Weisenburger on Hammond on Sunday mail transportation

Rick's recent link to his "Complicating the Common Narrative" post on the Cornerstone blog of the Religious Freedom Project at Georgetown's Berkeley Center brought to mind Charles Hammond. Or maybe Rick's post just prompted a link to Hammond, who was already on my mind. 

I'd wager most people now have never heard of Charles Hammond (he doesn't even have his own Wikipedia page!), but he was one of the best constitutional lawyers and journalists of his time (b. 1779, d. 1840). One of my projects this summer is to start making Charles Hammond better known to people who ought to know about him. Much of Hammond's public writing was for the Cincinnati Gazette, which is not presently accessible in electronic form. But Google can still help one to acquire some knowledge of the man, his life, and his thoughts. For example, one can find a monograph on Hammond's life by Francis Phelps Weisenburger, first published in Volume 43 of the Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly.

Near the end of this biographical sketch, Weisenburger discusses Hammond's response to a proposal to eliminate the transportation of mail on Sundays, a controversy that Rick mentions in passing in his "Complicating the Common Narrative" post. Here's Weisenburger on Hammond on Sunday mail transportation:

Another matter of religious implications on which Hammond expressed himself arose out of the attempt on the part of certain zealous persons to prevent the transportation of mail on Sunday. Richard M. Johnson of Kentucky attracted attention by a report which he submitted to the Senate, disapproving of the practice. Hammond was moved to sarcastic language on the mistaken enthusiasm of "Sabbath observances, Sabbath schools, Bible societies," and the like, and at least one subscriber threatened to withdraw his subscription as a result. Hammond, nevertheless, stood his ground, observing that the Sabbath was intended for social intercourse as well as religious ceremonies, that an ill-advised zeal was of all the enemies of vital religion the most dangerous, and that every effort to sustain religion by legal enactments must be doomed to failure.

Among the reasons I would like to investigate Hammond's writings is to understand the extent to which arguments like these were carried on in constitutional terms. When Hammond objected in 1833 to the proposal to prohibit the transportation of mail on Sundays, did he invoke the Establishment Clause? I don't know now, but will report when I do.

For whatever it's worth, Hammond's observations at the conclusion of the quoted material seem to be a good jumping-off point for sound thinking about legislative prayer policies in the wake of Town of Greece v. Galloway. Legislative bodies should not let "ill-advised zeal" persuade them to attempt to "sustain religion" by policies that privilege the particular religion for which they possess zeal.