William Ellery Channing (1780-1842) was one of the leading figures in early 19th century liberal Christianity who celebrated the rights articulated in the First Amendment.
His defense of exercising such rights even during times of war and involving controversial subjects is especially noteworthy. One scholar has observed that Channing “was, above all, a civil libertarian, always defending freedom of speech and the press” (Madden 1997, 559).
Channing was born in Rhode Island and spent much of his life in Boston, Massachusetts, where he was educated at Harvard University, pastored the Federal Street Church, and become one of the best-known Unitarian preachers and theologians of the early 19th century.
He is particularly known for articulating Unitarian thought in a sermon that he gave in Maryland in May of 1819 at the ordination of Jared Sparks. Although denying the doctrine of the Trinity and viewing Jesus as a noble example to be followed rather than as part of the Godhead, Channing did believe in biblical miracles and in the authority of scriptures, and he clearly identified himself and fellow Unitarians of his day as part of the Christian tradition.
Channing saw government’s role in protecting religious freedom
In a discourse on spiritual freedom that he delivered at the annual election in Boston on May 26, 1830, Channing argued that that spiritual liberty was the most important aim of government. Humans achieved such liberty by mastering their passions.
Although he did not specifically cite the First Amendment, it was clear that the protections in this amendment would enhance such liberty, which was closely tied to “intellectual rights and powers.”
He observed that “I account civil liberty as the chief good of states because it accords with, and ministers to energy and elevation of mind.” He observed that “the individual is not made for the state, so much as the state for the individual. A man is not created for political relations as his highest end, but for indefinite spiritual progress, and is placed in political relations as the means of his progress.”
Overlooking some of the religious persecution that had occurred in Massachusetts, including the fact that it still used taxation to support established churches, he asserted “with heartfelt joy, that the government of this commonwealth has uniformly distinguished itself by the spirit of religious freedom. Intolerance, however rife abroad, has found no shelter in our halls of legislation.”
He further asserted that “A wise and righteous jealousy has watched over our religious liberties, and been startled by the first movement, the faintest sign of sectarian ambition. Our commonwealth can boast no higher glory. May none of us live to see it fade away.”
Channing did later note that government could “promote energy and elevation of moral principles ... not by making the various virtues matters of legislation, not by preaching morals, not by establishing religion; for these are not its appropriate functions.” He further emphasized the importance of civil virtue, the role of government in preventing and punishing crimes and in focusing on the common good.
Channing placed rights to vote, discuss 'rulers' as most important
Channing was also an ardent defender of First Amendment freedoms, which dated at least as far back as his college graduation when he resisted efforts to censor his commencement address (Miller 2023).
Like many other New England Federalists, Channing opposed the War of 1812. In a speech on a Day of Humiliation and Prayer adopted concomitant to the war, Channing defended opposing the war while cautioning against violating the law. He praised the Constitution for preventing “the necessity of appealing to force,” and for giving “the people an opportunity of removing, without violence, those rulers from whom they suffer or apprehend an invasion of rights.”
He thus described “the right of suffrage, and the right of discussing with freedom the conduct of rulers” as the “two most important rights” in republican governments.
Further noting the connection between balloting and the First Amendment, Channing said:
“Freedom of opinion, of speech, and of the press, is our most valuable privilege, the very soul of republican institutions, the safeguard of all other rights.”
He observed that tyrants dread such rights:
“They anxiously fetter the press; they scatter spies through society, that the murmurs, anguish, and indignation of their oppressed subjects may be smothered in their own breasts.”
Channing: Government is wrong to suppress speech in wartime
Channing denied that governments should have greater power to suppress such freedoms during wartime than at other times:
“Admit this doctrine, let rulers once know that, by placing the country in a state of war, they place themselves beyond the only power they dread, the power of free discussion, and we may expect war without end.”
“…In war, then, as in peace, assert the freedom of speech and of the press. Cling to this as the bulwark of all your rights and privileges.”
Known for his moderation, Channing immediately warned against abusing speech by telling untruths and appealing to passions:
“It is not enough that truth be told. It should be told for a good end; not to irritate, but to convince; not to inflame the bad passions, but to sway the judgment and to awaken sentiments of patriotism.”
“It is your duty to hold fast and to assert, with firmness those truths and principles on which the welfare of your country seems to depend; but do this with calmness, with a love of peace, without ill-will and revenge.”
Channing spoke against efforts to silence abolitionists
In 1835, Channing published a book opposing slavery. He argued that humans should not be held as property, because this threatened the rights of all; stripped slaves of their rights; was inconsistent with human equality; and because the slave was “a Rational, Moral, Immortal being,” who was “created in God’s image,” and had the right “to govern himself by a Divine Law written on his heart, and republished in God’s Word” (Mason 1965, 510-515).
Although Channing favored the gradual abolition of slavery, he was often critical of abolitionists precisely because he believed that many of their appeals were to passion. He was, however, shocked by the death of Elijah Lovejoy in mob action and, after initially being denied use of the venue, was able to speak at Faneuil Hall in Boston.
In a tribute to abolitionists sometime after 1838 that was subsequently reprinted by the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1861, however, Channing gave a full-throated defense of the First Amendment Rights in response to the violence the abolitionists had suffered as a result of mob violence.
Noting that abolitionists had not only defended blacks, he observed that “they are sufferers for the liberty of thought, speech, and the press; and, in maintaining this liberty amid insult and violence, they deserve a place among its most honorable defenders.”
Channing saw speech suppression in anti-slavery mob attacks
As in his sermon on the War of 1812, Channing observed that:
“The right of free discussion is ... to be guarded by the friends of mankind with peculiar jealousy. It is at once the most sacred and most endangered of all our rights. He who would rob his neighbor of it should have a mark set on him as the worst enemy of freedom.”
Finding it ironic that a free country would squelch the speech of those who were advocating for liberty, he pushed back against those who sought to suppress speech on the basis (later articulated in Supreme Court decisions in the early 20th century) of its dangerous tendencies:
"Of all pretences for resorting to lawless force, the most dangerous is the tendency of measures or opinions. Almost all men see ruinous tendencies in whatever opposes their particular interests or views. All the political parties which have convulsed our country have seen tendencies to national destruction in the principles of their opponents. So infinite are the connections and consequences of human affairs, that nothing can be done in which some dangerous tendency may not be detected."
He further denied that abolitionist rhetoric had been responsible for any slave insurrections within the South. In the hands of fanatics, any anti-slavery sentiment could spark violence, but “the great danger to the slaveholder comes from slavery itself, from the silent innovations of time, from political conflicts and convulsions, and not from the writings of strangers.”
Channing further denied that abolitionists were contributing to disunion any more than the doctrines of nullification that some southerners had advocated or judicial decisions that had recognized some limits on slavery.
Channing believed that the primary defenders of slavery were members of “the commercial class,” conservatives who feared any change, and politicians eager for slaveholding support. He did not think advocacy of abolitionism was likely to lead Southern states to secede, but he believed that if they did so, that would do more to stir anti-slavery sentiments than the abolitionists had ever done.
Destruction of Pennsylvania Hall was mob action against speech
Channing was particularly critical of the destruction of Pennsylvania Hall. He observed that he felt so strongly about this event in part “because this Hall was erected for free discussion, was dedicated to Liberty of Speech.” The alleged fanaticism of the abolitionists did not justify mob action:
"Mob-law, in this country, ought always to be frowned down. It is an invasion of the fundamental principle of our institutions, of the sovereignty of the people, and the more dangerous, because it seems to the multitude to be an assertion of the principle which it overthrows. The sovereignty of the people has here but one mode of manifestation, and that is, the laws.”
Channing took some heart in the fact that persecution “often exalts the spirit of the sufferer.” He further expressed faith in the power of the people of Boston.
“The question is, whether this freedom [of speech and press] is distinctly and practically recognized as every man’s right. Unless it stand on this ground, it is little more than a name; it has no permanent life. To refuse it to a minority, however, small, is to loosen every man’s hold of it, to violate its sacredness, to break up its foundation.”
He feared that suppressing First Amendment rights would further entrench slavery and observed:
“It is important that we should, each of us, bear our conscientious testimony against slavery, not only to swell that tide of public opinion which is to sweep it away, but that we may save ourselves from sinking into silent, unsuspected acquiescence in the evil. A constant resistance is needed to this downward tendency, as is proved by the tone of feeling in the Free States.”
John Vile is a political science professor and dean of the Honors College at Middle Tennessee State University.