date
newest »


Answer: There are two reasons.
First, I discovered when researching this book that many historians over the centuries have given inaccurate accounts of Roger Williams and his times. Not all historians are guilty of such inaccuracies, but many of them, especially those writing before the twenty-first century, have asserted things about Williams and his contemporaries that simply have no basis in the primary sources and, in fact, often contradict what is in the primary sources. I have made every attempt in this book to avoid such errors. One of the methods I have used to ensure accuracy is to quote specific statements made by Williams and others in their writings. For example, many historians have asserted that Williams only intended to protect the church from the state and not the state from the church. I disprove this assertion by quotations from Williams's own writings that state quite the contrary.
Second, although many of Williams's letters were written in haste and with extreme brevity (likely for the purpose of conserving paper, which was scarce), others are literary masterpieces of almost Shakespearean quality. Similarly, although some of Williams's published works follow the rules of the outdated and tedious early modern disputation genre, some specific statements within those works, as well as statements in other writings outside the disputation genre, are literary and philosophical gems that no summary or paraphrase can adequately capture.
This book is not a light read and is not for everyone. Although it may take the reader a while to become acclimated to the seventeenth-century language of the quotations, the effort results in a genuine understanding of early modern history and of Williams's radical thought. I try to assist with bracketed translations of words and phrases not familiar to twenty-first-century readers. But if you are looking for something that will not challenge your mind (and very possibly your preconceptions), this book is not for you.

Alan E. Johnson

This excerpt examines the interaction of historical figures influenced by Roger Williams (especially Stephen Hopkins and Isaac Backus) with such late eighteenth-century US Founders as John Adams, Samuel Adams, Robert Treat Paine, and Thomas Cushing. This interaction occurred most notably in an October 14, 1774 evening meeting of some of the delegates to the First Continental Congress with Baptist and Quaker representatives at Carpenter's Hall in Philadelphia. At this meeting, Stephen Hopkins (Revolutionary War pamphleteer, former Rhode Island governor, and friend of Benjamin Franklin), Baptist leader Isaac Backus, Quaker leader Israel Pemberton, and others confronted the Massachusetts delegates to the Continental Congress about that colony's continuing religious discrimination against and persecution of Baptists and Quakers. Massachusetts had imprisoned and whipped Baptists and executed Quakers in the name of the "true religion" during the seventeenth century. Although Massachusetts public officials no longer whipped and executed religious dissenters, eighteenth-century Massachusetts laws and governmental practices still discriminated against them.
Other portions of Chapter 9 (not included in this excerpt) address the direct or indirect influence of Roger Williams (ca. 1603-83) on such famous US Founders as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and on other important public figures of that generation such as Richard Cranch, Jeremy Belknap, David Ramsay, and Royall Tyler.

This book is also available in paperback and Kindle e-book editions at Amazon.com and other Amazon websites throughout the world, including Amazon.ca, Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.de, Amazon.fr, Amazon.it, and Amazon.es. However, the 10% discount is available only at my eStore and only for the paperback edition. Although the Kindle edition is not available at my eStore and is not eligible for the 10% discount, it is affordably priced at $9.99 at Amazon.com and comparable prices in other currencies at other Amazon websites.
Alan E. Johnson

8/5/2017 Note: This review was also published in the NCIS journal, The Independent Scholar 3, No. 3 (June 2017): 61, which can be located here.

"For myself, I would rather not write history than write it for the purpose of following the prejudices and passions of the times.
"Here, someone makes the Capetians descend from the Merovingians; there, someone else has it that the name very Christian has always been applied to the {French} princes.
"They don't form a system after reading history; they begin with the system and then search for the proofs."
Montesquieu, My Thoughts, trans., ed., and with an introduction by Henry C. Clark (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2012), 70 (pensée 190).
Montesquieu's approach to writing history is the approach I took in writing this book. The exact historical truth about Roger Williams has eluded many (though not all) writers about him for almost four centuries. Sometimes their mischaracterizations were deliberate; other times they were the result of shoddy research or just plain negligence. Often they were the result of a conscious or unconscious attempt either to defame Williams or to remake him into a man of the writers' times. In the present book I followed an inductive approach of laboriously attempting to ascertain the true historical facts about Williams and his influence on subsequent generations. I offered my own interpretations only after performing the historian's task of getting the facts straight and reading every extant word in Williams's own voluminous writings and in other relevant primary sources. I recorded my overall assessment of him in the conclusion of chapter 8: "Some of what he said and wrote during his lifetime belongs to the seventeenth century. But much of his historical and philosophical record speaks to us across the centuries." He was, indeed, a remarkable man whose life and work remain relevant to us today.

This review is very well written and brings out several important aspects of the book. Although the reviewer proved herself to be quite capable of understanding and discussing the more scholarly and lawyerly aspects of the book, she seemed to yearn for a somewhat more popular presentation. That’s fine; there have been many popular books on Roger Williams, most of which have been not quite historically accurate. All in all, her review highlights many important points that I wished to get across to the reader.
The reviewer (whom I do not know) is Neysa M. Slater-Chandler, a native Rhode Islander who is a US government attorney; a graduate of the US Naval Academy, Defense Intelligence College, and Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law; and a Ph.D. student at Virginia Tech's Center for Public Administration and Policy. She is past chair of the FBA's Federal Career Service Division and past vice chair of its Sections and Divisions.
(updated 7/10/2017)

“Williams held the novel view that the religious and civil worlds should be completely separate, and that everyone is entitled to freedom of conscience. This view may not seem remarkable in the early twenty-first century, but it is still a view not shared by all, even in the United States, as one can see in the debate over whether marriage is a civil or a religious right, in the backlash against mosques in some neighborhoods, in remaining blue laws that prohibit retail establishments from operating on Sundays, and so on. . . . It is Johnson’s assembly of Williams’s writings on the subject and the presentation of them which make his book so important and a highly recommended read.” John B. Tieder, Jr., in Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy 42, no. 3 (Spring 2016): 559.
Although no separate URL for this review exists, the entire Spring 2016 issue of Interpretation can be accessed and downloaded here. The review is the penultimate item in this issue (pp. 557-62).
I shall not comment on the review, which was mostly favorable, except to note that the allegedly missing discussions either were actually in the book (sometimes in the endnotes) or were not broached as a result of the absence of primary-source material. As the review observes, I declined to speculate on matters for which reliable primary-source material does not exist. Thus, my book is a work of history, not of historical fiction. As for the organization of the book, including the separate appendices, I had my reasons, which need not be elaborated here.
This is the third and possibly last formal review of my book. I am not aware of any other reviews in the pipeline.
(Revised 5/24/2016 and 7/10/2017)

The seminar will begin by describing the theocratic legal regimes of seventeenth-century Plymouth, Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut, and New Haven. It will discuss how Roger Williams was banished from Massachusetts on account of his religious liberty and related views and how he established a new settlement at Providence (later in Rhode Island) in 1636. Providence and the later Rhode Island colony were, in stark contrast to the other New England colonies, founded on the principles of church-state separation and liberty of conscience. These principles were later incorporated into the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. However, the First Amendment initially applied only to the federal government. Massachusetts continued a somewhat modified theocracy until 1833, and Massachusetts and other states continued to have theocratic laws of one kind or another throughout the nineteenth century and during many of the decades of the twentieth century. By 1947, the US Supreme Court held that both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause applied to state and local government by way of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified on July 9, 1868. However, the Supreme Court's holding that the Establishment Clause applies to state and local government remains controversial, and the seminar will conclude with a discussion of the current judicial, scholarly, and political debate about this issue.
Persons wishing to attend this seminar must communicate their intention via email to Alan E. Johnson (alanjohnson10@comcast.net) by noon EDT on June 29, 2016. Attendees will have to go through security at the US Steel Tower and will not be admitted absent prior approval. The seminar will not be available on the internet and will not be videotaped.

Alan E. Johnson
10/5/2016 Note: See the following post regarding the October 28, 2016 seminar and course materials.

This is the second of two seminars on U.S. church-state law from the seventeenth century to the present. The first session (see preceding post) occurred on July 13, 2016, and, as a result of a one-hour time limitation, concluded before reaching the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The present course materials substantially expand the earlier course materials for the period 1787 to the present.
This is a Continuing Legal Education (CLE) seminar. Attorneys licensed in Pennsylvania will receive a one-hour CLE credit (substantive) for attendance. All attendees must be preregistered. Please email me at alanjohnson10@comcast.net if you wish to attend.
Alan E. Johnson

Alan E. Johnson


Thank you, but I'm not interested. I already have a marketing program with which I am satisfied.
I have posted here an excerpt from Chapter 2 of the paperback under the title "The Banishment of Roger Williams from Massachusetts Bay (1635-36)." The endnotes for this excerpt appear after the text.
The book is also available in a Kindle e-book edition.