|The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State|
|Welcome||Contents||What's New||Search this site||
View Our Stats
Visitors since 7/15/1998
|Links||Guest Book||Contact Us|
|This site is eye friendly: Use your browser's view options to increase or decrease font size|
Eager to confirm his views, Jasper Adams sent copies of his printed sermon to numerous influential Americans, requesting that they respond to his arguments and offer their own opinions on the subject of his sermon. In notes which Adams made and attached to his own copy of the first printed edition of the sermon, he included extracts from or copies of the original letters he received in reply to his requests.
We transcribed the following text from photo copies of Jasper Adams' original handwritten notes. The photo copies were obtained from the William L. Clements Library of the University of Michigan, the repository holding Adam's papers.
Page numbers cited below indicate the actual page of Adams' notes. "[____]" indicates undecipherable information on the original.
Source of Information:
Photo Copies of Jasper Adams' handwritten notes [cited here as Adams' Notes] that were included with his printed copies of the sermon: The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States: Sermon preached in St. Michael's Church, Charleston, February 13, 1833 By Rev. J. Adams, Charleston, Printed by A. E. Miller, No.4 Broad-street, 1833. Courtesy of the William L. Clements Library, University of Michigan.
Soon after the publication of his sermon, its author sent a copy to Horace Binney, Esq of Philadelphia, with the following endorsement on the cover:
"Horace Binney, Esq from the author. If Mr. Binney has a spare copy of his Eulogium [?] Chief Justice Tilgheman, it will be highly acceptable in exchange for this, as the author has not been able to obtain it by purchase."
After some time a copy of the Eulogium was received with this endorsement. "Rev. J Adams, D.D. from the author, a very inadequate return for the Convention Sermon," full of striking and profound reflections upon a subject of increasing interest to every Christian patriot in the United States.
[Adams's Notes, page 1]
March 21, 1833
(Copy) 21st March 1833.
My Dear Sir,
I have just read your sermon "on the relation of Christianity to civil government." The moral induction from our constitutions & laws, that Christianity forms the basis of our civil polity is rational, clear, & convincing; & is so well timed, that I cannot but think the friends of order & our government as well as your personal well wishers will be disposed to have an argument so useful & statesmanlike widely disseminated. It is distinctly the best antidote to the threatening spread of infidelity that I have seen; & pains should be taken to give it full effect. Taking it for granted that something will be done towards that end, I beg you to contribute for me, twenty dollars which I will repay in May on my visit to Charleston. Believe me, much good may be done & honour derived. I recommend & urge the effort for the general good.
With sincere respect & regard, Yours Truly
The Rev. J. Adams
[Adams's Notes, pages 1-2]
April 15, 1833.
Extract of a letter from Mrs. Eliza Francis, wife of John W. Francis, M.D. dated New York April 15 1833.
"Your discourse before the convention affords me another opportunity of thanking you for the valuable productions you have sent me; the one delivered at Geneva and the last mentioned are invaluable and my husband and [ ____] think they ought to be widely circulated an copies are to be bound.
[Adams's Notes, page 6]
May 9, 1833
Chief Justice Marshall to the Author
Richmond May 9th , 1833.
I am much indebted to you for the copy of your valuable sermon on the relation of Christianity to civil government preached before the convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Charleston, on the 13th of Feby. last. I have read it with great attention & advantage.
The documents annexed to the sermon certainly go far in sustaining the proposition which it is your purpose to establish. One great object of the colonial charters was avowedly the propagation of the Christian faith. Means have been employed to accomplish this object, & those means have been used by government.
No person, I believe, questions the importance of religion to the happiness of man even during his existence in this world. It has at all times employed his most serious meditation, & had a decided influence on his conduct. The American population is entirely Christian, & with us, Christianity & Religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, & did not often refer to it, & exhibit relations with it. Legislation on the subject is admitted to require great delicacy, because fredom [sic] of conscience & respect for our religion both claim our most serious regard. You have allowed their full influence to both.
With very great respect,
I am Sir, your Obedt.,
Rev. J. Adams
[Adams's Notes, pages 2-3]
May 14, 1833
(Copy) Cambridge May 14, 1833.
I am greatly obliged to you for the copy of your convention sermon, which you have been pleased to send me. I have read it with uncommon satisfaction, & think its tone & spirit excellent. My own private judgement has long been, (& every day's experience more & more confirms me in it,) that government can not long exist without an alliance with religion to some extent; & that Christianity is indispensable to the true interests & solid foundations of all free governments. I distinguish, as you do, between the establishment of a particular sect, as the Religion of the State, & the Establishment of Christianity itself, without any preference of any particular form of it. I know not, indeed, how any deep sense of moral obligation or accountableness can be expected to prevail in the community without a firm persuasion of the great Christian Truths promulgated in your South Carolina constitution of 1778. I look with no small dismay upon the rashness & indifference with which the American People seem in our day to be disposed to cut adrift from old principles, & to trust themselves to the theories of every wild projector in to [?] religion & politics.
Upon the point, how far the constitution of 1790 has, on the subject of religion, superseded that of 1778, it is somewhat difficult for me to form a decisive opinion without some additional documents, showing the authority of the convention, which framed it, & the effect given to it. If (as I suppose was the case) the object of the constitution of 1790 was, to supersede that of 1778, & to stand as a substitute, (which has been the general construction in like cases of a general new[?J constitution) then, it seems to me, that the constitution of 1778 is by necessary implication repealed, except so far as any of its provisions are expressly retained. It does not strike me that the 2d section of the 8`h article of 1790 retains any thing of the religious articles of that of 1778, but only provides that the existing rights &c. of religious societies & corporate bodies shall remain unaffected by the change of the constitution. The rights &c., here provided for, are the more private rights of those bodies, such as the rights of property, & corporate immunities; but not any rights as Christians or as Protestants to be entitled to the superior protection of the State. The first section of the 8`h article seems to me intended to abolish all distinctions & preferences, as to the state, between all religious persuasions, whether Christian or other wise. But I doubt exceedingly, if it ought to be construed so as to abolish Christianity as a part of the antecedent Law of the Land, to the extent of withdrawing from it all recognition of it as a revealed religion. The 23d section of art. 1S` seems to me manifestly to point to a different conclusion.
Mr. Jefferson has, with his accustomed boldness, denied that Christianity is a part of the common Law, & Dr. [Thomas] Cooper has with even more dogmatism, maintained the same opinion. I am persuaded, that a more egregious error never was uttered by able men. And I have long desired to find leisure to write a dissertation to establish this conclusion. Both of them rely on authorities & expositions which are wholly inadmissible. And I am surprised, that no one has as yet exposed the shallowness of their enquiries. Both of them have probably been easily drawn into the maintenance of such a doctrine by their own skepticism. It is due to truth, & to the purity of the Law, to unmask their fallacies.
I am gratified by your favourable opinion of my Commentaries on the constitution. If I shall be thought to have done anything to aid in perpetuating the true exposition of its rights & powers, & duties, I shall reap all the reward I desire. The Abridgment for colleges & schools will be published next week. I hope it may be found a useful manual.
I cannot conclude this letter without thanking you again for your sermon. These are times in which the friends of Christianity are required to sound the alarm, & to inculcate sound principles. I fear that infidelity is make [sic] rapid progress under the delusive guise of the freedom of religious opinion & liberty of conscience.
Believe me with great respect,
Your obliged servant,
The Rev. J. Adams D.D.
[Adams's Notes, pages 4-6]
May 27, 1833
Rev. Dear Sir
I beg you will pardon me for presuming so far upon the slight acquaintance I had the honor of forming with you during my collegiate course at Geneva, as to request the favour of a copy of the sermon preached by you in Charleston in February last; which I observe in one of the New York papers has been published with a valuable appendix. I should not trouble you, sir, with this request if it were in my power to procure a copy here; but we are out of the range of production of that kind published at so great a distance as Charleston. The subject of the discourse is one in which I feel a more than common interest, inasmuch as there is something of a disposition in this state to efface from our public affairs every thing that bears the impress of Christianity, or is calculated to remind us of the obligations of religion upon a professedly Christian people. It is a spirit of a rotten and malignant character which ought to be calmly met and resisted before it reaches its maturity and becomes too vigorous to be forced into quiet. I [___ ____] as it undoubtedly may be, if [____ably] looked to. If I have observed well, an ambitious demigogue with something of art and intrigue, might readily form here a considerable combination, whose object should be to do utterly away every remaining vestige of Christianity in our public affairs, however sacred from its antiquity, and how much [a____ ____nated] by the want of the community. You have perhaps noted how, during the past winter, our legislature refused to vote the customary allowance to the clergy for their daily attendance to perform a service, which has never before, I believe, been neglected since we were a colony of G. Britain; and with what unanimity, the law authorizing the appropriation of money to that object was repealed. It's not to this fact for the pri of expressing a doubt of this [pr____ isty] of that (which I think is generally conceded) nor of writing upon conduct of the Legislature in the usual appropriation while the law is yet unrepealed; but 'because it was apparent .that, under all the profession of respect that were expressed towards the religious feelings of the community, there lurked a spirit of disaffection and [un_____] that only needs, I fear, a little more such arousement to address an attitude of decided hostility to all that [______] are accustomed to upon with regard and [______]. I consider it, therefore, in the duty of any good citizen to equip himself with the armour that may best enable him to resist the encroachments and the progress of that spirit and I am pleased that you have furnished a weapon, that according to the opinion I am led to form of it, is so admirably adapted to the use of such as may be called upon to engage in a contest of that nature.
As you may undoubtedly take an interest in those young men, who have a any time been placed under your charge, it may gratify you to learn, that I am a practitioner in the law, and by the favor of my friends am the incumbent of a [_______ ______] attached to the Court of Chancery. I often think of my classmate, Mr. Middleton, to whom I should be pleased to have you communicate my warmest regards.
Pardon the liberty, sir, I have taken in thus addressing you, especially as it affords me the
opportunity of assuring you of the very [______ _______] and with which I have the honor to be
your obl. [__]
James Watson Williams
Utica N.Y. May 27, 1833
[Adams Notes pages 7-8]
(Soon after this sermon was published, Mr. Grimke insisted that I had taken a very mistaken view of this relation of our constitution of 1790 to that of 1778. I requested Judge Richardson's opinion on this point, and the following letter is in answer to my request for his opinion. I proposed the same enquiry to Mr. Justice Story, and a part of his letter is in answer to my enquiry.)
[Adams's Notes, page 8]
July 9, 1833
Rev. J. Adams, D.D.
president of Charleston College
Extract of a letter from Thomas S. Grimke. Esq.
July 9th , 1833
"When you contract for the reprinting of your Sermon, pray bespeak 100 extra copies for me besides my contribution of $20,"
Note: The contribution of $20 here spoken of, was in [ ___d] of the suggestion of Judge Richardson. See copy of his letter.
[Adams's Notes, page 6]
August 16, 1833
26th August 1833.
My Dear Sir,
Your query (upon the constitution of So. Ca.) of the 20 March, to wit: "whether the constitution of 1778, be still of force, wherein it stands unaltered by the consti. of '90," remains unanswered by me. I percieve [sic] no sufficient reason, for differing from your opinion in ps. 37 & 38. That opinion has been heretofore my own; that is to say, the consti. of '78 remains a Law of the State, except wherein it has been repealed, by the constitution of '90, or some Law. You perceive, I do not view that of '78 as a constitution; but as a Law, or Legislative compact, & of course, subject to Legislative control. I have it not at hand, but I think you will find, that it was enacted by no higher power than the Legislature. There was no convention called to enact it; but it stands as a law. It may be added, that for many years after the constitution of '90, it regulated the tenure of many offices; perhaps it governs some of them now which have not been altered; & may be important in reference to jury trials, &c. &c. "preserved" &c. "as heretofore in this State," under Art. 9. Sec. 6 of the const. of 1790. You & I differ very little, therefore, & perhaps not at all, on this subject.
Yours very respectfully & Truly
Adams's Notes, page 9]
Montpelier September 1833. private
I received in due time, the printed copy of your convention sermon on the relation of Christianity to civil government, with a manuscript request of my opinion on the subject.
There appears to be in the nature of man, what ensures his belief in an invisible cause of his present existence, & an anticipation of his future existence. Hence the propensities & susceptibilities, in the case of religion, which, with a few doubtful or individual exceptions, have prevailed throughout the world.
Waiving the rights of conscience, not included in the surrender implied by the social state, & more or less invaded by all Religious establishments, the simple question to be decided, is whether a support of the best & purest religion, the Christian Religion itself, ought not, so far at least as pecuniary means are involved, to be provided for by the Government, rather than be left to the voluntary provisions of those who profess it. And on this question, experience will be an admitted umpire the more adequate as the connexion between government & Religion, has existed in such various degrees & forms, & now can be compared with examples where the connexion has been entirely dissolved.
In the papal system, Government & Religion are in a manner consolidated; & that is found to be the worst of Governments.
In most of the governments of the old world, the legal establishment of a particular religion without any, or with very little toleration of others, makes a part [pact?] of the political & civil organization; & there are few of the most enlightened judges who will maintain that the system has been favourable either to Religion or to government.
Until Holland ventured on the experiment of combining a liberal toleration, with the establishment of a particular creed, it was taken for granted that an exclusive establishment was essential, and notwithstanding the light thrown on the subject by that experiment, the prevailing opinion in Europe, England not excepted, has been, that Religion could not be preserved without the support of Government, nor Government be supported without an established Religion, that there must be at least an alliance of some sort between them.
It remained for North America to bring the great & interesting subject to a fair, & finally, to a decisive test.
In the colonial state of this country, there were five examples, Rhode Island, New Jersey Pennsylvania & Delaware, & the greater part of New York, where there were no religious establishments, the support of Religion being left to the voluntary associations & contributions of individuals; & certainly the religious condition of those colonies, will well bear a comparison, with that where establishments existed.
As it may be suggested, that experiments made in colonies more or less under the controul of a foreign government had not the full scope necessary to display their tendency, it is fortunate that the appeal can now be made to their effects, under a compleat exemption from any such controul.
It is true that the New England States have not discontinued establishments of Religion formed under very peculiar circumstances; but they have by successive relaxations, advanced towards the prevailing example; & without any evidence of disadvantage, either to Religion or to good government.
And if we turn to the Southern States where there was previous to the Declaration of Independence, a legal provision for the support of Religion; & since that event, a surrender of it to a spontaneous support of the people, it may be said that the difference amounts nearly to a contrast, in the greater purity & industry of the pastors & in the greater devotion of their flocks, in the latter period than in the former. In Virginia, the contrast is particularly striking to those whose memories can make the comparison.
It will not be denied that causes other than the abolition of the legal establishment of Religion are to be taken into view, in accounting for the change in the religious character of the community. But the existing character, distinguished as it is by its religious features, & the lapse of time, now more than fifty years, since the legal support of Religion was withdrawn, sufficiently prove, that it does not need the support of Government. And it will scarcely be contended that government has suffered by the exemption of Religion from its cognizance, or its pecuniary aid.
The apprehension of some seems to be, that Religion left entirely to itself, may run into extravagances injurious both to Religion & social order; but besides the question whether the interference of Government in any form, would not be more likely to increase than controul the tendency, it is a safe calculation that in this, as in other cases of excessive excitement, reason will gradually regain its ascendency. Great excitements are less apt to be permanent than to vibrate to the opposite extreme.
Under another aspect of the subject, there may be less danger that Religion, if left to itself, will suffer from a failure of the pecuniary support applicable to it, than that an omission of the public authorities, to limit the duration of the charters to Religious corporations, & the amount of property acquirable by them, may lead to an injurious accumulation of wealth from the lavish donations & bequests prompted by a pious zeal or by an atoning remorse. Some monitory examples have already appeared.
Whilst I thus frankly express my view of the subject presented in your sermon, I must do you the justice to observe, that you have very ably maintained yours. I must admit, moreover, that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation, between the rights of Religion & the Civil authority, with such distinctness, as to avoid collisions & doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side, or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded against by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference, in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, & protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others.
I owe you, Sir, an apology for the delay in complying with the request of my opinion on the subject discussed in your sermon, if not also for the brevity, & it may be thought, crudeness of the opinion itself. I must rest the apology on my great age now in its 83' year, with more than the ordinary infirmities, & especially on the effect of a chronic rheumatism, combined with both, which makes my hands & fingers, as averse to the pen as they are awkward in the use of it.
Be pleased to accept, Sir, a tender of my cordial & respectful salutations.
[Adams's Notes, pages 12-15]
The Rev. J. Adams
Note: The "manuscript request" mentioned at the beginning of this letter, was an endorsement on the cover of the copy sent to Mr. Madison in these words:- "If it suits the much respected patriot & statesman to whom this is sent, to write the author a few lines expressive of his opinion of the validity of the argument herein contained, it will be received as a distinguished favour." The same endorsement was put upon the copy sent to Ch. J. Marshall.
[Adams's Notes, page 15]
[There are some differences between the G. Hunt version of this letter (below) and the Adams version of this letter (above). For one, the Hunt version is dated a year too early.]
To: Rev. Jasper Adams
Montpelier September 1832. private
I received in due time, the printed copy of your Convention sermon on the relation of Xnity to Civil Gov' with a manuscript request of my opinion on the subject.
There appears to be in the nature of man what insures his belief in an invisible cause of his present existence, and anticipation of his future existence. Hence the propensities & susceptibilities in that case of religion which with a few doubtful or individual exceptions have prevailed throughout the world.
Waiving the rights of Conscience, not included in the surrender implied by the social State, and more or less invaded by all religious Establishments, the simple question to be decided is whether a support of the best & purest religion, the Xn religion itself ought, not so far at least as pecuniary means are involved, to be provided for by the Govt rather than be left to the voluntary provisions of those who profess it. And on this question experience will be an admitted Umpire, the more adequate as the connection between Govts & Religion have [has] (1) existed in such various degrees & forms, and now can be compared with examples where connection has been entirely dissolved.
In the Papal System, Government and Religion are in a manner consolidated, & that is found to be the worst of Govts.
In most of the Govt of the old world, the legal establishment of a particular religion and without [any] (2) or with very little toleration of others makes a part [pact?] (3) of the Political and Civil organization and there are few of the most enlightened judges who will maintain that the system has been favorable either to Religion or to Govt.
Until Holland ventured on the experiment of combining [liberal] (4) toleration with the establishment of a particular creed, it was taken for granted, that an exclusive [& intolerant](5) establishment was essential, and notwithstanding the light thrown on the subject by that experiment, the prevailing opinion in Europe, England not excepted, has been that Religion could not be preserved without the support of Govt nor Govt be supported with an established religion, that there must be a least an alliance of some sort between them.
It remained for North America to bring the great & interesting subject to a fair, and finally to a decisive test.
In the Colonial State of the Country, there were four examples, R. I, N. J., Penna, and
Delaware, & the greater part of N. Y. where there were no religious Establishments; the support of Religion being left to the voluntary associations & contributions of individuals; and certainly the religious condition of those Colonies, will well bear a comparison with that where establishments existed.
As it may be suggested that experiments made in Colonies more or less under the Control of a foreign Government, had not the full scope necessary to display their tendency, it is fortunate that the appeal can now be made to their effects under a complete exemption from any such Control.
It is true that the New England States have not discontinued establishments of Religion formed under very peculiar circumstances; but they have by successive relaxations advanced towards the prevailing example; and without any evidence of disadvantage either to Religion or good Government.
And if we turn to the Southern States where there was, previous to the Declaration of independence, a legal provision for the support of Religion; and since that event a surrender of it to a spontaneous support by the people, it may be said that the difference amounts nearly to a contrast in the greater purity & industry of the Pastors and in the greater devotion of their flocks, in the latter period than in the former. In Virginia the contrast is particularly striking, to those whose memories can make the comparison.
It will not be denied that causes other than the abolition of the legal establishment of Religion are to be taken into view in account for the change in the Religious character of the community. But the existing character, distinguished as it is by its religious features, and the lapse of time now more than 50 years since the legal support of Religion was withdrawn sufficiently prove that it does not need the support of Govt and it will scarcely be contended that Government has suffered by the exemption of Religion from its cognizance, or its pecuniary aid.
The apprehension of some seems to be that Religion left entirely to itself may into
extravagances injurious both to Religion and to social order; but besides the question whether the interference of Govt in any form wd not be more likely to increase than Control the tendency, it is a safe calculation that in this as in other cases of excessive excitement, Reason will gradually regain its ascendancy. Great excitements are less apt to be permanent than to vibrate to the opposite extreme.
Under another aspect of the subject there may be less danger that Religion, if left to itself, will suffer from a failure of the pecuniary support applicable to it than that an omission of the public authorities to limit the duration of their Charters to Religious Corporations, and the amount of property acquirable by them, may lead to an injurious accumulation of wealth from the lavish donations and bequests prompted by a pious zeal or by an atoning remorse, Some monitory examples have already appeared.
Whilst I thus frankly express my view of the subject presented in your sermon, I must do you the justice to observe that you very ably maintained yours. I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions & doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst by an entire abstinence of: the Govt from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, & protecting each sect agst trespasses on its legal rights by others.
I owe you Sir an apology for the delay in complying with the request of my opinion on the subject discussed in you sermon; if not also for the brevity & it may be thought crudeness of the opinion itself, I must rest the apology on my great age now in its 83rd year, with more than the ordinary. infirmities, and especially on the effect of a chronic Rheumatism, combined with both, which makes my hand & fingers as averse to the pen as they are awkward in the use of it.
Be pleased to accept Sir a tender of my cordial & respectful salutations.
Source of Information:
Letter written by James Madison to Rev. Jasper Adams, September, 1833. Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard Hunt, 9 Volumes, 9:484-488. Microfilm Z1236.L53. --- Microfilm room Regent University, Virginia Beach, Va.. The G. Hunt version has a incorrect date of 1832.
Mandall Hunt, Esq. Sent for my inspection, a letter containing 29 pages of letter paper, closely written, controverting the chief positions of the sermon. It may be supposed to have contained the chief arguments and was certainly a specimen of the style of the Jefferson and Cooper School.
[Adams' Notes, page 9]
Thomas S. Grimke, Esq. has written to the author 10 pages of foolscap, containing comments on the text-notes of this sermon. Some of these comments are somewhat severe but they were written with the most friendly intentions. They have aided me considerably in revising the Sermon for the second edition. Mr.Grimke has also aided me in other ways in [?] to it. He is the legal friend mentioned at p. 38.. With Judge Richardson, he has offered me $20 towards an [?] edition, and has also requested me to have 100 additional copies printed for him.
[Adams's Notes page 10]
Distribution of the Adams Sermons
[To find out who many of these people were, I recommend the book, Religion and Politics in the Early Republic: Jasper Adams and the Church-State Debate by Daniel L. Dreisbach, published by The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington Kentucky, 1996.]
The Society for the Advancement of Christianity in So. Carolina has sent copies to the following persons:
|Bishop Wm D. Martin
Bishop Josiah J. Evans
R. Barnwell Smith
Thomas T. Player
F. H. Elmore
Henry L. Pinckney
Rich' U.] Manning
Rob' B. Campbell
Wm. R. Hill
L. E. Dawson
Peter W Fraser
J. W Phillips
Fred. A. Porcher
|Thos. W Boone |
John C. Calhoun
Wm. C. Preston
[Jas. K. Erving]
Stephen D. Miller
F. W. Higgins
Thos. R. Mitchell
J. [W Felder]
Warren R. Davis
Wm. C. Nuckolls
J. K. Griffin
R. J. Turnbull
Ed d R. Laurens
[Daniel] E. Huger
[Adams's notes page 10]
| Gabriel Duval
J. Q. Adams
Rich. M. Johnson
W' M. Richardson
Peter O. Thacher
Reuben H. Walworth
P. S. Du Ponceau
Ste ° van Rensalaer
[Jno.] B. Francis
[Jno. P] Richardson
H. W De Saussure
Elihu H. Bay
James H. Smith
James L. Petigru
|Copies were sent by the author to the following persons and institutions:|
| William E. Bailey
Charles B. Cochran
Henry M. Bruns
Oliver M. Smith
[Samuel] A. Burns
Thomas S. Grimke
Robert Y Hayne
D' John Dickson
D' James [Manning]
M' Ann Mayrant
Col. James Gadsden
John G. Polhill
University of Georgia
University of Alabama
Charleston Lib. Society
University of N. Carolina
Joseph E. Worcester
Miss Anna Adams
Miss M.S. Quincy
James C. Courtenay
|Joshua W Toomer
James S. Guiguiard
M`S W'° Lowndes
[Rev. M' Bragg]
Mrs Louisa McAllister
Thomas R. Dew
Dr Thomas Lowalls
Furman Theo. Seminary
Library of Andr Semina
Library of Yale College
N. York PE. Theo. Seminary
Joseph W [Furman]
Wm. G. Goddard
Miss Lucy [Ann Lippitt]
|Pres. Nathan Lord, Dartmouth College |
Washington College [Ct.]
N.Y. John Pott[er]
Mrs Eliza Francis
Josiah W Gibbs
University of Vermont
University of Pennsylvania
Mass. Hist. Society
Columbia Theo. Seminary
[Adams's Notes page 11]