A brief history of cancelling Christmas
Remembering the devout American Christians who couldn't abide December 25.
Backbencher from time to time posts contributions from other writers. This essay is by Holly Brewer, Burke Professor of American History at the University of Maryland.
A cherished conservative ritual of the Yuletide season is to accuse liberals of trying to cancel Christmas through inclusive greetings like “Happy Holidays.” This year Christmas really is at least half-cancelled, not by liberals but by Covid-19; rather than risk spreading the deadly virus, many families and friends will either skip their annual celebrations or celebrate apart. That really is a loss. But if conservatism is about preserving the past and honoring our forefathers, then Donald Trump and his gang of liberal-owning culture warriors should be glad that Covid cancelled Christmas, because that’s what the Massachusetts Bay Colony Puritans did in 1659.
On May 11 of that year the Massachusetts Bay legislature decreed that
For preventing disorders arising in several places within this jurisdiction, by reason of some still observing such festivals as were superstitiously kept in other countries, to the great dishonor of God and offence of others, it is therefore ordered by this Court and the authority thereof, that whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing of labor, feasting, or any other way, upon such accounts as aforesaid, every such person so offending shall pay for every such offence five shillings, as a fine to the country.
As you can see, Bill O’Reilly, who in 2004 invented (technically, revived) the shibboleth that liberals wage War on Christmas, put himself on the wrong side of some extremely devout Christians who were no less wary of foreign influence than he. The Massachusetts law was the culmination of an almost 20 year campaign against Christmas conducted on both sides of the Atlantic. Parliament imposed official banns on celebrations of Christmas numerous times between 1644 and 1659, mandating even that shops not be permitted to close.
Oliver Cromwell, who led England as “Lord Protector” during this period, is often cast as the Grinch in this drama, because the law passed during the English Civil War. But scholars in England have lately pointed out that Cromwell never even mentioned Christmas in his writings, making it doubtful that cancelling Christmas was his idea. Parliament seems to have acted on its own initiative.
Stephen Nissenbaum, in his 1996 book The Battle for Christmas, explains that Puritans seriously disapproved of Christmas revelry and “misrule.” They believed—not without reason—that the holiday’s religious meaning had been diluted through its incorporation of Saturnalian and other pagan rituals (holly, evergreens, and, most troublingly, wassail, a heavily spiced mixture of cider and ale). Christmas also smacked of Popery; “Christ-mas” means “Christ’s Mass,” and Protestants don’t celebrate Mass, thank you very much.
But there was also a political animus against Christmas. Massachusetts Puritans and the English Presbyterians and other religious reformers who dominated Parliament shared a distrust of many traditions of the Church of England, inconveniently headed, by English law since the reign of Henry VIII, by the English monarch. The king at that time was Charles I, whom Parliament in 1649 would depose on grounds of treason. The traditional Church of England Christ-mas service made explicit that the king ruled by divine right and as God’s Anointed servant (just a step down from Jesus Christ, God’s Anointed son). In the 1640s that was not, as we say today, on message, as Parliament fought Charles over issues of basic rights and representation.
Through the decade that passed between Charles’s beheading and the Restoration of the crown in 1660, Parliament remained wary of Christ-mas and its association with the divine right of kings. In New England, anti-Christmas feeling lingered even after Charles II was elevated to the throne, especially after revisions to the Book of Common Prayer in 1662 made promises of obedience to England’s kings more explicit.
The U.S. Constitution forbids the creation of a government-established church like the Church of England, a prohibition based on how the Church of England served as a tool to uphold both the king's authority and imperial power in the colonies. Many on the Christian right feel this prohibition extends too far. They want the U.S. government to celebrate Christmas in something more than generic (almost-pagan!) form. They want a MAGA Christmas. That would harken back to the language and imagery of divine right, by implication elevating America’s leader above the law and above democratic processes. Trump has flirted with such notions throughout his presidency, and after he lost last month’s election he demanded that its results be overturned. "Happy Holidays," then, is not only an expression of America’s healthy tolerance of different faiths. It’s also a timely bulwark against monarchical aspirations.
Correction. Backbencher changes art pretty frequently, and usually without comment, to accommodate certain technical aspects of the Substack platform. In this instance, though, we thought it best to inform readers that the authenticity of the “Publick Notice” previously posted here as art has been called into question. We therefore replaced it. The error was committed by the editor, not the author. More here.