Passage 3
An account of the American Revolution which took cognizance only of the armed
conflict with England would tell much less than half the truth, and even that half
would be misleading. If anyone doubts that the real inspiration which made America
a nation was drawn, not from Whiggish quarrels about taxes, but from the great
dogmas promulgated by Jefferson, it is sufficient to point out that the States did
not even wait till their victory over England was assured before effecting a complete
internal revolution on the basis of those dogmas. Before the last shot had been fired
almost the last privilege had disappeared…
Hereditary titles and privileges went first. On this point public feeling became so strong
that the proposal to form after the war a society to be called “the Cincinnati,” which
was to consist of those who had taken a prominent part in the war and afterwards
of their descendants, was met, in spite of the respect in which Washington and the
other military heroes were held, with so marked an expression of public disapproval
that the hereditary part of the scheme had to be dropped.
Franchises were simplified, equalized, broadened, so that in practically every State
the whole adult male population of European race received the suffrage. Social
and economic reforms having the excellent aim of securing and maintaining a wide
distribution of property, especially of land, were equally prominent among the
achievements of that time. Jefferson himself carried in Virginia a drastic code of
Land Laws, which anticipated many of the essential provisions which through the
Code Napoleon revolutionized the system of land-owning in Europe….
Another principle, not connected by any direct logic with democracy and not set
forth in the Declaration of Independence, was closely associated with the democratic
thesis by the great French thinkers by whom that thesis was revived, and had a
strong hold upon the mind of Jefferson—the principle of religious equality, or, as it
might be more exactly defined, of the Secular State…it does not mean that anyone
may commit any anti-social act that appeals to him, and claim immunity from
the law on the ground that he is impelled to that act by his religion; can rob as a
conscientious communist, murder as a conscientious Thug, or refuse military service
as a conscientious objector. None understood better than Jefferson—it was the first
principle of his whole political system—that there must be some basis of agreement
amongst citizens as to what is right and what is wrong, and that what the consensus
of citizens regards as wrong must be punished by the law. All that the doctrine of
the Secular State asserted was that such general agreement among citizens need
not include, as in most modern States it obviously does not include, an agreement
on the subject of religion. Religion is, so to speak, left out of the Social Contract, and
consequently each individual retains his natural liberty to entertain and promulgate
what views he likes concerning it, so long as such views do not bring him into conflict
with those general principles of morality, patriotism and social order upon which the
citizens of the State are agreed, and which form the basis of its laws.
The public mind of America was for the most part well prepared for the application of
this principle. We have already noted how the first experiment in the purely secular
organization of society had been made in the Catholic colony of Maryland and the
Quaker colony of Pennsylvania. The principle was now applied in its completeness
to one State after another. The Episcopalian establishment of Jefferson’s own
State was the first to fall; the other States soon followed the example of Virginia…
It may be added that America affords the one conspicuous example of the Secular
State completely succeeding. In France, where the same principles were applied
under the same inspiration, the ultimate result was something wholly different: an
organized Atheism persecuting the Christian Faith. In England the principle has never
been avowedly applied at all. In theory the English State still professes the form of
Protestant Christianity defined in the Prayer-book, and “tolerates” dissenters from it
as the Christian States of the middle ages tolerated the Jews, and as in France, during
the interval between the promulgation of the Edict of Nantes and its revocation, a
State definitely and even pronouncedly Catholic tolerated the Huguenots…
The American Republic has not escaped the difficulties and problems which are
inevitable to the Secular State, when some of its citizens profess a religion which
brings them into conflict with the common system of morals which the nation takes
for granted; the case of the Mormons is a typical example of such a problem. But
there is some evidence that, as the Americans have applied the doctrine far more
logically than we, they have also a keener perception of the logic of its limitations…
Changes so momentous, made in so drastic and sweeping a fashion in the middle of a
life and death struggle for national existence, show how vigorous and compelling was
the popular impulse towards reform.
Chesterton, C. (2007). A history of the United States. Project Gutenberg. (Original
work published 1919)
According to the passage, which of the following are true regarding the
development of freedom in America?
A) It depended primarily on governmental arrangements rather than on
idealistic notions
B) The successful implementation of the Secular State depends on real-world
circumstances, rather than just on acceptance of theoretical concepts
C) America struggled to obtain perfect consensus about the Secular State,
which was adopted only through much debate and dissent
D) Democracy preceded equality in the American colonies, which was to be
expected given the colonial situation
Correct answer is B
The fact that the successful implementation of the Secular State depended on
real-world, specific circumstances, rather than on the acceptance of particular
theoretical or abstract concepts alone, is evident from the author’s discussion of
America in comparison to other countries. While the author describes America
as “the one conspicuous example of the Secular State completely succeeding,”
America is contrasted with both France and with the English State, where the
Secular State either could not be successfully implemented and/or did not lead
to the consequences that were initially intended. Where France is concerned,
the author specifically notes that “the same principles were applied under the
same inspiration,” indicating that a shared theory is not enough to produce the
same results, insofar as France’s “ultimate result was something wholly different:
an organized Atheism persecuting the Christian Faith.” As this was not the case
in America, it is consistent with the author’s argument to say that the particular
consequences specific to each country or nation matter in the development,
implementation, and success of the Secular State even if the underlying principles
of the Secular State are similarly accepted. Thus, Answer B is correct.