Dana - 2007: AP US History

Dana Edwards    9/29/07

AP US History- Mr. Weis

The Maryland Toleration Act of 1649

An Act Concerning Religion

“As long as I have any choice, I will stay only in a country where political liberty, toleration, and equality of all citizens before the law are the rule.”  - Albert Einstein 

Toleration is the idea of accepting and allowing differences in behavior or opinion. As Americans today, we enjoy the freedom of a tolerant nation, perhaps even take for granted the rights we are favored with to openly express ourselves and practice religion. Several centuries ago, however, such rights were the exception rather than the rule. Toleration was not fundamental to the colonial period; rather it edged its way, slowly and painfully, into becoming one of the basic principles of the United States. This difficult path towards freedom of practice was marked by milestones: specific events, inspiring figures, and influential documents that heralded great leaps in liberty. 

The Maryland Toleration Act of 1649 was one such milestone. A solidification of developing ideas of acceptance in the 17th-century colonial province of Maryland, it set in stone a series of laws advocating religious toleration. The act’s significance lies not in its details -its methods were in fact flawed and partial -but rather in the mere fact of its existence, for it was the first set of American laws mandating religious toleration. An unprecedented, symbolic gesture of liberality, it set the stage for similar laws to be established in other provinces, in a sense beginning the idea of government-mandated toleration that would eventually lead to the Constitution’s first amendment. Investigating how The Maryland Toleration Act of 1649 came to be -the particular situations and motivations that allowed for its creation -can lend further insight into the principles it stands for and its historical importance.

The document was a product of some unique circumstances. Indeed, Maryland, the province in which it originated and to which it applied, was no ordinary colony. Its settlers chose to organize themselves into old-style manors on large plots of land, making Maryland a “feudal seigniory in the wilderness of North America,” a rare vestige of past European ages. Furthermore, Maryland held a form of government distinct from all other colonial institutions. Known as a palatinate, it functioned essentially like an independent state, almost completely separate from England. 

Maryland began in 1632 when King Charles I, the reigning English monarch of the time, granted a charter for the territory to Cæcilius Calvert, a long time friend, whose “plan was to found in the New World a commonwealth where Catholics might find a welcome refuge from the oppressive legislation to which they were subjected in England.” The grant, officially a rental of land from the king, given “in free and common soccage”, entitled Calvert and his descendents to an unusual amount of freedom regarding the governing of Maryland. Officially titled the Lord Baron of Baltimore, or the Lord Proprietary, he was allowed to declare war, collect taxes, and institute laws. In return, he simply had to present King Charles with one fifth of the gold and silver found within the newly defined borders. 

Calvert was absolute lord in Maryland. He was, however, a just ruler of pure motives, and hence did not seek to abuse his powers. “… Calvert’s integrity was such that throughout his public life men respected and trusted him without distinction of party.” Instead, his authority was necessary in order to accomplish his plan of establishing a Catholic refuge. Executing such a plan required, in addition to the “well-nigh royal powers with which he had been endowed”, utmost tact and sagacity, for the idea of protecting Catholics was not a popular one in Protestant-dominated England, a feeling that extended to the country’s satellites. Taking this into account, Calvert somewhat averted his intentions for Maryland from a Catholic haven to that of a sanctuary of “universal religious toleration”, an idea less controversial but equally groundbreaking. By pledging to tolerate all forms of Christianity in his new province of Maryland, Calvert sparked the interest of not only Catholics, but also Jesuits and Protestants. What resulted was an infusion of various sects of Christianity that would not, under normal circumstances, have resulted in peaceful relations. As it was, however, they coexisted with relatively little animosity. 

Tension in Maryland began to rise in the mid 1640’s, due to a large influx of Puritans, many of whom came from the province’s southern neighbor, Virginia, where they had been ill-treated under Anglican rule. As a result of this unexpected inundation of Puritans, strain increased greatly between the Catholics and the Protestants. In fact, so many Protestants immigrated to Maryland that they became a majority, and began demanding a larger share in the governing of the Province because of their “numerical superiority.”

Realizing the danger the new religious situation posed to his tolerant state, Calvert searched for solutions. In 1649, in part to protect the rights of Maryland Catholics from persecution by protestants, but, more generally, to solidify the religiously tolerant atmosphere of the province, Calvert chose to exercise his authority to create laws, and so instructed Governor Stone (the practical leader of Maryland, for Calvert lived in England) to create a law guaranteeing religious liberty to all Christians. 

The Maryland Toleration Act of 1649, however, was not quite what Calvert had in mind. As it turns out, a Puritan-controlled assembly, without Calvert’s permission, had demanded harsher punishments outlined in the act, the most radical of which being a clause providing the death penalty to all those who deny the divinity of Christ: “That whatsoever person or persons within this Province and the Islands thereunto helonging shall from henceforth blashpheme God, that is Curse him, or deny our Saviour Jesus Christ to bee the sonne of God… shalbe punished with death and confiscation or forfeiture of his or her lands…” There are, along with this unduly harsh punishment, three more regulations regarding the respect of Christian religion, which, if failed to follow, imposed stringent and often cruel punishments, such as public whipping. 

It is difficult to see in the act any facet of tolerance aside from the word “toleration” in the title. The document’s methods are, in fact, surprisingly intolerant, imposing horrible punishments for those who simply speak ill of the church. The act promotes toleration in a very negative and narrow way. It is, as well, certainly hypocritical. Like a parent who teaches his child hitting is wrong by hitting him, the act warns people against committing acts of intolerance by committing far greater acts of intolerance on those who do so. Calvert thought likewise, that the act was far too harsh, but by the time he could do anything, it had already been widely received, and so it remained as law.

Looking beyond the negative content of The Maryland Toleration Act of 1649, and onto a positive movement in the direction of tolerance, that, I think, it gave rise to, is perhaps easier said than done. Its regulations were indeed severe and unnecessary. However, it was, within the course of a few years or decades, removed from legislature, and there its negative effects ended. Its lasting historical significance is one of improved toleration. Forty years after its introduction, a toleration act was approved in England, The Act of Toleration of 1689, which was far less cruel and restrictive. The Maryland act proved beneficial by bringing about the idea of toleration, of acceptance, into the minds of the parochial colonists. Yes, it was a very limited sort of toleration, but a starting point. From there, the notion progressed; soon most colonies had similar laws, and by the late 18th century, the Founding Fathers considered freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly rights so fundamental to a just country, that they included them in the very first clause of the Bill of Rights.

Revolutionary acts, flawed though they may be in detail, prevail as symbols of advancing ideas and knowledge. The road to betterment, in this case, to freedom and democracy, is a bumpy one, but we cannot continue along it without such bumps. Some may set us back, but some may urge us forward, closer to a better society. In the case of The Maryland Toleration Act of 1649, it contributed to ideas of freedom, specifically, freedom of religion and the institution of separation of church and state, which make the United States today an example aspired to by all other democracies. 

Bibliography

1. Fiske, John. Old Virginia and Her Neighbors. Vol. I. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin and Company, 1900. 

2. Savelle, Max. A History of Colonial America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1942. 

3. Browne, William Hand. George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert: Barons Baltimore of Baltimore. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company. 1890.