Fenofibrate, sold under the brand name Tricor among others, is a medication of the fibrate class used to treat abnormal blood lipid levels. It is less preferred to statin medications as it does not appear to reduce the risk of heart disease or death. Its use is recommended together with dietary changes. It is taken by mouth.
It was patented in 1969, and came into medical use in 1975. It is available as a generic medication. In 2017, it was the 70th most commonly prescribed medication in the United States with more than eleven million prescriptions.
Medical uses
Fenofibrate is mainly used for primary hypercholesterolemia or mixed dyslipidemia. Fenofibrate appears to decrease the risk of cardiovascular disease and possibly diabetic retinopathy in those with diabetes mellitus,
and firstly indicated for the reduction in the progression of diabetic
retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes and existing diabetic
retinopathy in Australia. It also appears to be helpful in decreasing amputations of the lower legs in this same group of people. Fenofibrate also has an off-label use as an added therapy of high blood uric acid levels in people who have gout.
It is used in addition to diet for treatment of adults with severe
hypertriglyceridemia. Improving glycemic control in diabetics showing
fasting chylomicronemia will usually decrease the need for pharmacologic
intervention.
Statins remain the first line for treatment of blood cholesterol.
AHA guidelines from 2013 did not find evidence for routine use of
additional medications.
Additionally, in 2016, the FDA filed "Withdrawal of Approval of
Indications Related to the Coadministration With Statins in Applications
for Niacin Extended-Release Tablets and Fenofibric Acid Delayed Release
Capsules" noting "the Agency has concluded that the totality of the
scientific evidence no longer supports the conclusion that a
drug-induced reduction in triglyceride levels and/or increase in HDL
cholesterol levels in statin-treated patients results in a reduction in
the risk of cardiovascular events. Consistent with this conclusion, FDA
has determined that the benefits of niacin ER tablets and fenofibric
acid DR capsules for coadministration with statins no longer outweigh
the risks, and the approvals for this indication should be withdrawn."
Contraindications
Fenofibrate is contraindicated in:
Patients with severe renal impairment,
including those receiving dialysis (2.7-fold increase in exposure, and
increased accumulation during chronic dosing in patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min)
When
fenofibrate and a statin are given as combination therapy, it is
recommended that fenofibrate be given in the morning and the statin at
night, so that the peak dosages do not overlap.
Can increase cholesterol excretion into the bile, leading to risk of cholelithiasis; if suspected, gallbladder studies are indicated. See "Interaction" section under Bile acid sequestrant
Coagulation/Bleeding
Exercise caution in concomitant treatment with oral Coumadin anticoagulants (e.g. warfarin). Adjust the dosage of Coumadin to maintain the prothrombin time/INR at desired level to prevent bleeding complications.
Overdose
"There
is no specific treatment for overdose with fenofibric acid
delayed-release capsules. General supportive care is indicated,
including monitoring of vital signs and observation of clinical status". Additionally, hemodialysis
should not be considered as an overdose treatment option because
fenofibrate heavily binds to plasma proteins and does not dialyze well.
Interactions
These drug interactions with fenofibrate are considered major and may need therapy modifications:
Bile acid sequestrants (e.g. cholestyramine, colestipol,
etc.): If taken together, bile acid resins may bind to fenofibrate,
resulting in a decrease in fenofibrate absorption. To maximize
absorption, patients need to separate administration by at least 1 h
before or 4 h to 6 h after taking the bile acid sequestrant.
Immunosuppressants (e.g. ciclosporin or tacrolimus):
An increased risk of renal dysfunction exists with concomitant use of
immunosuppressants and fenofibrate. Approach with caution when
coadministering additional medications that decrease renal function
Vitamin K antagonists (e.g. warfarin):
As previously mentioned, fenofibrate interacts with coumadin
anticoagulants to increase the risk of bleeding. Dosage adjustment of
vitamin K antagonist may be necessary.
Statins: Combination of statins and fenofibrate may increase the risk of rhabdomyolysis or myopathy.
Mechanism of action
"In
summary, enhanced catabolism of triglyceride-rich particles and reduced
secretion of VLDL underlie the hypotriglyceridemic effect of fibrates,
whereas their effect on HDL metabolism is associated with changes in HDL
apolipoprotein expression."
Fenofibrate is a fibric acid derivative, a prodrug comprising fenofibric acid linked to an isopropyl ester. It lowers lipid levels by activating peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα). PPARα activates lipoprotein lipase and reduces apoprotein CIII, which increases lipolysis and elimination of triglyceride-rich particles from plasma.
PPARα also increases apoproteins AI and AII, reduces VLDL- and
LDL-containing apoprotein B, and increases HDL-containing apoprotein AI
and AII.
Formulations
Fenofibrate is available in several formulations and is sold under several brand names, including Tricor by AbbVie, Lipofen by Kowa Pharmaceuticals America Inc, Lofibra by Teva, Lipanthyl, Lipidil, Lipantil micro and Supralip by Abbott Laboratories,
Fenocor-67 by Ordain Health Care, Fibractiv 105/35 by Cogentrix Pharma(
India), Fenogal by SMB Laboratories, Antara by Oscient Pharmaceuticals,
Tricheck by Zydus (CND), Atorva TG by Zydus Medica, Golip by GolgiUSA
and Stanlip by Ranbaxy (India). Different formulations may differ in
terms of pharmacokinetic properties, particularly bioavailability; some must be taken with meals, whereas others may be taken without regard to food.
The active form of fenofibrate, fenofibric acid, is also available in the United States, sold as Trilipix. Fenofibric acid may be taken without regard to the timing of meals.
Controversy
In
the United States, Tricor was reformulated in 2005. This reformulation
is controversial, as it is seen as an attempt to stifle competition from
generic equivalents of the drug, and is the subject of antitrust litigation by generic drug manufacturer Teva. Also available in the United States, Lofibra is available in 54 and 160 mg tablets, as well as 67, 134, and 200;mg micronized capsules.
Generic equivalents of Lofibra capsules are currently available in all
three strengths in the United States. In Europe, it is available in
either coated tablet or capsule; the strength range includes 67, 145,
160 and 200 mg. The differences among strengths are a result of altered bioavailability
(the fraction absorbed by the body) due to particle size. For example,
200 mg can be replaced by 160 mg micronized fenofibrate. The 145 mg
strength is a new strength that appeared in 2005-2006 which also
replaces 200 or 160 mg as the fenofibrate is nanonised (i.e. the
particle size is below 400 nm).
History
Fenofibrate was first synthesized in 1974, as a derivative of clofibrate,
and was launched on the French market shortly thereafter. It was
initially known as procetofen, and was later renamed fenofibrate' to
comply with World Health OrganizationInternational Nonproprietary Name guidelines.
Fenofibrate was developed by Groupe Fournier SA of France, which was acquired in 2005 by Solvay Pharmaceuticals, a business unit of the Belgian corporation Solvay S.A..
In 2009, Solvay was, in turn, acquired by Abbott Laboratories (now
AbbVie in the US and Mylan in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and
Japan).
Research
COVID-19
In
July 2020, researchers from Israel and the U.S. suggested that
fenofibrate might significantly slow down the replication of the
SARS-CoV-2 virus in lung cells. This hypothesis awaits testing in clinical trials.
American civil religion is a sociological theory that a nonsectarian quasi-religious faith exists within the United States
with sacred symbols drawn from national history. Scholars have
portrayed it as a cohesive force, a common set of values that foster
social and cultural integration. The ritualistic elements of ceremonial deism
found in American ceremonies and presidential invocations of God can be
seen as expressions of the American civil religion. The very heavy
emphasis on pan-Christian religious themes is quite distinctively
American and the theory is designed to explain this.
The concept goes back to the 19th century, but in current form, the theory was developed by sociologist Robert Bellah in 1967 in his article, "Civil Religion in America". The topic soon became the major focus at religious sociology conferences and numerous articles and books were written on the subject. The debate reached its peak with the American Bicentennial celebration in 1976. There is a viewpoint that some Americans have come to see the document of the United States Constitution, along with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights as cornerstones of a type of civic or civil religion or political religion.
Political sociologist Anthony Squiers argues that these texts act as
the sacred writ of the American civil religion because they are used as
authoritative symbols in what he calls the politics of the sacred. The
politics of the sacred, according to Squiers are "the attempt to define
and dictate what is in accord with the civil religious sacred and what
is not. It is a battle to define what can and cannot be and what should
and should not be tolerated and accepted in the community, based on its
relation to that which is sacred for that community."
According to Bellah, Americans embrace a common "civil religion"
with certain fundamental beliefs, values, holidays, and rituals,
parallel to, or independent of, their chosen religion.
Presidents have often served in central roles in civil religion, and
the nation provides quasi-religious honors to its martyrs—such as Abraham Lincoln and the soldiers killed in the American Civil War. Historians have noted presidential level use of civil religion rhetoric in profoundly moving episodes such as World War II, the Civil Rights Movement, and the September 11th attacks.
In a survey of more than fifty years of American civil religion
scholarship, Squiers identifies fourteen principal tenets of the
American civil religion:
Reverence to certain sacred texts and symbols of the American civil
religion (The Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, the flag,
etc.)
The sanctity of American institutions
The belief in God or a deity
The idea that rights are divinely given
The notion that freedom comes from God through government
Governmental authority comes from God or a higher transcendent authority
The conviction that God can be known through the American experience
God is the supreme judge
God is sovereign
America's prosperity results from God's providence
America is a "city on a hill" or a beacon of hope and righteousness
The principle of sacrificial death and rebirth
America serves a higher purpose than self-interests
In an examination of over fifty years of political discourse, Squiers
finds that filial piety, reference to certain sacred texts and symbols
of the American civil religion, the belief in God or a deity, America is
a "city on a hill" or a beacon of hope and righteousness, and America
serves a higher purpose than self-interests are the most frequently
referenced. He further found that there are no statistically significant
differences in the amount of American civil religious language between
Democrats and Republicans, incumbents and non-incumbents nor
Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates.
This belief system has historically been used to reject nonconformist ideas and groups.
Theorists such as Bellah hold that American civil religion can perform
the religious functions of integration, legitimation, and prophecy,
while other theorists, such as Richard Fenn, disagree.
Development of concept
Alexis de Tocqueville
believed that Christianity was the source of the basic principles of
liberal democracy, and the only religion capable of maintaining liberty
in a democratic era. He was keenly aware of the mutual hatred between
Christians and liberals in 19th-century France, rooted in the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. In France, Christianity was allied with the Old Regime before 1789 and the reactionary Bourbon Restoration
of 1815-30. However he said Christianity was not antagonistic to
democracy in the United States, where it was a bulwark against dangerous
tendencies toward individualism and materialism, which would lead to atheism and tyranny.
Also important were the contributions of French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) and French sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858–1917).
The American case
Most students of American civil religion follow the basic Bellah/Durkheimian interpretation. Other sources of this idea include philosopher John Dewey who spoke of "common faith" (1934); sociologist Robin Murphy Williams' American Society: A Sociological Interpretation (1951) which stated there was a "common religion" in America; sociologist Lloyd Warner's analysis of the Memorial Day celebrations in "Yankee City" (1953 [1974]); historian Martin Marty's "religion in general" (1959); theologian Will Herberg who spoke of "the American Way of Life" (1960, 1974); historian Sidney Mead's "religion of the Republic" (1963); and British writer G. K. Chesterton,
who said that the United States was "the only nation ... founded on a
creed" and also coined the phrase "a nation with a soul of a church".
In the same period, several distinguished historians such as Yehoshua Arieli, Daniel Boorstin, and Ralph Gabriel "assessed the religious dimension of 'nationalism', the 'American creed', 'cultural religion' and the 'democratic faith'".
Premier sociologist Seymour Lipset
(1963) referred to "Americanism" and the "American Creed" to
characterize a distinct set of values that Americans hold with a
quasi-religious fervor.
Today, according to social scientist Ronald Wimberley and William
Swatos, there seems to be a firm consensus among social scientists that
there is a part of Americanism that is especially religious in nature,
which may be termed civil religion. But this religious nature is less
significant than the "transcendent universal religion of the nation"
which late eighteenth century French intellectuals such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about.
Evidence supporting Bellah
Ronald
Wimberley (1976) and other researchers collected large surveys and
factor analytic studies which gave support to Bellah's argument that
civil religion is a distinct cultural phenomenon within American society
which is not embodied in American politics or denominational religion.
Examples of civil religious beliefs are reflected in statements used in the research such as the following:
Later research sought to determine who is civil religious. In a 1978
study by James Christenson and Ronald Wimberley, the researchers found
that a wide cross section of American citizens have civil religious
beliefs. In general though, college graduates and political or religious
liberals appear to be somewhat less civil religious. Protestants and Catholics have the same level of civil religiosity. Religions that were created in the United States, the Latter Day Saints movement, Adventists, and Pentecostals,
have the highest civil religiosity. Jews, Unitarians and those with no
religious preference have the lowest civil religion. Even though there
is variation in the scores, the "great majority" of Americans are found
to share the types of civil religious beliefs which Bellah wrote about.
Further research found that civil religion plays a role in
people's preferences for political candidates and policy positions. In
1980 Ronald Wimberley found that civil religious beliefs were more
important than loyalties to a political party in predicting support for
Nixon over McGovern with a sample of Sunday morning church goers who
were surveyed near the election date and a general group of residents in
the same community. In 1982 James Christenson and Ronald Wimberley
found that civil religion was second only to occupation in predicting a
person's political policy views.
Coleman has argued that civil religion is a widespread theme in
history. He says it typically evolves in three phases:
undifferentiation, state sponsorship in the period of modernization,
differentiation. He supports his argument with comparative historical
data from Japan, Imperial Rome, the Soviet Union, Turkey, France and The
United States.
The elitists who ran the Federalists were conscious of the need to boost voter identification with their party.
Elections remained of central importance but for the rest of the
political year celebrations, parades, festivals, and visual
sensationalism were used. They employed multiple festivities, exciting
parades, and even quasi-religious pilgrimages and "sacred" days that
became incorporated into the American civil religion. George Washington
was always its hero, and after his death he became a sort of demigod looking down from heaven to instill his blessings on the party.
At first the Federalists focused on commemoration of the
ratification of the Constitution; they organized parades to demonstrate
widespread popular support for the new Federalist Party. The parade
organizers, incorporated secular versions of traditional religious
themes and rituals, thereby fostering a highly visible celebration of
the nation's new civil religion.
The Fourth of July became a semi-sacred day—a status it maintains
in the 21st century. Its celebration in Boston proclaimed national
over local patriotism, and included orations, dinners, militia
musters, parades, marching bands, floats and fireworks. By 1800, the
Fourth was closely identified with the Federalist party. Republicans
were annoyed, and stage their own celebrations on the fourth—with rival
parades sometimes clashing with each other. That generated even more
excitement and larger crowds. After the collapse of the Federalists
starting in 1815, the Fourth became a nonpartisan holiday.
President as leader of civil religion
Since
the days of George Washington presidents have assumed one of several
roles in American civil religion, and that role has helped shape the
presidency. Linder argues that:
Throughout American history, the
president has provided the leadership in the public faith. Sometimes he
has functioned primarily as a national prophet, as did Abraham Lincoln.
Occasionally he has served primarily as the nation's pastor, as did
Dwight Eisenhower. At other times he has performed primarily as the high
priest of the civil religion, as did Ronald Reagan. In prophetic civil
religion, the president assesses the nation's actions in relation to
transcendent values and calls upon the people to make sacrifices in
times of crisis and to repent of their corporate sins when their
behavior falls short of the national ideals. As the national pastor, he
provides spiritual inspiration to the people by affirming American core
values and urging them to appropriate those values, and by comforting
them in their afflictions. In the priestly role, the president makes
America itself the ultimate reference point. He leads the citizenry in
affirming and celebrating the nation, and reminds them of the national
mission, while at the same time glorifying and praising his political
flock.
Charles W. Calhoun argues that in the 1880s the speeches of Benjamin Harrison
display a rhetorical style that embraced American civic religion;
indeed, Harrison was one of the credo's most adept presidential
practitioners. Harrison was a leader whose application of Christian
ethics to social and economic matters paved the way for the Social Gospel, the Progressive Movement and a national climate of acceptance regarding government action to resolve social problems.
Linder argues that President Bill Clinton's sense of civil religion was based on his Baptist background in Arkansas. Commentator William Safire
noted of the 1992 presidential campaign that, "Never has the name of
God been so frequently invoked, and never has this or any nation been so
thoroughly and systematically blessed."
Clinton speeches incorporated religious terminology that suggests the
role of pastor rather than prophet or priest. With a universalistic
outlook, he made no sharp distinction between the domestic and the
foreign in presenting his vision of a world community of civil faith.
Brocker argues that Europeans have often mischaracterized the politics of President George W. Bush (2001–2009) as directly inspired by Protestant fundamentalism.
However, in his speeches Bush mostly actually used civil religious
metaphors and images and rarely used language specific to any Christian
denomination. His foreign policy, says Bocker, was based on American security interests and not on any fundamentalist teachings.
Hammer says that in his 2008 campaign speeches candidate Barack Obama
portrays the American nation as a people unified by a shared belief in
the American Creed and sanctified by the symbolism of an American civil
religion.
Would-be presidents likewise contributed to the rhetorical history of civil religion. The speeches of Daniel Webster
were often memorized by student debaters, and his 1830 endorsement of
"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable" was iconic.
Symbolism of the American flag
According to Adam Goodheart, the modern meaning of the American flag, and the reverence of many Americans towards it, was forged by Major Robert Anderson's fight in defense of the flag at the Battle of Fort Sumter, which opened the American Civil War
in April 1861. During the war the flag was used throughout the Union to
symbolize American nationalism and rejection of secessionism. Goodheart
explains the flag was transformed into a sacred symbol of patriotism:
Before that day, the flag had
served mostly as a military ensign or a convenient marking of American
territory ... and displayed on special occasions like the Fourth of
July. But in the weeks after Major Anderson's surprising stand, it
became something different. Suddenly the Stars and Stripes flew ... from
houses, from storefronts, from churches; above the village greens and
college quads. ... [T]hat old flag meant something new. The abstraction
of the Union cause was transfigured into a physical thing: strips of
cloth that millions of people would fight for, and many thousands die
for.
Soldiers and veterans
An
important dimension is the role of the soldiers, ready to sacrifice
their lives to preserve the nation. They are memorialized in many
monuments and semi-sacred days, such as Veterans Day and Memorial Day.
Historian Jonathan Ebel argues that the "soldier-savior" is a sort of
Messiah, who embodies the synthesis of civil religion, and the Christian
ideals of sacrifice and redemption.
In Europe, there are numerous cemeteries exclusively for American
soldiers who fought in world wars. They have become American sacred
spaces.
Pacifists have made some sharp criticisms. For example, Kelly Denton-Borhaug, writing from the Moravian peace tradition,
argues that the theme of "sacrifice" has fueled the rise of what she
calls "U.S. war culture." The result is a diversion of attention from
what she considers the militarism and the immoral, oppressive, sometimes
barbaric conduct in the global American war on terror. However, some Protestant denominations such as the Churches of Christ, have largely turned away from pacifism to give greater support to patriotism and civil religion.
Pledge of Allegiance
Kao and Copulsky argue the concept of civil religion illuminates the popular constitutional debate over the Pledge of Allegiance.
The function of the pledge has four aspects: preservationist,
pluralist, priestly, and prophetic. The debate is not between those who
believe in God and those who do not, but it is a dispute on the meaning
and place of civil religion in America.
Cloud explores political oaths since 1787 and traces the tension
between a need for national unity and a desire to affirm religious
faith. He reviews major Supreme Court decisions involving the Pledge of Allegiance, including the contradictory Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) and West Virginia v. Barnette
(1943) decisions. He argues that the Pledge was changed in 1954 during
the Cold War to encourage school children to reject communism's
atheistic philosophy by affirming belief in God.
School rituals
Adam Gamoran
(1990) argues that civil religion in public schools can be seen in such
daily rituals as the pledge of allegiance; in holiday observances, with
activities such as music and art; and in the social studies, history
and English curricula. Civil religion in schools plays a dual role: it
socializes youth to a common set of understandings, but it also sets off
subgroups of Americans whose backgrounds or beliefs prevent them from
participating fully in civil religious ceremonies.
Ethnic minorities
The
Bellah argument deals with mainstream beliefs, but other scholars have
looked at minorities outside the mainstream, and typically distrusted or
disparaged by the mainstream, which have developed their own version of
U.S. civil religion.
White Southerners
Wilson, noting the historic centrality of religion in Southern identity, argues that when the White South
was outside the national mainstream in the late 19th century, it
created its own pervasive common civil religion heavy with mythology,
ritual, and organization. Wilson says the "Lost Cause"—that
is, defeat in a holy war—has left some southerners to face guilt,
doubt, and the triumph of what they perceive as evil: in other words, to
form a tragic sense of life.
Black and African Americans
Woodrum and Bell argue that black people demonstrate less civil religiosity than white people
and that different predictors of civil religion operate among black and
white people. For example, conventional religion positively influences
white people's civil religion but negatively influences black peoples'
civil religion. Woodrum and Bell interpret these results as a product of
black American religious ethnogenesis and separatism.
Japanese Americans
Iwamura argues that the pilgrimages made by Japanese Americans to the sites of World War II-era internment camps
have formed a Japanese American version of civil religion. Starting in
1969 the Reverend Sentoku Maeda and Reverend Soichi Wakahiro began
pilgrimages to Manzanar National Historic Site
in California. These pilgrimages included poetry readings, music,
cultural events, a roll call of former internees, and a
nondenominational ceremony with Protestant and Buddhist ministers and Catholic and Shinto
priests. The event is designed to reinforce Japanese American cultural
ties and to ensure that such injustices will never occur again.
Hispanic and Latino Americans
Mexican-American labor leader César Chávez,
by virtue of having holidays, stamps, and other commemorations of his
actions, has practically become a "saint" in American civil religion,
according to León. He was raised in the Catholic tradition and using
Catholic rhetoric. His "sacred acts," his political practices couched in
Christian teachings, became influential to the burgeoning Chicano
movement and strengthened his appeal. By acting on his moral convictions
through nonviolent means, Chávez became sanctified in the national
consciousness, says León.
Christian language, rhetoric, and values helped colonists to perceive
their political system as superior to the corrupt British monarchy.
Ministers' sermons were instrumental in promoting patriotism and in
motivating the colonists to take action against the evils and corruption
of the British government. Together with the semi-religious tone
sometimes adopted by preachers and such leaders as George Washington, and the notion that God favored the patriot cause, this made the documents of the Founding Fathers suitable as almost-sacred texts.
The National Archives Building in Washington preserves and displays the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Pauline Maier describes these texts as enshrined in massive, bronze-framed display cases.
While political scientists, sociologists, and legal scholars study the
Constitution and how it is used in American society, on the other hand,
historians are concerned with putting themselves back into a time and
place, in context. It would be anachronistic for them to look at the
documents of the "Charters of Freedom" and see America's modern "civic
religion" because of "how much Americans have transformed very secular
and temporal documents into sacred scriptures".
The whole business of erecting a shrine for the worship of the
Declaration of Independence strikes some academic critics looking from
point of view of the 1776 or 1789 America as "idolatrous, and also
curiously at odds with the values of the Revolution." It was suspicious
of religious iconographic practices. At the beginning, in 1776, it was
not meant to be that at all.
On the 1782 Great Seal of the United States,
the date of the Declaration of Independence and the words under it
signify the beginning of the "new American Era" on earth. Though the
inscription, Novus ordo seclorum, does not translate from the
Latin as "secular", it also does not refer to a new order of heaven. It
is a reference to generations of society in the western hemisphere, the
millions of generations to come.
Even from the vantage point of a new nation only ten to twenty
years after the drafting of the Constitution, the Framers themselves
differed in their assessments of its significance. Washington in his
Farewell Address pleaded that "the Constitution be sacredly
maintained."' He echoed Madison in "Federalist No. 49"
that citizen "veneration" of the Constitution might generate the
intellectual stability needed to maintain even the "wisest and freest
governments" amidst conflicting loyalties. But there is also a rich
tradition of dissent from "Constitution worship". By 1816, Jefferson
could write that "some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious
reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant,
too sacred to be touched." But he saw imperfections and imagined that
potentially, there could be others, believing as he did that
"institutions must advance also".
While the civil religion has been widely accepted by practically all denominations, one group has always stood against it. Seventh-Day Adventists
deliberately pose as "heretics", so to speak, and refuse to treat
Sundays as special, due to their adherence to the Ten Commandments
dictating that Saturday is the holy day. Indeed, says Bull, the
denomination has defined its identity in contradistinction to precisely
those elements of the host culture that have constituted civil religion.
Making a nation
The American identity has an ideological connection to these "Charters of Freedom". Samuel P. Huntington
discusses common connections for most peoples in nation-states, a
national identity as product of common ethnicity, ancestry and
experience, common language, culture and religion. Levinson argues:
It is the fate of the United
States, however, to be different from "most peoples," for here national
identity is based not on shared Proustian remembrances, but rather on
the willed affirmation of what Huntington refers to as the "American
creed," a set of overt political commitments that includes an emphasis
on individual rights, majority rule, and a constitutional order limiting
governmental power.
The creed, according to Huntington, is made up of (a) individual
rights, (b) majority rule, and (c) a constitutional order of limited
government power. American independence from Britain was not based on
cultural difference, but on the adoption of principles found in the
Declaration. Whittle Johnson in The Yale Review
sees a sort of "covenanting community" of freedom under law, which,
"transcending the 'natural' bonds of race, religion and class, itself
takes on transcendent importance".
Becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States requires
passing a test covering a basic understanding of the Declaration, the
U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and taking an oath to support
the U.S. Constitution. Hans Kohn
described the United States Constitution as "unlike any other: it
represents the lifeblood of the American nation, its supreme symbol and
manifestation. It is so intimately welded with the national existence
itself that the two have become inseparable." Indeed, abolishing the
Constitution in Huntington's view would abolish the United States, it
would "destroy the basis of community, eliminating the nation,
[effecting] ... a return to nature."
As if to emphasize the lack of any alternative "faith" to the
American nation, Thomas Grey in his article "The Constitution as
scripture", contrasted those traditional societies with divinely
appointed rulers enjoying heavenly mandates for social cohesion with
that of the United States. He pointed out that Article VI, third clause,
requires all political figures, both federal and state, "be bound by
oath or affirmation to support this Constitution, but no religious test
shall ever be required..." This was a major
break not only with past British practice commingling authority of
state and religion, but also with that of most American states when the
Constitution was written.
Escape clause. Whatever the oversights and evils the
modern reader may see in the original Constitution, the Declaration that
"all men are created equal"—in their rights—informed the Constitution
in such a way that Frederick Douglass in 1860 could label the Constitution, if properly understood, as an antislavery document.
He held that "the constitutionality of slavery can be made out only by
disregarding the plain and common-sense reading to the Constitution
itself. [T]he Constitution will afford slavery no protection when it
shall cease to be administered by slaveholders," a reference to the
Supreme Court majority at the time.
With a change of that majority, there was American precedent for
judicial activism in Constitutional interpretation, including the
Massachusetts Supreme Court, which had ended slavery there in 1783.
Accumulations of Amendments under Article V of the Constitution
and judicial review of Congressional and state law have fundamentally
altered the relationship between U.S. citizens and their governments.
Some scholars refer to the coming of a "second Constitution" with the Thirteenth Amendment, we are all free, the Fourteenth, we are all citizens, the Fifteenth, men vote, and the Nineteenth,
women vote. The Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted so as to
require States to respect citizen rights in the same way that the
Constitution has required the Federal government to respect them. So
much so, that in 1972, the U.S. Representative from Texas, Barbara Jordan, could affirm, "My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total...".
After discussion of the Article V provision for change in the Constitution as a political stimulus to serious national consensus building, Sanford Levinson
performed a thought experiment which was suggested at the bicentennial
celebration of the Constitution in Philadelphia. If one were to sign the
Constitution today,
whatever our reservations might be, knowing what we do now, and
transported back in time to its original shortcomings, great and small,
"signing the Constitution commits one not to closure but only to a
process of becoming, and to taking responsibility for the political
vision toward which I, joined I hope, with others, strive."
The Know Nothing movement, formally known as the Native American Party, and the American Party from 1855 onwards, was a nativistpolitical party and movement in the United States, which operated nationwide in the mid-1850s. It was primarily an anti-Catholic, anti-immigration, and xenophobic movement, originally starting as a secret society.
The Know Nothing movement also briefly emerged as a major political
party in the form of the American Party. Adherents to the movement were
to simply reply "I know nothing" when asked about its specifics by
outsiders, providing the group with its common name.
Supporters of the Know Nothing movement believed that an alleged "Romanist"
conspiracy was being planned to subvert civil and religious liberty in
the United States, and sought to politically organize native-born Protestants
in what they described as a defense of their traditional religious and
political values. The Know Nothing movement is remembered for this theme
because of fears by Protestants that Catholic priests and bishops would
control a large bloc of voters. In most places, the ideology and
influence of the Know Nothing movement lasted only a year or two before
disintegrating due to weak and inexperienced local leaders, a lack of
publicly declared national leaders, and a deep split over the issue of
slavery. In the South, the party did not emphasize anti-Catholicism as
frequently as it did in the North, but it became the main alternative to
the dominant Democratic Party.
The collapse of the Whig Party after the passage of the Kansas–Nebraska Act
left an opening for the emergence of a new major political party in
opposition to the Democratic Party. The Know Nothing movement managed to
elect congressman Nathaniel P. Banks of Massachusetts and several other individuals in the 1854 elections into office, and subsequently coalesced into a new political party known as the American Party. Particularly in the South,
the American Party served as a vehicle for politicians opposed to the
Democrats. Many also hoped that it would stake out a middle ground
between the pro-slavery positions of Democratic politicians and the
radical anti-slavery positions of the rapidly emerging Republican Party. The American Party nominated former President Millard Fillmore in the 1856 presidential election,
although he kept quiet about his membership, and personally refrained
from supporting the Know Nothing movement's activities and ideology.
Fillmore received 21.5% of the popular vote in the 1856 presidential
election, finishing behind the Democratic and Republican nominees.
The party entered a period of rapid decline after Millard Fillmore's loss in the 1856 election, and the controversial Dred Scott v. Sandford decision made by the Supreme Court
in 1857 further galvanized opposition to slavery in the North, causing
many former Know Nothings to join the Republicans. Most of the remaining
members of the party supported the Constitutional Union Party in the 1860 presidential election, which subsequently lost to Abraham Lincoln of the Republican Party, and said defeat ultimately led to the final dissolution of the Know Nothing movement that same year.
History
Anti-Catholicism
had been a factor in colonial America but played a minor role in
American politics until the arrival of large numbers of Irish and German
Catholics in the 1840s.
It then reemerged in nativist attacks on Catholic immigration. It
appeared in New York City politics as early as 1843 under the banner of
the American Republican Party.
The movement quickly spread to nearby states using that name or Native
American Party or variants of it. They succeeded in a number of local
and Congressional elections, notably in 1844 in Philadelphia, where the
anti-Catholic orator Lewis Charles Levin,
who went on to be the first Jewish congressman, was elected
Representative from Pennsylvania's 1st district. In the early 1850s,
numerous secret orders grew up, of which the Order of United Americans and the Order of the Star Spangled Banner
came to be the most important. They emerged in New York in the early
1850s as a secret order that quickly spread across the North, reaching
non-Catholics, particularly those who were lower middle class or skilled
workmen.
Name
The name
"Know Nothing" originated in the semi-secret organization of the party.
When a member was asked about his activities, he was supposed to reply,
"I know nothing." Outsiders derisively called them "Know Nothings", and
the name stuck. In 1855, the Know Nothings first entered politics under
the American Party label.
Underlying issues
The
immigration of large numbers of Irish and German Catholics to the
United States in the period between 1830 and 1860 made religious
differences between Catholics and Protestants a political issue.
Violence occasionally erupted at the polls. Protestants alleged that
Pope Pius IX had put down the failed liberal Revolutions of 1848 and that he was an opponent of liberty, democracy and republicanism.
One Boston minister described Catholicism as "the ally of tyranny, the
opponent of material prosperity, the foe of thrift, the enemy of the
railroad, the caucus, and the school". These fears encouraged conspiracy theories
regarding papal intentions of subjugating the United States through a
continuing influx of Catholics controlled by Irish bishops obedient to
and personally selected by the Pope.
In 1849, an oath-bound secret society, the Order of the Star Spangled Banner,
was created by Charles B. Allen in New York City. At its inception, the
Order of the Star Spangled Banner only had about 36 members. Fear of Catholic immigration led to a dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party,
whose leadership in many cities included Catholics of Irish descent.
Activists formed secret groups, coordinating their votes and throwing
their weight behind candidates sympathetic to their cause:
Immigration
during the first five years of the 1850s reached a level five times
greater than a decade earlier. Most of the new arrivals were poor
Catholic peasants or laborers from Ireland and Germany who crowded into
the tenements of large cities. Crime and welfare costs soared.
Cincinnati's crime rate, for example, tripled between 1846 and 1853 and
its murder rate increased sevenfold. Boston's expenditures for poor
relief rose threefold during the same period.
In spring
1854, the Know Nothings carried Boston and Salem, Massachusetts, and
other New England cities. They swept the state of Massachusetts in the
fall 1854 elections, their biggest victory. The Whig candidate for mayor of Philadelphia, editor Robert T. Conrad,
was soon revealed as a Know Nothing as he promised to crack down on
crime, close saloons on Sundays and to appoint only native-born
Americans to office—he won by a landslide. In Washington, D.C., Know
Nothing candidate John T. Towers defeated incumbent Mayor John Walker Maury, causing opposition of such proportion that the Democrats, Whigs, and Freesoilers
in the capital united as the "Anti-Know-Nothing Party". In New York, in
a four-way race the Know Nothing candidate ran third with 26%. After
the 1854 elections, they exerted decisive influence in Maine, Indiana,
Pennsylvania, and California, but historians are unsure about the
accuracy of this information due to the secrecy of the party, as all
parties were in turmoil and the anti-slavery and prohibition issues overlapped with nativism in complex and confusing ways. They helped elect Stephen Palfrey Webb as mayor of San Francisco and J. Neely Johnson as governor of California. Nathaniel P. Banks
was elected to Congress as a Know Nothing candidate, but after a few
months he aligned with Republicans. A coalition of Know Nothings,
Republicans and other members of Congress opposed to the Democratic Party elected Banks to the position of Speaker of the House.
The results of the 1854 elections were so favorable to the Know
Nothings, up to then an informal movement with no centralized
organization, that they formed officially as a political party called
the American Party, which attracted many members of the now nearly
defunct Whig
party as well as a significant number of Democrats. Membership in the
American Party increased dramatically, from 50,000 to an estimated one
million plus in a matter of months during that year.
The historian Tyler Anbinder concluded:
The key to Know Nothing success in 1854 was the collapse of the second party system,
brought about primarily by the demise of the Whig Party. The Whig
Party, weakened for years by internal dissent and chronic factionalism,
was nearly destroyed by the Kansas–Nebraska Act. Growing anti-party sentiment, fueled by anti-slavery sentiment as well as temperance
and nativism, also contributed to the disintegration of the party
system. The collapsing second party system gave the Know Nothings a much
larger pool of potential converts than was available to previous
nativist organizations, allowing the Order to succeed where older
nativist groups had failed.
In San Francisco,
a Know Nothing chapter was founded in 1854 to oppose Chinese
immigration—members included a judge of the state supreme court, who
ruled that no Chinese person could testify as a witness against a white
man in court.
In the spring of 1855, Know Nothing candidate Levi Boone
was elected mayor of Chicago and barred all immigrants from city jobs.
Abraham Lincoln was strongly opposed to the principles of the Know
Nothing movement, but did not denounce it publicly because he needed the
votes of its membership to form a successful anti-slavery coalition in
Illinois.
Ohio was the only state where the party gained strength in 1855. Their
Ohio success seems to have come from winning over immigrants, especially
German-American Lutherans and Scots-Irish Presbyterians, both hostile
to Catholicism. In Alabama, Know Nothings were a mix of former Whigs,
discontented Democrats and other political outsiders who favored state
aid to build more railroads. Virginia attracted national attention in
its tempestuous 1855 gubernatorial election. Democrat Henry Alexander Wise
won by convincing state voters that Know Nothings were in bed with
Northern abolitionists. With the victory by Wise, the movement began to
collapse in the South.
Know Nothings scored victories in Northern state elections in
1854, winning control of the legislature in Massachusetts and polling
40% of the vote in Pennsylvania. Although most of the new immigrants
lived in the North, resentment and anger against them was national and
the American Party initially polled well in the South, attracting the
votes of many former southern Whigs.
The party name gained wide but brief popularity. Nativism became a
new American rage: Know Nothing candy, Know Nothing tea, and Know
Nothing toothpicks appeared. Stagecoaches were dubbed "The Know
Nothing". In Trescott, Maine, a shipowner dubbed his new 700-ton freighter Know Nothing. The party was occasionally referred to, contemporaneously, in a slightly pejorative shortening, "Knism."
Leadership and legislation
Historian
John Mulkern has examined the party's success in sweeping to almost
complete control of the Massachusetts legislature after its 1854
landslide victory. He finds the new party was populist and highly
democratic, hostile to wealth, elites and to expertise, and deeply
suspicious of outsiders, especially Catholics. The new party's voters
were concentrated in the rapidly growing industrial towns, where Yankee
workers faced direct competition with new Irish immigrants. Whereas the
Whig Party was strongest in high income districts, the Know Nothing
electorate was strongest in the poor districts. They expelled the
traditional upper-class, closed, political leadership, especially the
lawyers and merchants. In their stead, they elected working class men,
farmers and a large number of teachers and ministers. Replacing the
moneyed elite were men who seldom owned $10,000 in property.
Nationally, the new party leadership showed incomes, occupation,
and social status that were about average. Few were wealthy, according
to detailed historical studies of once-secret membership rosters. Fewer
than 10% were unskilled workers who might come in direct competition
with Irish laborers. They enlisted few farmers, but on the other hand
they included many merchants and factory owners.
The party's voters were by no means all native-born Americans, for it
won more than a fourth of the German and British Protestants in numerous
state elections. It especially appealed to Protestants such as the
Lutherans, Dutch Reformed and Presbyterians.
The most aggressive and innovative legislation came out of
Massachusetts, where the new party controlled all but three of the 400
seats—only 35 had any previous legislative experience. The Massachusetts
legislature in 1855 passed a series of reforms that "burst the dam
against change erected by party politics, and released a flood of
reforms." Historian Stephen Taylor says:
[In
addition to nativist legislation], the party also distinguished itself
by its opposition to slavery, support for an expansion of the rights of
women, regulation of industry, and support of measures designed to
improve the status of working people.
It passed legislation to regulate railroads, insurance companies and
public utilities. It funded free textbooks for the public schools and
raised the appropriations for local libraries and for the school for the
blind. Purification of Massachusetts against divisive social evils was a
high priority. The legislature set up the state's first reform school
for juvenile delinquents while trying to block the importation of
supposedly subversive government documents and academic books from
Europe. It upgraded the legal status of wives, giving them more property
rights and more rights in divorce courts. It passed harsh penalties on
speakeasies, gambling houses and bordellos. It passed prohibition
legislation with penalties that were so stiff—such as six months in
prison for serving one glass of beer—that juries refused to convict
defendants. Many of the reforms were quite expensive; state spending
rose 45% on top of a 50% hike in annual taxes on cities and towns. This
extravagance angered the taxpayers, and few Know Nothings were
reelected.
The highest priority included attacks on the civil rights of
Irish Catholic immigrants. After this, state courts lost the power to
process applications for citizenship and public schools had to require
compulsory daily reading of the Protestant Bible (which the nativists
were sure would transform the Catholic children). The governor disbanded
the Irish militias and replaced Irish holding state jobs with
Protestants. It failed to reach the two-thirds vote needed to pass a
state constitutional amendment to restrict voting and office holding to
men who had resided in Massachusetts for at least 21 years. The
legislature then called on Congress to raise the requirement for
naturalization from five years to 21 years, but Congress never acted.
The most dramatic move by the Know Nothing legislature was to appoint
an investigating committee designed to prove widespread sexual
immorality underway in Catholic convents. The press had a field day
following the story, especially when it was discovered that the key
reformer was using committee funds to pay for a prostitute. The
legislature shut down its committee, ejected the reformer, and saw its
investigation become a laughing stock.
The Know Nothings also dominated politics in Rhode Island, where in 1855 William W. Hoppin held the governorship and five out of every seven votes went to the party, which dominated the Rhode Island legislature. Local newspapers such as The Providence Journal fueled anti-Irish and anti-Catholic sentiment.
Violence
Know
Nothing Party ticket naming party candidates for state and county
offices (at the bottom of the page are voting instructions)
Fearful that Catholics were flooding the polls with non-citizens, local activists threatened to stop them.
In the
Southern United States, the American Party was composed chiefly of
ex-Whigs looking for a vehicle to fight the dominant Democratic Party
and worried about both the pro-slavery extremism of the Democrats and
the emergence of the anti-slavery Republican party in the North.
In the South as a whole, the American Party was strongest among former
Unionist Whigs. States-rightist Whigs shunned it, enabling the Democrats
to win most of the South. Whigs supported the American Party because of
their desire to defeat the Democrats, their unionist sentiment, their
anti-immigrant attitudes and the Know Nothing neutrality on the slavery
issue.
David T. Gleeson notes that many Irish Catholics in the South
feared the arrival of the Know-Nothing movement portended a serious
threat. He argues:
The southern Irish, who had seen the dangers of
Protestant bigotry in Ireland, had the distinct feeling that the
Know-Nothings were an American manifestation of that phenomenon. Every
migrant, no matter how settled or prosperous, also worried that this
virulent strain of nativism threatened his or her hard-earned gains in
the South and integration into its society. Immigrants fears were
unjustified, however, because the national debate over slavery and its
expansion, not nativism or anti-Catholicism, was the major reason for
Know-Nothing success in the South. The southerners who supported the
Know-Nothings did so, for the most part, because they thought the
Democrats who favored the expansion of slavery might break up the Union.
In 1855, the American Party challenged the Democrats' dominance. In
Alabama, the Know Nothings were a mix of former Whigs, malcontented
Democrats and other political misfits; they favored state aid to build
more railroads. In the fierce campaign, the Democrats argued that Know
Nothings could not protect slavery from Northern abolitionists. The Know
Nothing American Party disintegrated soon after losing in 1855.
In Louisiana and Maryland, the Know Nothings enlisted native-born Catholics. Know Nothing congressman John Edward Bouligny
was the only member of the Louisiana congressional delegation to refuse
to resign his seat after the state seceded from the Union. In Maryland, the party's influence lasted at least through the Civil War: the American Party's Governor and later Senator Thomas Holliday Hicks, Representative Henry Winter Davis, and Senator Anthony Kennedy, with his brother, former Representative John Pendleton Kennedy, all supported the United States in a State that bordered the Confederate states.
Historian Michael F. Holt argues that "Know Nothingism originally grew
in the South for the same reasons it spread in the North—nativism,
anti-Catholicism, and animosity toward unresponsive politicos—not
because of conservative Unionism". Holt cites William B. Campbell,
former governor of Tennessee, who wrote in January 1855: "I have been
astonished at the widespread feeling in favor of their principles—to
wit, Native Americanism and anti-Catholicism—it takes everywhere".
Decline
Results by county indicating the percentage for Fillmore in each county
The party declined rapidly in the North after 1855. In the presidential election of 1856, it was bitterly divided over slavery. The main faction supported the ticket of presidential nominee Millard Fillmore and vice presidential nominee Andrew Jackson Donelson. Fillmore, a former President, had been a Whig and Donelson was the nephew of Democratic President Andrew Jackson,
so the ticket was designed to appeal to loyalists from both major
parties, winning 23% of the popular vote and carrying one state,
Maryland, with eight electoral votes. Fillmore did not win enough votes
to block Democrat James Buchanan
from the White House. During this time, Nathaniel Banks decided he was
not as strongly for the anti-immigrant platform as the party wanted him
to be, so he left the Know Nothing Party for the more anti-slavery
Republican Party. He contributed to the decline of the Know Nothing
Party by taking two-thirds of its members with him.
Many were appalled by the Know Nothings. Abraham Lincoln expressed his own disgust with the political party in a private letter to Joshua Speed, written 24 August 1855. Lincoln never publicly attacked the Know Nothings, whose votes he needed:
I am not a Know-Nothing—that is certain. How could I be?
How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of
degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to
me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men
are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created
equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read
"all men are created equals, except negroes and foreigners and
Catholics." When it comes to that I should prefer emigrating to some
country where they make no pretense of loving liberty—to Russia, for
instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy
of hypocrisy.
Historian Allan Nevins,
writing about the turmoil preceding the American Civil War, states that
Millard Fillmore was never a Know Nothing nor a nativist. Fillmore was
out of the country when the presidential nomination came and had not
been consulted about running. Nevins further states:
[Fillmore] was not a member of the party; he had never
attended an American [Know-Nothing] gathering. By no spoken or written
word had he indicated a subscription to American [Party] tenets.
After the Supreme Court's controversial Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling in 1857, most of the anti-slavery members of the American Party joined the Republican Party. The pro-slavery wing of the American Party remained strong on the local and state levels in a few southern states, but by the 1860 election they were no longer a serious national political movement. Most of their remaining members supported the Constitutional Union Party in 1860.
