The Illuminati in History

New England and the Bavarian Illuminati

Vernon Stauffer, 1918

This is a strange book about a strange topic, and it interests me a bit that Vernon Stauffer chose to write about it in 1918. Stauffer was a professor of New Testament and Church History and a Dean of California Christian College, later Chapman University in Los Angeles. A reviewer in 1919 described the book as "a work of admirable scholarship and excellent literary form". The website of the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon reprints the third chapter of the book as evidence against what they call the "plot theory of history". Since conspiracy theories have become prevalent today, I've been thinking it might be interesting to understand how Americans dealt with them in the past.

Stauffer begins, “On the morning of May 9, 1798, in the pulpit of the New North Church in Boston, and on the afternoon of the same day in his own pulpit in Charlestown, the occasion being that of the national fast, the Reverend Jedediah Morse made a sensational pronouncement. He…proceeded solemnly to affirm that the secret European association (the Illuminati) had extended its operations to this side of the Atlantic and was now actively engaged among the people of the United States, with a view to overthrow their civil and religious institutions” (10-11). Morse's audiences were apparently quite alarmed. “Soon ministers were preaching, newspaper editors and contributors writing, and clearheaded statesmen like Oliver Wolcott, Timothy Pickering, John Adams, and even the great Washington, [were] inquiring and voicing their serious concern over the secret presence in America of [the] conspirators…of the French Revolution” (11).

Stauffer explains that the source of this claim was not only a Massachusetts Puritan minister but an important character in early Republic life. “Reverend Jedediah Morse [1761-1826] …was the author of the first American geography and gazetteer. His connection with the leading men of his times, particularly with those of the Federalist party, was both extensive and intimate…his outspoken and unflinching support of the measures of government during the Federalist regime did even more to enhance his influence.” He was also the father of Samuel F.B. Morse, painter and inventor of the telegraph (b. 1791).

In addition to exploring what motivated Morse, Stauffer’s aim is to find the influences and events that “predisposed the public mind favorably to …the notion of a conspiracy against religion and government…and to what extent, did the alarm affect the lives and institutions of the people of New England?” (12) Stauffer reports that Proofs of a Conspiracy against all the Religions and Governments of Europe by Robison was the source of the rumor Morse amplified. He continues by outlining the “undermining of Puritan standards and institutions,” (13) which he attributes to the thirty years of war faced by the generation that “emerged from the Revolutionary struggle with the edge of its conscience dulled” (14). Exacerbating this callousness was an interest in the world that precluded a retreat to “ancient simplicity and seclusion.”

Stauffer mentions that the mores of the colonial past had been swept away and Bostonians had recently lobbied for a repeal of laws banning theater, reasoning that while they could respect and venerate their “renowned puritan ancestors,” it would be better if “a veil was drawn over all their absurd prejudices which, like spots in the sun, tend to be-darken and obscure the otherwise truly-resplendent glories of their character” (quoting from “The Speech of John Gardiner, Esq.” 17). He also notes that cider was a local product, rum had been given to soldiers and laborers for years, and imports of wine were increasing. Drinking led to gambling and vice, especially among young men at college. He remarks that Yale College president Timothy Dwight dated the “first considerable change in the religious character of the people” to the French and Indian War (quoting “A Discourse on Some Events of the Last Century,” 25). He said, “The people had begun to claim for themselves some relaxation, and hence to amuse and satisfy themselves in the light of their enlarged conceptions of the freedom and privileges of life” (26-8). In addition to authorities such as Beecher and Dwight, Stauffer quotes extensively in a note from a passage by Warville in the recently-published American History Told by Contemporaries.

Stauffer suggests that the increased wealth of New England merchants (and perhaps the growing cohort of NEW New England merchants) increased the pressure on consumption and cultural stimulation. But was this “light-heartedness and open-mindedness,” or “looseness of life and gross lawlessness”? (33) Discussing irreligion, he claims that the “general impression of a revolt against morality and religion” after the revolution “was deepened by a bitterness of spirit which marked the last stages of the long struggle to cut the bond between church and state” (33-4). He doesn’t say, however, who was bitter, who had been revolting, or whether the impressions of “deep-seated and widespread irreligion” were in fact real, or a rhetorical device of the clergy. Presumably, he thinks this is outside the scope of his work and takes these facts as given.

After examining minute details of church history and denying that British writers had caused any perceptible infidelity in New England, with the exception of Thomas Paine, Stauffer turns to the French Revolution. He notes that both John and John Quincy Adams opposed Paine’s interpretation of events in France, but “events, much more than political treatises,” broke the Revolution’s spell on Americans. (79) Stauffer details the work of Tappan, Osgood, and Strong to equate Republicanism with France and infidelity.

Washington’s 1793 Neutrality Proclamation satisfied most, but there were small groups that favored tighter alliance with either the British or French. Stauffer associates Democratic Societies with Genet and the Revolution, not with the recent fight over the Constitution or government policy. But he concedes that the “torrent of anti-British feeling” was a result of administration actions including appointing John Jay as Minister Extraordinary to England. Washington’s November 1794 speech connecting the Democratic Societies with the Whiskey Rebellion was carried in full by New England papers. Wasn’t the Cincinnati also a “self-created society?” critics asked (110). Osgood’s 1794 thanksgiving day sermon was a “more extended and violent treatment” of the Societies that made it clear where the clergy stood (111).

The name of Washington was above reproach, but New England newspapers went after Osgood and the other Federalist clergymen. The Independent Chronicle said that “their influence has been as small as…a Bull from...the Pope” (Jan. 12, 1795, 112). And Jay’s Treaty turned the United States “back into the colonies of Great Britain,” in the minds of a growing number of New Englanders (116). “Accordingly the New England clergy launched a fierce attack on [Jefferson] as the arch-apostle of the cause of irreligion and free-thought” (121). French privateers angered the merchants, Federalists believed that Republicans were compromised by loyalty to France, and to the delight of Morse and others, public opinion began to favor war (132).

Morse’s fast day speech was quickly followed up by Tappan, and a little later by Dwight. All continued to target republicans and “infidel philosophy”, whether or not they mentioned illuminism (244). Dwight’s July 4th sermon was titled “The Duty of Americans in the Present Crisis.” The crisis he mentioned was the rise of “the Antichristian empire, and the embarkation of men in a professed and unusual opposition to God and to his kingdom” (247). Morse gave a thanksgiving Illuminati sermon, expanding his claims and connecting illuminism to Paine’s Age of Reason. By this time, John Taylor in Deerfield Massachusetts was able to remark in his sermon on the “good effect…produced in the public mind by the fortunate discovery of a great secret conspiracy in Europe, against all the religions and governments on earth” (273). To make the unity of church and state completely clear, pastor Nathan Strong of Hartford preached a thanksgiving sermon on “Political Instruction from the Prophecies of God’s Word” (275). These sermons were printed and distributed by the thousands throughout New England (276). In 1799, Congressional Chaplain Ashbel Green helped President John Adams draft an even more pious proclamation than usual (288). In his April 25th sermon, Morse inaugurated a motto to rally his followers behind. To counter Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, Morse offered Vigilance, Unity, and Activity (300).

Morse also mentioned the French massacre of the crew of a ship called the Ocean, in his 1799 fast day sermon. It was quickly pointed out by Republican papers that there was no Ocean. The story had been a fraud the papers announced, and Morse had believed it just as credulously as he’d believed stories of the Illuminati. In September 1799, the American Mercury announced that Morse had suppressed a letter he’d received (which the paper had also received a copy of), warning him that his sources were “unsavory” and their testimony was “a wretched mass of absurdities” (313). The Bee suggested that “since the days of Salem witchcraft, no subject had so much affected the minds of a certain class of people in New England as this pretended Illuminati conspiracy” (Nov. 20, 1799, 316).

Morse tried to defend himself by attacking American Freemasons. But the situation was becoming ridiculous. John Cosens Ogden published “A View of the New England Illuminati,” which accused Morse and Dwight of being the real conspirators and the real danger to the nation. Stauffer neglects to mention whether there were consequences for Morse and Dwight, or what the effect of the hoax was on the credibility of ministers, especially those who had strayed into politics. Nor does he specify how much the Illuminati embarrassment contributed to the success of the Democratic Republicans in 1800. But there were probably political consequences, and maybe even the beginning of a change in the ways some New Englanders responded to pronouncements from the region's pulpits.