OK, this wasn't funeral picketing as such, and it was a bit less outrageous than Phelps' picket signs. But only a bit.
George Beals, age 19, died of a lingering and painful disease, possibly tuberculosis ("consumption"). His father arranged an obituary in a Universalist newspaper, which said,
He was a pattern for the imitation of the rising generation.--He was one who always detested the use of ardent spirits;--he never allowed himself to use vulgar or profane language, and avoided the company of those who did;--he was modest and genteel in his deportment, and gained the love and affection of all who had the pleasure of knowing him.--He never professed any particular tenet of religion, but listened to all.--His sickness was long and tedious. He had many friends who felt anxious for his future fate; and often inquired whether he was prepared for a future state.--He invariably answered them, I know of no action of my life, which causes me the least anxiety;--and God is above the Devil, what have I to fear?--He died as he lived, sensible to the last, full of faith and hope.
Two weeks later, Origen Bacheler, the owner and editor of the Anti Universalist newspaper, decided to publish a rebuttal to an obituary (I italicize the allegedly libelous portion):
VERACITY OF THE TRUMPET.
The Trumpet of the 10th inst. contains an obituary notice [describing the above notice] .... Now we are authorized to say, that this person, instead of being an example to others, and being free from the use of profanity, was actually habituated to it; that he was known to believe in Universalism; that, on his death bed, instead of saying that God was stronger than the Devil, he renounced Universalism, and gave evidence of a gracious change.
By the foregoing, the public will learn to receive the obituaries of the Trumpet with many grains of allowance....
Lovely: A young man dies, and a stranger's religious fanaticism (apparently shared by the young man's younger brother, who was the source for the rebuttal) leads the stranger to try to publicly correct the young man's obituary by accusing him of sinful conduct. As the prosecutor in the criminal libel prosecution of Bacheler put it, in flowery but sound language, "It was rarest of all that the most vile, the most malignant, the most daring, would strip off those little flowers which the hand of affection had strewed over the grave of their loved one, and scatter in their stead the rank weeds of opprobrium and disgrace."
The test for a criminal libel at the time was that a defamatory statement was libelous unless it was true, and was made with good motives and for justifiable ends. To my surprise, the jury rendered a not guilty verdict, though "requesting [the judge] to state to Mr. Bacheler that although they had brought him in not guilty, yet they did not approve the course which he had taken ..., but had acquitted him on the ground, that they did not think he had any particular malice against the deceased."
Source: Trial of the Commonwealth, Versus Origen Bacheler, for a Libel on the Character of George B. Beals, Deceased, at the Municipal Court, Boston (Boston, John H. Belcher 1829).
Best,
Ben
Long story short: Bacheler and his nemesis freethinker Robert Dale Owen engaged in a series of public debates over the religion of America's Founding Fathers which unearthed key testimony from some folks who knew Washington, about his unorthodox behavior at church: systematically avoiding communion. I blogged about that here.
Bacheler, a right wing Christian of his day argued for the orthodox Christianity of America's Founders against the freethinker Owen (similar to the Christian v. Deist debates of today). Along the way, they ran into another Fred Phelps like character named James Renwick Willson (whom historians often mistakenly identify as Bird Wilson, son of FF James Wilson) who "smelt a rat" at the US Founding, terming all of the US Presidents from Washington to Jackson were "infidels" and not more than "unitarians."
I blogged about that here.
Ultimately I have concluded that the freethinker Owen and the uber-Christian Rev. Willson were right: The key American Founders were not orthodox Christians like Bacheler and Willson. For one, George Washington praised the very theological Universalism that Bacheler condemned.
I do think Fred Phelps' harassment of mourning families is the more reprehensible than Bacheler's, but perhaps Bacheler was exceptionally obnoxious by the standards of his times, when there was no television to amplify his voice and help him make a splash nationwide.
What's common knowledge among the secular historical academy today (well they just call the early Founders "Deists") got a good Christian minister burned in effigy. Willson, from what I have researched was right. However, that he was burned if effigy illustrates something about the social environment that few today appreciate (a culture of "religious correctness"). Likewise those deist and unitarian Founding Fathers tended to keep their "infidelity" to themselves.
It would be a bit like a Jew saying a non-Jew is a "non-chosen person," or a Christian saying someone is "damned" (as in not saved).
One may agree or disagree with these statements on theological grounds, one may think there is a time, place, and manner to talk about them, but a statement of simple religious doctrine can never possibly be libelous. For a court to entertain the question of whether or not it is false -- to decide what is "really" holy and what is "really" profane -- would violate the First Amendment.
No problem. Obviously a person who associates the Divine appellation with false, vain doctrines is using God's name in vain.
Although I'm still hung over, it seems the ultimate tone of this was positive: he was saying he was involved in a "profane" doctrine, but at his death renounced the doctrine and embraced "a gracious change." Strikes me more as a salvo in the ongoing war between the surviving son and his dad, along with whatever other family members are aligned with Universalism, than a simple slam on the dead brother.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.