Blab Politics
Washingtons 1790 Letter to Newports Jews Highlights Founding Covenant Principle
On August 21, 1790, President George Washington sent a brief but profound note to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island. The letter, now housed in the historic Touro Synagogue, reassured the congregation that the new United States would safeguard their religious freedom and, more importantly, that their rights were not a courtesy of the majority but an inherent part of the republic’s architecture.
Washington’s most quoted line—"the government of the United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance"—has become a cornerstone of American religious‑liberty discourse. Yet the letter contains a lesser‑known but equally powerful assertion: the nation was founded not on a system of toleration that let one group grant rights to another, but on a covenantal model in which every citizen’s rights were guaranteed by the Constitution itself.
The congregation had survived the early colonial period in a state built on Roger Williams’ principle of religious freedom. Touro Synagogue, erected in 1763, is the oldest surviving synagogue building in North America and was declared a National Historic Site in 1946. Washington’s response to the congregation’s earlier letter—sent four days earlier by Moses Seixas—was part of a broader pattern of presidential correspondence with religious groups during the first months of his administration.
In his reply, Washington clarified that the republic’s rights were not "tolerated" but "inherent." He noted that the founding documents, including the Constitution and the First Amendment, were designed to protect the natural rights of all citizens, regardless of faith. His words reflected a covenantal logic drawn from the Hebrew Bible, where membership in the Israelite community was defined by shared obligation rather than birthright. The biblical covenant at Sinai, for example, created a people through acceptance of a shared law—a principle the founders replicated in the American constitutional framework.
Covenantal imagery is evident in the national seal. When Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were asked to design a seal for the new nation, they chose the image of Israelites crossing the sea toward a promised land governed by law rather than by blood. The founders’ emphasis on covenant, rather than on ethnic or religious identity, also appears in the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that all men are created equal.
Washington’s letter stands in stark contrast to the French Revolution’s approach to Jewish emancipation. In 1791, the French Assembly granted individual rights to Jews but required them to abandon their collective identity and assimilate into French citizenship. Napoleon’s 1808 decree later imposed special commercial restrictions on Jews, treating them as a suspect class. Washington’s message, by contrast, affirmed that Jewish rights in the United States were not conditional on assimilation or loyalty tests; they were built into the republic’s constitutional architecture.
The covenantal principle Washington articulated has been challenged in modern times from both sides of the political spectrum. On the left, some argue that the universal terms of the covenant have been replaced by group identity politics, where citizenship is framed in terms of race, gender, or historical grievance. On the right, ethnonationalists emphasize ancestry and culture over shared obligation. Both approaches, according to Washington’s model, would make Jewish belonging contingent on factors that the founding covenant explicitly rejected.
The July 4 anniversary of the Declaration of Independence offers an opportunity to revisit the covenantal foundation Washington described. While the United States has struggled to live up to its promises—slavery, segregation, and ongoing civil‑rights challenges remain part of its history—the covenantal logic remains a structural feature of the republic. Washington’s letter to the Newport congregation is not a historical footnote about Jewish life in Rhode Island; it is a statement about the architecture of the American republic.
Today, the covenant remains under pressure from competing narratives that seek to redefine citizenship. Washington’s 1790 letter reminds readers that the founding vision was built on a promise of inherent rights, not on the discretionary approval of a majority. The republic’s ongoing debate over religious freedom, civil rights, and the nature of citizenship can draw on this covenantal heritage as a benchmark for evaluating contemporary policies.
The letter itself is preserved in the National Archives and has been cited in scholarly works on American religious liberty. The Touro Synagogue continues to serve as a symbol of the early commitment to religious freedom in the United States, and Washington’s words echo in the ongoing conversation about what it means to be a citizen in a republic founded on covenant rather than on majority rule.
Washington’s most quoted line—"the government of the United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance"—has become a cornerstone of American religious‑liberty discourse. Yet the letter contains a lesser‑known but equally powerful assertion: the nation was founded not on a system of toleration that let one group grant rights to another, but on a covenantal model in which every citizen’s rights were guaranteed by the Constitution itself.
The congregation had survived the early colonial period in a state built on Roger Williams’ principle of religious freedom. Touro Synagogue, erected in 1763, is the oldest surviving synagogue building in North America and was declared a National Historic Site in 1946. Washington’s response to the congregation’s earlier letter—sent four days earlier by Moses Seixas—was part of a broader pattern of presidential correspondence with religious groups during the first months of his administration.
In his reply, Washington clarified that the republic’s rights were not "tolerated" but "inherent." He noted that the founding documents, including the Constitution and the First Amendment, were designed to protect the natural rights of all citizens, regardless of faith. His words reflected a covenantal logic drawn from the Hebrew Bible, where membership in the Israelite community was defined by shared obligation rather than birthright. The biblical covenant at Sinai, for example, created a people through acceptance of a shared law—a principle the founders replicated in the American constitutional framework.
Covenantal imagery is evident in the national seal. When Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were asked to design a seal for the new nation, they chose the image of Israelites crossing the sea toward a promised land governed by law rather than by blood. The founders’ emphasis on covenant, rather than on ethnic or religious identity, also appears in the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that all men are created equal.
Washington’s letter stands in stark contrast to the French Revolution’s approach to Jewish emancipation. In 1791, the French Assembly granted individual rights to Jews but required them to abandon their collective identity and assimilate into French citizenship. Napoleon’s 1808 decree later imposed special commercial restrictions on Jews, treating them as a suspect class. Washington’s message, by contrast, affirmed that Jewish rights in the United States were not conditional on assimilation or loyalty tests; they were built into the republic’s constitutional architecture.
The covenantal principle Washington articulated has been challenged in modern times from both sides of the political spectrum. On the left, some argue that the universal terms of the covenant have been replaced by group identity politics, where citizenship is framed in terms of race, gender, or historical grievance. On the right, ethnonationalists emphasize ancestry and culture over shared obligation. Both approaches, according to Washington’s model, would make Jewish belonging contingent on factors that the founding covenant explicitly rejected.
The July 4 anniversary of the Declaration of Independence offers an opportunity to revisit the covenantal foundation Washington described. While the United States has struggled to live up to its promises—slavery, segregation, and ongoing civil‑rights challenges remain part of its history—the covenantal logic remains a structural feature of the republic. Washington’s letter to the Newport congregation is not a historical footnote about Jewish life in Rhode Island; it is a statement about the architecture of the American republic.
Today, the covenant remains under pressure from competing narratives that seek to redefine citizenship. Washington’s 1790 letter reminds readers that the founding vision was built on a promise of inherent rights, not on the discretionary approval of a majority. The republic’s ongoing debate over religious freedom, civil rights, and the nature of citizenship can draw on this covenantal heritage as a benchmark for evaluating contemporary policies.
The letter itself is preserved in the National Archives and has been cited in scholarly works on American religious liberty. The Touro Synagogue continues to serve as a symbol of the early commitment to religious freedom in the United States, and Washington’s words echo in the ongoing conversation about what it means to be a citizen in a republic founded on covenant rather than on majority rule.
