Thanks, J. Sobran.

          Caldwell is celebrated in these parts, but if institutional Greensboro knew how theologically orthodox he was, and knew his views on matters such as these, he likely would NOT be celebrated. I wish more people knew the truth about his legacy.

          1. I’m thankful and pleasantly surprised some self-righteous leftist hasn’t fixated on David and Rachel Caldwell, typical of prosperous people of their time, owning as many as 8 slaves. He was a man of parts and I’m glad he is celebrated. He fought in the Revolution in the cause of liberty and encouraged his parishioners to as well.

Comments are closed.