Canadian Contributions to USA life, and the SDA Church

Canada and the United States of America sit as two adjacent sovereign nations. Some may feel that the USA is the elephant sitting in the living room, so to speak. Others my not realize the influence that individual Canadians have had on life in the USA, and upon the SDA Church in the United States.

I will post two examples of such. In the firs, I will mention one Canadian who deeply influenced US life and law. In the second, I will mention a Canadian SDA who also deeply influenced United States of American life. I will ask if you have ever heard of this person, and if you know how he contributed to the life of the SDA Church in the United States of America.

In 1916, a Mr. MacIntosh, a natural born Canadian citizen moved to the United States of America. In 1925 he petitioned the District court for Connecticut to become a naturalized USA citizen. The District Court denied his attempt to become a USA citizen. He appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals which reversed the decision of the District Court.

This was appealed to the United States Supreme Court which ruled on the case in 1931. It reversed the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals, and affirmed the decision of the District court. It ruled that Mr. MacIntosh held religious beliefs and practices which made him ineligible to become a U.S. citizen.

It is of interest to note that the Chief Justice dissented from the majority ruling, and said, in part:

"No applicant could appear to be more exemplary than Macintosh. A Canadian by birth, he first came to the United . . . States as a graduate student at the University of Chicago, and in 1907 was ordained as a Baptist minister. In 1909 he began to teach in Yale University and is now a Professor of theology. After the outbreak of the Great War, he voluntarily sought appointment as a chaplain with the Canadian Army and as such saw service at the front. Returning to this country, he made public address in 1917 in support to the Allies. In 1918, he went again to France, where he had charge of an American U.M.C.A. hut at the front until the armistice, when he resumed his duties at Yale University. It seems to me that the applicant has shown himself in his behavior and character to be highly desirable as a citizen, . . ."


AS a point of interest, what were his religious beliefs and practices which caused him to be denied citizenship?

Stay tuned for part 2.

Duplicate post. - Daryl

Some years later a Canadian citizen, a Seventh-day Adventist, by the name of James Girouard made a substantial contribution to the freedoms that USA citizens, and Seventh-day Adventist currently enjoy.


What was that contribution?

Who was James Girouard?

Had you ever heard of him, and his contribution to religious freedoms for all?

Here you have it. You have two Canadians who had a substantial impact on people in the United States of America.

Have you ever hear of either of them?

How much do you know about them?

Google works really good at times as I came across the following information regarding Mr. MacIntosh:


He apparently held a belief that I thought was more unique amongst Seventh-day Adventists like Desmond Doss.

You are quite correct on MacIntosh. The legal citation is:

U.S. v. Macintosh 283 U.S. 605 (1931)

MacIntosh was a Canadian citizen who had an impact upon the legal rights of certain people living in the United States.

But, Daryl, you have not responded to my question regarding Girouard. That one will not be easy to find with Google. Yet, if you know what you are doing, you can plug it in and get his story up on your screen in its fullness at the first try. If you do not, you can wade through 79 pages of multiple listings that all lead you up a dead end. (That is about 800 separate listings that lead you nowhere, or do they?)

The reality is that Girouard caused certain religious rights to be established in the United States that benefit people today.

Point of interest: For eleven (11) years, the people of the United States attempted to persuade the United States Congress to grant certain religious rights. For all of those years, the United States Congress failed to pass the enabling legislation.

That effort was judged to have failed with that passage of the Nationality Act of 1940. The efforts of the people to persuade Congress to grant a religious right had failed.

Then came, Mr. Girouard, a Canadian citizen, and a Seventy-day Adventist. He turned failure into victory. But, not immediately, as it took time.

Who was he?

How did he do it?

What was his victory?

How is it that people living in the United States of America today have a religious right that only the privileged had previously?

Anybody know the answer?

I googled this information, which I can't access without psying for it:



Here is another piece of information via google:



He succeeded in becoming a US citizen through the courts even though he held the same beliefs as Mr. MacIntosh.

Ah, Daryl, you are to smart for me:

Yes, the United States Supreme Court ordered Girouard and willing to defend the USA, but who refused to bear arms in doing so to be allowed to become citizens. Here is the legal citation:

Girouard v. U.S. 328 U.S. 61 (1946)

Justice Douglas, writing for the majority, stated that the law required that they must be willing to defend the USA, but did not require that such defense be by bearing arms. He then went on to say that such people would not be disqualified from becoming members of Congress and that Congress did not intend to apply a stricter test to become a citizen.

Girouard applied for citizenship in 1943. The U. S. Supreme Court heard the case on March 4, 1946, and it decided it on April 22, 1946.

The contribution of Girouard was clearly in the freedom of people to become citizens who refused to bear arms, but otherwise were willing to defend this country. However, legal scholars generally do NOT believe that Girouard otherwise overturned MacIntosh! To this day, other aspects of MacIntosh are still cited approvingly by the courts.

A basic principle of MacIntosh, which to my understanding is still potentially in effect states in my words the following: The USA is a Christian nation. It is not inconsistent with the will of God for its laws to be obeyed with unqualified submission and obedience.

I find the above to be interesting!

Yes, I was wondering why this didn't also overturn MacIntosh's request for U.S. citizenship.

I still do not understand the difference between the two cases.

Following G. MacIntosh cold have again applied for citizenship, and probably recieved it.

G. did not make MacIntosh a citizen as it was a separate case.

Essentially G. overturned the citizenship aspects of the MacIntosh case, but that did not overturn all aspects of the reasoning--just the citizenship aspect.

Daryl, the law is interesting.

The law at times is also most complicated.

I am glad God's law isn't complicated, although we sometimes also complicate God's law as well.