Patrick Henry, in 1784 proposed a tax for Virginians that would support Christian teachers to the benefit of society. James Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance was written in 1785 as a response. Madison’s document argues against the tax, calling it a “dangerous misuse of power” that violates a person’s inalienable rights. In addition, Madison proposed subordination of secularism to divinity and argued that freedom of religion was not surrendered upon joining Civil Society. The government could not regulate religious beliefs because Civil Society was not able to do so. The legislature would have to usurp the rights of citizens if they attempted this. Madison addressed General Assembly in the first paragraph of his document, and titled it. Madison’s plan was clear from the start. He wanted to create two documents: a memorial and a remonstrance. The memorial explained the reasons behind the remonstrance. The document was similar to the Declaration of Independence, in that it outlined a logical sequence of arguments leading up to a conclusion. Madison’s argument was therefore already well-structured to demonstrate its own validity.
Madison’s Remonstrance was then preceded by a brief preamble, referring to the postponement. Virginians reached the conclusion of the document after reading the preamble. Madison intentionally used “We the Subscribers” in place of “I”. Madison used the phrase “We the subscribers”, instead of using his own name. This was to show that he was speaking for all Virginians, not just himself. His statements were strengthened by this because it demonstrated popular support for Madison’s views. Madison’s writing also emphasized that he wrote as a member of the public, an important part of self government at the time. Madison said in the preamble of the document that it was “a dangerous abuse” of power if this bill were to become law. Madison then declared that all “faithful state members” would have “a duty” to protest. He called for Virginia’s “faithful”, even as he argued against the establishment of religion. So, he assumed his audience to be both Christians and citizens. In order to gain a political advantage he could have played on the skepticism of his audience. However, this also helped him establish the dual character that is American life.
Madison defended his position. Madison then defended his claim. Madison said the right of free religious expression was not only an inherent right, but that it is “inherently unalienable”. Man was born free. The mind was also included in the freedom of man if he were truly free. The mind is also influenced by the reason. Therefore, it’s impossible for a person to dictate another person’s reasoning. Madison added that this freedom was not alienable due to the fact that there is a “duty toward the Creator” which every individual decides on his own. Madison was saying that people should pay homage only if they feel it is appropriate. In other words, if the tax required did not correspond to a person’s individual beliefs, it was a violation of his inalienable right. In addition, the tax undermines religion by reducing its value when an individual is forced into something, as opposed to choosing what they believe.
Madison declared then that man’s duties towards God were above Civil Society. “Both in order of timing and in degree obligation.” He also argued that man had to believe in God before he would pledge allegiance. The phrase “in order of time” could have referred to a period before organized civilization. The phrase “degree of duty” can be interpreted in two different ways. It could refer to the degree of involvement a person has in his or her own church. This would be in line with Madison’s argument that men have the right to follow their conscience. This tax was unacceptable because it interfered with the right of a person to practice and choose their religion. The “degree of duty” can be understood as the level of importance that a man places on religion. Meaning that a men’s moral duty outweighed the Civil Society because Religion took precedence. Either way, a tax could be viewed as an abuse of powers because it would force a man’s duties to his Creator over his duties as his citizen. Madison stated that if a person chose to “join any subordinate Association”, he did so knowing God was first. To become a US citizen, one did not surrender his religious freedom. Madison believed the law had no authority over religion. Even if the money was being used for the general good, forcing a person to give up his religious freedom was an abuse. Madison called “tyrants” those “rulers who have encroached on the rights of religion.”
Madison acknowledged, finally, that the majority’s will could be abused and rights of minorities violated. He continued to build on this argument later in the document when he stated that it’s more difficult for a power to be usurped after precedents have already been set, than to avoid the power being usurped from the start. In the future, the government could go beyond the tax bill, and there is nothing stopping it from doing so. It might also exclude other sects or force citizens to “conform” to other establishments. He implied that the tax bill would not only be a danger to religious freedom, but could have worse consequences if passed. Madison’s argument was bolstered by his rhetorical use, as well as his logical statements. He used “everyman” repeatedly to imply the individualistic nature religion. In the same way, he used words such as undeniable, fundamental, and unalienable so that they appeared interchangeable. He knew this would increase public acceptance. In addition, he used the words “right”, unalienable”, Creator”, “duty”, as well as “Civil Society”, in the same sentences. The ideas became interconnected as if they were inseparable.
Madison assumed that Americans were believers in a creator who gave them rights. The claim would still hold true, if an individual, such as an atheist or an agnostic did not adhere to transcendent values, like inalienable rights. The answer is no. It was important that Americans of the day were “faithful”. Madison made a good argument because this assumption was not questioned in Madison’s day. Madison’s argument that the assessment bill is a “dangerous misuse of power” is valid because its logic and support are sound. He argued that religion was a right that could not be taken away in a republican form government. Man had a responsibility to God first, then Civil Society. The government could not impose its will on a man if the society was unable to do so. Madison also showed the dangers of a majority that did not consider the rights and freedoms of minorities. Madison concluded that any tax which forced a person to pay money to a religious organization was an usurpation by the government. Madison’s rhetorical skills were also effective in boosting his arguments because they appealed to people of the time. Madison’s assumption that the American people were faithful to God is not questioned by modern audiences. This was the belief of the time. Madison defeated the tax assessment measure, and his ideas have remained as guiding principals for the country.
