|
Note: The text below this
point is not intended to be readable. It is the text of the sample
pages that the above links go to, and is only here because the sample
pages are in a graphic format and cannot be searched by search engines.
Liars for Jesus: The Religious
Right's Alternate Version of American History
Chris Rodda
— CHAPTER ONE —
Congress and the Bible
Myths regarding the printing, financing,
distribution, or recommending of Bibles by our early Congresses are
among the most popular of all the religious right American history
lies. Most are variations of the same three stories – two involving the
Continental Congress, and one an act signed by James Madison.
The first is the story of the Continental Congress
importing Bibles in 1777.
According to William Federer, in his book America’s God and Country
Encyclopedia of Quotations: “Continental Congress September 11,
1777, approved and recommended to the people that 20,000 copies of The
Holy Bible be imported from other sources. This was in response to the
shortage of Bibles in America caused by the Revolutionary War
interrupting trade with England. The Chaplain of Congress, Patrick
Allison, brought the matter to the attention of Congress, who assigned
it to a special Congressional Committee, which reported:
That the use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great
that your committee refers the above to the consideration of Congress,
and if Congress shall not think it expedient to order the importation
of types and paper, the Committee recommends that Congress will order
the Committee of Com-merce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland,
Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different parts of the States in the
Union.
Whereupon it was resolved accordingly to direct said Committee of
Commerce to import 20,000 copies of the Bible.”
While most versions of this story are similar to
William Federer’s, some authors turn it into a completely different
story.
According to Tim LaHaye, in his book Faith of Our Founding Fathers :
“The Bible, the greatest book ever written, is indispensable to
Christianity. That fact was clear in the very first act of Congress,
authorizing the printing of twenty thousand Bibles for the Indians.”
It also appears in various lists of lies circulated
by email, and eventually copied onto hundreds of websites.
From History Forgotten, the most widely circulated of the internet
lists: “Did you know that 52 of the 55 signers of the Declaration of
Independence were orthodox, deeply committed, Christians? The other
three all believed in the Bible as the divine truth, the God of
Scripture, and His personal intervention. It is the same Congress that
formed the American Bible Society.1 Immediately after creating the
Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress voted to purchase
and import 20,000 copies of Scripture for the people of this nation.”
William Federer’s version of the 1777 Bible story is
typical of those found in the majority of religious right American
history books. It tells half of the real story, includes a quote from
an actual committee report, but ends with a fabricated resolution. The
resolution is created to change the outcome of the story from Congress
dropping the matter, which is what really happened, to Congress
proceeding to import the Bibles. Tim LaHaye’s version, that Congress
printed Bibles for the Indians, has absolutely no basis in fact. But,
as drastically different as their stories are, both Federer and LaHaye
cite the same pages from the Journals of the Continental Congress as
their source.
In addition to changing the outcome of the story,
none of the religious right American history books fully explain why
Congress was considering importing the Bibles in the first place. Most
mention that the war with England caused a shortage of Bibles, which is
true, but this is only half the story. Congress’s consideration of the
matter had to do with the prevention of price gouging.
Not all Americans during the Revolutionary War were
the virtuous, Christian citizens portrayed in the religious right
version of American history. Many were taking advantage of war
shortages and charging outrageous prices for just about anything they
could get their hands on. No product was safe – not even Bibles. The
widespread problem of price gouging prompted numerous attempts by
individual states, groups of states, and Congress to regulate prices,
none of which were very successful. With less than half the country in
favor of the war to begin with, Congress was very concerned with
minimizing hardships like high prices and shortages of items previously
imported from England.
In 1777, three ministers from Philadelphia, Francis
Alison, John Ewing, and William Marshall, came up with a plan to
alleviate the Bible shortage. Their idea was to import the necessary
type and paper, and print an edition in Philadelphia. The problem with
this plan, however, was that, if the project was financed and
controlled by private companies, the Bibles would most likely be bought
up and resold at prices that the average American couldn’t afford.
Rev. Alison wrote a memorial to Congress, explaining
the dilemma and asking for help. What the ministers wanted Congress to
do was finance the printing, as a loan to be repaid by the sale of the
Bibles. As Rev. Alison explained in the memorial, if Congress imported
the type and paper, and Congress contracted the printer, then Congress
could regulate the selling price of the Bibles.
We therefore think it our duty to our country and to the churches of
Christ to lay this danger before this honourable house, humbly
requesting that under your care, and by your encouragement, a copy of
the holy Bible may be printed, so as to be sold nearly as cheap as the
common Bibles, formerly imported from Britain and Ireland, were sold.
The number of purchasers is so great, that we doubt not but a large
impression would soon be sold, But unless the sale of the whole edition
belong to the printer, and he be bound under sufficient penalties, that
no copy be sold by him, nor by any retailer under him, at a higher
price than that allowed by this honourable house, we fear that the
whole impression would soon be bought up, and sold again at an
exorbitant price, which would frustrate your pious endeavours and fill
the country with just complaints.2
Rev. Alison’s memorial was referred to a committee,
who concluded that it would be too costly to import the type and paper,
and too risky to import them into Philadelphia, a city likely to be
invaded by the British. The committee proposed the less risky
alternative of importing already printed Bibles into different ports
from a country other than England. If Congress did this, they would
still be able to regulate the selling price, and would still be
reimbursed by the sales. The report of this committee is cited by every
religious right American history author as their source, whatever their
version of this story, including Tim LaHaye, with his tale of Congress
printing the Bibles for the Indians.
The committee’s report is misquoted in various ways.
Usually omitted is anything indicating that importing the Bibles was
proposed an alternative to Rev. Alison’s original request that Congress
import the type and paper. Always omitted is that what Congress was
considering was only a loan. With these omissions, no real explanation
for Congress’s involvement is necessary. The committee’s report appears
to fit the story that the ministers simply alerted Congress to the
shortage of Bibles, and Congress considered this to be such a serious
problem that they immediately imported some.
In his book Original Intent, David Barton quotes only the following
pieces of one sentence from the committee’s report:
“[T]hat the use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so
great...your committee recommend that Congress will order the Committee
of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or
elsewhere, into the different ports of the States in the Union.”
The following is the entire report, as it appears in
the Journals of the Continental Congress.
The committee appointed to consider the memorial of the Rev. Dr.
Allison and others, report, “That they have conferred fully with the
printers, &c. in this city, and are of opinion, that the proper
types for printing the Bible are not to be had in this country, and
that the paper cannot be procured, but with such difficulties and
subject to such casualties, as render any dependence on it altogether
improper: that to import types for the purpose of setting up an entire
edition of the bible, and to strike off 30,000 copies, with paper,
binding, &c. will cost £10,272 10, which must be advanced by
Congress, to be reimbursed by the sale of the books:”
“That, your committee are of opinion, considerable difficulties will
attend the procuring the types and paper; that, afterwards, the risque
of importing them will considerably enhance the
— CHAPTER TWO —
The Northwest Ordinance
In his books The Myth of Separation and Original
Intent, David Barton, using one sentence from the Northwest Ordinance,
and a number of misquotes from early state constitutions, leads his
audience to the erroneous conclusion that the founders of our country
not only intended, but required, that religion be included in public
education.
Barton’s claim, like similar claims found in many
other religious right American history books, is based on the following
sentence from the ordinance’s Article III.
Religion, Morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and
the happiness of mankind, Schools and the means of education shall
forever be encouraged.1
Although mentioning in his earlier book, The Myth of
Separation, that the Northwest Ordinance was initially passed by the
Continental Congress, Barton omits this in Original Intent, the later
book in which he refined many of the lies from The Myth of Separation.
In Original Intent he attributes the ordinance entirely to the framers
of the First Amendment, concluding from this that the men who wrote the
First Amendment didn’t consider promoting religion in public schools to
be a violation of that amendment.
In Original Intent, Barton begins his Northwest Ordinance story with
the following statement: “Perhaps the most conclusive historical
demonstration of the fact that the Founders never intended the federal
Constitution to establish today’s religion-free public arena is seen in
their creation and passage of the ‘Northwest Ordinance.’ That Ordinance
(a federal law which legal texts consider as one of the four
foundational, or ‘organic’ laws) set forth the requirements of
statehood for prospective territories. It received House approval on
July 21, 1789; Senate approval on August 4, 1789 (this was the same
Congress which was simultaneously framing the religion clauses of the
First Amendment); and was signed into law by President George
Washington on August 7, 1789.
Article III of that Ordinance is the only section to address either
religion or public education, and in it, the Founders couple them,
declaring:
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government
and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall
forever be encouraged.
The Framers of the Ordinance—and thus the Framers of the First
Amendment—believed that schools and educational systems were a proper
means to encourage the ‘religion, morality, and knowledge’ which they
deemed so ‘necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind.’”
In The Myth of Separation, Barton claims: “A strong declaration that
the First Amendment was never intended to separate Christianity from
public affairs came in the form of legislation approved by the same
Congress which created the First Amendment. That legislation,
originally entitled ‘An Ordinance for the Government of the Territory
of the United States, North-west of the River Ohio’ and later shortened
to the ‘Northwest Ordinance,’ provided the procedure and requirements
whereby territories could attain statehood in the newly United States.”
Also from the The Myth of Separation: “Since the same Congress which
prohibited the federal government from the ‘establishment of religion’
also required that religion be included in schools, the Framers
obviously did not view a federal requirement to teach religion in
schools as a violation of the First Amendment.”
The 1789 dates on which the ordinance was
approved by the House and the Senate and signed by George Washington
are correct. In Original Intent, Barton just leaves out that the 1789
Congress was merely reenacting an ordinance passed over two years
earlier by the Continental Congress to give it force under the new
Constitution. Of the twenty-eight senators and over sixty
representatives in the 1789 Congress, only six, four senators and two
representatives, were present when the Continental Congress passed the
ordinance in 1787. It was not framed by the same Congress that was
“simultaneously framing the religion clauses of the First Amendment.”
Before getting to the rest of Barton’s lie, it’s
important to understand how the religious wording ended up in Article
III of the ordinance in the first place, and why the Congress of 1789
would not have seen it as conflicting with the First Amendment.
Article III was the work of a Massachusetts man
named Manasseh Cutler. Dr. Cutler, a minister and former army chaplain,
was also one of the directors of the Ohio Company of Associates, a land
speculating company comprised mainly of former army officers. In the
summer of 1787, the Ohio Company was negotiating with the Continental
Congress to buy a large amount of land in the Northwest Territory.
To pay off the large public debt from the
Revolutionary War, Congress asked those states with sparsely populated
western lands to cede these lands to the United States. The ceded
lands would then be sold by Congress to reduce the debt. Most of the
Northwest Territory was ceded by Virginia, but it also contained the
smaller cessions of Massachusetts and Connecticut.
In 1785, two years before the Northwest Ordinance,
Congress passed the first ordinance for the disposal of land in the
territory. One problem with this earlier ordinance, however, was that
few people could afford the large tracts it required them to buy. Land
speculating companies began negotiating with Congress to buy large
tracts at a low price. These tracts could then be divided into smaller
lots and resold at a profit. This was the plan of the Ohio Company when
they sent Manasseh Cutler to meet with the Continental Congress in July
1787.
The Ohio Company knew they had the upper hand in
these negotiations, and would not make a move towards purchasing the
land until Congress adopted a new ordinance that better suited their
plans. The result was the Northwest Ordinance.
Nathan Dane, a delegate from Massachusetts, has been
credited with drafting the ordinance, but there is little doubt that
Dr. Cutler arrived in New York with the provisions required by his
company already written in some form. On his way to New York, Cutler
met with two other founders of the Ohio Company, General Putnam in
Boston and General Parsons in Connecticut, to decide on the conditions
their company would require. This, along with the fact that parts of
the ordinance were borrowed from the laws of Massachusetts, explains
how the committee was able to draft the ordinance literally overnight.
Cutler had his first meeting with what he referred
to in his journal as “the committee” on the morning of Monday, July 9,
1787. This meeting was actually only with Edward Carrington and Nathan
Dane, two of the five members of the committee originally appointed.
The other three were not in New York when Cutler arrived. Two of them,
James Madison and Rufus King, were in Philadelphia at the
Constitutional Convention. It wasn’t until later on that first day that
Richard Henry Lee, John Kean, and Melancton Smith were appointed to
replace the three absent members. By the next morning, the committee
had finished drafting the ordinance and submitted a copy to Dr. Cutler
for his approval. Within a matter of hours, Dr. Cutler returned it to
the committee with a few additional provisions, including the education
provision that became part of Article III.
Cutler knew the Ohio Company had Congress over a
barrel.
— CHAPTER THREE —
Indian Treaties
and Indian Schools
The religious right version of American history is
full of tales about government efforts to promote Christianity to the
Indians. The reason for the large number of lies on this subject is the
availability of material that can be turned into lies. There were no
actual instances, for example, of the early Congresses passing
legislation that aided sectarian schools for children who were American
citizens. There was, however, a good deal of cooperation between the
government and the Indian mission schools of the 1800s. Although the
government’s reasons for this were always secular, the fact that this
cooperation existed means there are actual acts, reports, etc., that
can be misrepresented or misquoted to support claims that the
government aided sectarian schools. The same is true of Indian
treaties. Congress never funded the building of churches for the
American people. It did, however, appropriate funds to fulfill treaty
provisions, which occasionally included things such as the building of
a church.
The most popular of the Indian treaty stories
involves a treaty signed by Thomas Jefferson in 1803. Almost every
religious right American history book and website contains some version
of this story.
This is the version found in William Federer’s book America’s God and
Country: “On December 3, 1803, it was recommended by President Thomas
Jefferson that the Congress of the United States pass a treaty with the
Kaskaskia Indians. Included in this treaty was the annual support to a
Catholic missionary priest of $100, to be paid out of the Federal
treasury. Later in 1806 and 1807, two similar treaties were made with
the Wyandotte and Cherokee tribes.”
During his presidency, Thomas Jefferson signed over
forty treaties with various Indian nations. The treaty with the
Kaskaskia is the only one that contained anything having to do with
religion. No other Indian treaty signed by Jefferson, including the
other two listed by William Federer, contained any mention of religion.
The following is the third article from the 1803
treaty with the Kaskaskia.
And whereas the greater part of the said tribe have been baptized and
received into the Catholic Church, to which they are much attached, the
United States will give annually, for seven years, one hundred dollars
toward the support of a priest of that religion, who will engage to
perform for said tribe the duties of his office, and also to instruct
as many of their children as possible, in the rudiments of literature,
and the United States will further give the sum of three hundred
dollars, to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church.1
The Kaskaskia treaty is used by different religious
right authors in different ways. For those attempting to prove that
Jefferson was a devout Christian, it is evidence that he wanted to
promote Christianity to the Indians. Much more often, however, it is
used as evidence that he approved of using government funds to promote
religion.
The problem with using this provision as
evidence that Jefferson approved of using government funds to promote
religion is that it was in a treaty with a sovereign nation. Unless a
treaty provision threatened the rights or interests of Americans, there
was no constitutional reason not to allow it, even if that same
provision would be unconstitutional in a law made by Congress. This was
made very clear in a lengthy 1796 debate in the House of
Representatives on the treaty making power, excerpts of which appear
later in this chapter.
The problem with using the provision as evidence
that Jefferson was trying to promote Christianity to the Indians is
that the Kaskaskia were already Catholic, and had been for some time.
Article 3 of the treaty even begins by stating that “the greater part
of the said tribe have been baptized and received into the Catholic
Church.” The support of a priest and help building a church were
provisions that the Kaskaskia asked for, not things the government
recommended or pushed on them.
The Kaskaskia Indians began converting to
Catholicism over a century before this treaty. A Jesuit priest from
France, Father Jacques Marquette, first encountered the tribe in 1673
while exploring the Mississippi River with Louis Jolliet. Jolliet had
hoped that the Missis-sippi would lead them to the Pacific Ocean, but
when they reached what is now Arkansas, they were told by the natives
that it flowed into the Gulf of Mexico. Fearing that if they continued
they might be captured by the Spanish, they turned around. On their way
back up the Mississippi, they met and befriended the Kaskaskia, who
told them about a short cut back to Quebec. Upon leaving, Father
Marquette promised that he would come back. He kept his promise,
returning in 1675 and establishing the Immaculate Conception mission.
The Kaskaskia were one of a loose confederation of
tribes known as the Illinois. At the time that Father Marquette
established his mission, the Illinois population is estimated to have
been well over ten thousand, the Kaskaskia being one of the larger
tribes. During the 1700s, their numbers dwindled due to epidemics,
attacks by other tribes, and intermarriage with the French. By the time
the treaty was signed in 1803, only about two hundred and fifty
Illinois were left. No longer able to defend themselves against other
tribes, the remaining Illinois wanted the protection of the United
States. In exchange for a promise of protection and a few other
provisions, the Illinois, represented by the Kaskaskia chief Jean
Baptiste DuQuoin, ceded almost nine million acres to the United States.
Almost every version of the Kaskaskia story contains
the second claim in William Federer’s version, that Jefferson signed
two other Indian treaties that contained provisions for Christian
ministers – one with the Wyandots in 1806, and one with the Cherokees
in 1807. This lie usually comes in the form of an implication. The
statement that the Kaskaskia treaty contained a provision for a priest
is immediately followed by a phrase such as “two similar treaties were
enacted during Jefferson’s administration,” implying, of course,
that the similarity was a provision for a priest.
These other two treaties first became part of the
Kaskaskia story in Robert L. Cord’s 1982 book Separation of Church and
State: Historical Fact and Current Fiction. Cord, however, did not lie
about these treaties. This is a case of the Liars for Jesus misquoting
one of their own to create a better lie. While Cord’s book does contain
its share of lies, this isn’t one of them. Cord in no way implies that
these other two treaties contained religious provisions. In fact, he
mentions them specifically because they did not contain religious
provisions. What they did contain were provisions for money that wasn’t
designated for a particular purpose. Cord uses these provisions to
argue that Jefferson, if he had wanted to avoid provisions for
religious purposes in the Kaskaskia treaty, could have done so with a
similar provision that did not specify what the money was for.
The following is Cord’s argument: “Lest it be argued to the contrary,
if Jefferson had thought the ‘Kaskaskia Priest-Church Treaty Provision’
was unconstitutional, he could have followed other alternatives. An
unspecified lump sum of money could have been put into the Kaskaskia
treaty together with another provision for an annual unspecified
stipend with which the Indians could have built their church and paid
their priest. Such unspecified sums and annual stipends were not
uncommon and were provided for in at least two other Indian treaties
made during the Jefferson Administration – one with the Wyandots and
other tribes, proclaimed April 24, 1806, and another with the Cherokee
nation, proclaimed May 23, 1807.”
Cord’s words were first twisted by John Eidsmoe in
his 1987 book Christianity and the Constitution.
According to Eidsmoe: “In 1803 President Jefferson recommended that
Congress pass a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians which provided, among
other things, a stipend of $100 annually for seven years from the
Federal Treasury for the support of a Catholic priest to minister to
the Kaskaskia Indians. This and two similar treaties were enacted
during Jefferson’s administration – one with the Wyandotte Indians and
other tribes in 1806, and one with the Cherokees in 1807.”
Eidsmoe gives the impression that this is what
appears in Cord’s book by summing up the paragraph containing his
altered version of the story with this sentence: “Citing these and
other facts, Professor Robert Cord concludes, ‘These historical facts
indicate that Jefferson ...did not see the First Amendment and the
Establishment Clause requiring ‘complete independence of religion and
government’.’”
David Barton, in his 1991 book The Myth of
Separation, copies Eidsmoe’s version of the story word for word,
presenting it as a quote. He does not, however, cite Eidsmoe as the
source of this quote. Barton cites Daniel Dreisbach’s 1987 book Real
Threat and Mere Shadow: Religious Liberty and the First Amendment. But,
Dreisbach’s book contains nothing even close to Eidsmoe’s lie.
Dreisbach, like Cord, does not in any way imply that these other two
treaties contained religious provisions. Dreisbach doesn’t even mention
these treaties in the text of his book. He uses Cord’s argument that
the Kaskaskia could have been given money for an unspecified purpose,
but names the other two treaties only in a footnote.
This story is a good example of how the religious
right lies evolve, and, by being copied from book to book, and then to
the internet, eventually lose any connection to their original sources.
Robert Cord, whose book was published in 1982, mentions the other two
treaties, but does not imply that they contained religious provisions.
Daniel Dreisbach, whose book was published in 1987, uses these treaties
for the same reason as Cord. John Eidsmoe, whose book was also
published in 1987, twists Cord’s words and creates the lie. David
Barton, in 1991, copies Eidsmoe’s lie, but cites Dreisbach as his
source. In 2000, William Federer, whose version of the lie appears at
the beginning of this chapter, cites both Dreisbach and Barton. In
2003, the lie appears in D. James Kennedy’s book What If America Were A
Christian Nation Again
— CHAPTER FOUR —
Propagating the Gospel
Among the Heathen?
As mentioned at the end of chapter two, in the
companion book to the Religion and the Founding of the American
Republic Exhibit, James T. Hutson, Chief of the Manuscript Division at
the Library of Congress, follows his comments about the Northwest
Ordinance with what he describes as “a little noticed action two weeks
later” in which Congress offered “financial support to a church.” This
little noticed action, used by Hutson as an example of “Congress’s
broad program to promote religion,” was a land grant which, for reasons
that had nothing to do with religion, was put in trust in the name of a
society of Moravian missionaries by the Continental Congress.
According to Hutson: “In response to a plea from Bishop John Ettwein
(1721-1802), Congress voted, July 27, 1787, that ten thousand acres on
the Muskingum River in the present state of Ohio ‘be set apart and the
property thereof be vested in the Moravian Brethren...or a society of
the said Brethren for civilizing the Indians and promoting
Christianity.’”
Hutson uses this story to vindicate the Continental
Congress for neglecting to provide financial support for churches in
the Northwest Ordinance, claiming that “rhetorical encouragement for
religion was all that was possible on that occasion.” He follows this
claim with a misleading version of the Moravian land grant story,
presenting this as evidence that the omission of financial support for
churches in the Northwest Ordinance didn’t mean that Congress was
opposed to the government financially supporting them.
Because the real story of the Moravian land grant
spans four decades, it is sometimes used, as by Hutson, to create lies
about the Continental Congress, but it is also used for lies about
later Congresses and several presidents. In the majority of religious
right American history books it is used for a lie about Thomas
Jefferson, and almost always follows the story about the Kaskaskia
Indian treaty. This lie is based solely on the titles of certain acts
signed by Jefferson. Besides the fact that none of these acts actually
had anything to do with this land grant, the grant, as already
mentioned, didn’t even have anything to do with religion in the first
place.
According to William Federer, in his book America’s God and Country
Encyclopedia of Quotations: “President Thomas Jefferson also extended,
three times, a 1787 act of Congress in which special lands were
designated:
For the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethren
missionaries for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity.”
It is unclear exactly what Federer is quoting here
in his “Encyclo-pedia of Quotations,” but it is not the 1787 act of
Congress, which appears on page 133.
According to Mark Beliles, in the introduction to his version of the
Jefferson Bible: “On April 26, 1802, Jefferson signed into law the Act
of Congress which assisted the Society of the United Brethren ‘for
propagating the Gospel among the Heathen’ in the Northwest territory.”
The first thing that needs to be understood about
any mention of The Society of the United Brethren for Propagating the
Gospel Among the Heathen in any act of Congress or other official
document is that this was the legal name of an incorporated society.
Every act of Congress referring to this society, whatever its purpose,
contains the words “propagating the Gospel among the Heathen” because
it was part of the society’s name, not because the government was
propagating the Gospel. Mark Beliles, like many Liars for Jesus, puts
only the words
“propagating the Gospel among the Heathen” in quotation marks to make
it appear that this was the purpose of the act. Others take advantage
of a convenient printing error to achieve this effect. In the title of
one of the several acts related to this land trust, a comma was
mistakenly inserted in the society’s name after the word “Brethren,”
inadvertently giving the impression that what followed the comma was
the purpose of the act. This, of course, is the act that most religious
right authors choose to quote.
Although the United Brethren were a religious
society, and their purpose was to propagate the Gospel, Congress’s
reason for putting a land grant in their name had nothing to do with
religion. It was done to protect the land granted to a group of Indians.
At the beginning of the Revolutionary War, a
declaration of Con-gress promised that any Indians who did not aid the
British would have “all the lands they held confirmed and secured to
them”1 when the war was over. In the years following the war, the
United Brethren, concerned that a particular group of Indians, who not
only remained neutral throughout the war, but had been both displaced
by the British and attacked by American militiamen, might lose the
lands they were entitled to. Because these Indians were unable to
return at this time to claim the land themselves, the United Brethren
petitioned the Continental Congress on their behalf. Congress agreed
that these Indians had a right to the land, but, in order to secure
their claim, the land had to be put in someone’s name. The solution
that Congress agreed to was that the United Brethren form an
incorporated society to hold the land in trust.
The Indians involved in this story, who, for reasons
explained later, were referred to by Congress as the “Christian
Indians,” were permanently settled in 1772 by the great council of the
Delaware nation on land along the Muskingum River, in what is now Ohio.
With the help of Moravian missionaries, these Indians, numbering about
three hundred and seventy at that time, built three settlements,
Gnadenhutten, Schoenbrun, and Salem, which became thriving agricultural
communities.
Shortly after settling on the Muskingum, the
Christian Indians adopted a constitution of sorts, laying down the
rules that everyone had to follow in order to live at their
settlements. In 1778, although the Delaware nation was still officially
neutral in the war, many Delawares were attaching themselves to other
tribes, joining the fight on the British side. That year, at their
annual public meeting, the mostly Delaware Christian Indians voted to
add the following articles to their constitution.
19. No man inclining to go to war—which is the shedding of blood—can
remain among us.
20. Whosoever purchases goods or articles of warriors, knowing at the
time that such have been stolen or plundered, must leave us. We look
upon this as giving encouragement to murder and theft.2
Throughout the war, the Christian Indians and their
Moravian missionaries, suspected of spying for the Americans, were
harassed by British Indian allies. In August 1781, a group of British
Indians, led by a British Indian agent, broke up their settlements. The
Christian Indians were forcibly moved to Sandusky, more than a hundred
miles from their settlements, and left there with no food or supplies.
The Moravians were taken to Detroit for questioning. The following
spring, nearly a third of the Christian Indians were murdered – not by
the British, but by American militiamen.
In February 1782, some of the Christian Indians
returned to their settlements to gather whatever food and supplies they
could find to take back to Sandusky. Shortly after the Christian
Indians returned, another band of Indians from Sandusky attacked a
frontier family, killing a woman and taking her children captive. Under
the guise of pursuing the Indians who attacked this family, several
hundred Pennsylvania
years before the University of Virginia opened. The second is that,
although the Geneva Academy was originally founded by John Calvin in
1559 as theological seminary, by the late 1700s it had been transformed
into an academy of science. The plan considered by Jefferson was not to
import a religious school. It was to import a group of Europe’s top
science professors.
In 1794, François D’Ivernois, an economist
and political writer from Geneva, wrote to Thomas Jefferson and John
Adams. Political upheaval in Geneva had forced D’Ivernois into exile in
England, and was threatening the future of the Geneva Academy.
D’Ivernois, who had met both Jefferson and Adams when they were foreign
ministers in Europe, wrote separately to each of them proposing that
the faculty of the academy be relocated to the United States.
In a letter to George Washington, who was also
anxious to establish a public university in America, Jefferson
described the Geneva Academy and its faculty.
...the revolution which has taken place at Geneva has demolished the
college of that place, which was in a great measure supported by the
former government. The colleges of Geneva & Edinburgh were
considered as the two eyes of Europe in matters of science, insomuch
that no other pretended to any rivalship with either. Edinburgh has
been the most famous in medicine during the life of Cullen; but Geneva
most so in the other branches of science, and much the most resorted to
from the continent of Europe because the French language was that which
was used. a Mr. D’Ivernois, a Genevan, & man of science, known as
the author of a history of that republic, has proposed the
transplanting that college in a body to America. he has written to me
on the subject, as he has also done to Mr. Adams, as he was formerly
known to us both, giving us the details of his views for effecting it.
probably these have been communicated to you by Mr. Adams, as
D’Ivernois desired should be done; but lest they should not have been
communicated I will take the liberty of doing it. his plan I think
would go to about ten or twelve professorships. he names to me the
following professors as likely if not certain to embrace the plan.
Monchon, the present President, who wrote the Analytical
table for the Encyclopedists, & which
sufficiently proves his comprehensive science.
Pictet, known from his admeasurements of a degree, & other
works, professor of Natural philosophy.
his brother, said by M. D’Ivernois to be also great.
Senebier, author of commentaries on Spallanzani, & of other
works in Natural philosophy & Meteorology; also
the translator of the Greek tragedies.
Bertrand both mathematicians, and said to be inferior to
L’Huillier} nobody in that line except La Grange, who is with-
out an equal.
Prevost, highly spoken of by D’Ivernois.
De Saussure & his son, formerly a professor, but who left the
college to have more leisure to pursue his
geological researches into the Alps, by which work he is very
advantageously known.1
Like many of D. James Kennedy’s lies about Thomas
Jefferson, the version of the story about the Geneva Academy in What If
America Were A Christian Nation Again? is borrowed from Mark
Beliles’s introduction to his version of the Jefferson Bible, and
then changed a bit. In his chapter about Jefferson, Kennedy paraphrases
dozens of lies from Beliles’s book, changing them just enough to reveal
his complete ignorance of the actual events on which Beliles based the
original versions of the lies. In his version of the Geneva Academy
story, Beliles does connect John Calvin with this school to imply that
Jefferson wanted to import a theological seminary, but Beliles claims
only that the proposed relocation was to “form the foundations of a
state university,” not that the decades away University of Virginia was
the destination. Kennedy’s addition of this anachronism makes it pretty
clear that he has no idea that the lie he is copying is about something
that happened thirty years before the University of Virginia opened.
This doesn’t make Beliles’s version of the story any less of a lie. It
just shows that, unlike Kennedy, Beliles knows what he’s lying about.
According to Beliles’s version of the story: Jefferson
“attempted to move the entire faculty of John Calvin’s University of
Geneva to form the foundations of a state university (but was thwarted
by the legislature).”
Beliles mentions that the plan was thwarted by the
legislature, but the truth is that it never even got as far as being
proposed to the legislature. Of course, since the Geneva Academy was
not a religious school, this had nothing to do with religion.
Jefferson wanted to find out if the Virginia
legislature would be receptive to the plan before actually proposing
it, but didn’t want his name associated with it, so he asked Wilson
Nicholas, a friend and member of the legislature, to run the idea by a
few of his colleagues to see if they thought it stood any real chance
of passing.2 Nicholas reported back to Jefferson that, although the
members he spoke to liked the idea, they didn’t think the majority of
the legislature would go for it. Nicholas gave three reasons for this,
which Jefferson listed in his reply to D’Ivernois.
The reasons which they thought would with certainty prevail against it,
were 1, that our youth, not familiarized but with their mother tongue,
were not prepared to receive instructions in any other; 2, that the
expense of the institution would excite uneasiness in their
constituents, and endanger its permanence; and 3, that its extent was
disproportioned to the narrow state of the population with us. Whatever
might be urged on these several subjects, yet as the decision rested
with others, there remained to us only to regret that circumstances
were such, or were thought to be such, as to disappoint your and our
wishes.
I should have seen with peculiar satisfaction the establishment of such
a mass of science in my country, and should probably have been tempted
to approach myself to it, by procuring a residence in its neighborhood,
at those seasons
— CHAPTER SIX —
Did Prayer Save the
Constitutional Convention?
According to the religious right version of American
history, without the power of prayer, the Constitution would never have
been written. This claim is based on a speech made by Benjamin Franklin
at the Constitutional Convention on June 28, 1787. Franklin’s speech,
made at a point when disagreements among the delegates had brought
things almost to a standstill, recalled the practice of daily prayers
in Congress during the Revolutionary War, and ended with a motion that
prayers be held each morning from that point on. Although no action was
taken on Franklin’s motion, and no prayers were ever held at the
Convention, many Liars for Jesus still insist that prayers were held,
and that the Constitution never could have been written without them.
Most of the myths regarding Franklin’s motion for
prayers are not about the motion itself, but what followed the motion.
The following are two recent versions of the story from the internet.
“Benjamin Franklin then proposed that the Congress adjourn for two days
to seek divine guidance. When they returned they began each of
their sessions with prayer. The stirring speech of Benjamin
Franklin marked a turning point in the writing of the Constitution,
complete with a Bill of Rights.”
“The Assembly of 55 of America’s greatest intellects and leaders
solemnly and humbly adopted Benjamin Franklin’s motion, and each
session was thereafter begun with prayer for God’s guidance and wisdom.
The effect on the Convention was nothing short of miraculous. A sense
of order and direction emerged resulting in the adoption of what
leaders throughout the world have acknowledged as the greatest document
ever crafted by the human mind.”
Many versions of the story, like the second example
above, contain a claim that, following Franklin’s speech, the
Convention adjourned for two or three days to pray. A few even say that
George Washington immediately got up and marched the entire Convention
to a church. Neither of these things happened. The Convention met on
both of the next two days, and the subject of prayers was never brought
up again.
During the first month of the Constitutional
Convention, there were various disagreements and close votes, but
things didn’t get really ugly until the debate over how much
representation each state would have in Congress. While the majority of
the delegates agreed that representation in the House of
Representatives should be based on population, the question of
representation in the Senate divided the Convention, pitting the small
states against the large states. The small states thought every state
should have an equal representation; the large states thought the
Senate should also based on population. It wasn’t until the end of June
that the real debate on this began, a debate that came dangerously
close to putting an end to the Convention altogether. It was at this
critical point that Benjamin Franklin made his famous motion for
prayers.
Mr. President
The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance
& continual reasonings with each other – our different sentiments
on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as
ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human
Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom,
since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to
ancient history for models of Government, and examined the different
forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of
their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern
States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable
to our circumstances.
In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to
find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented
to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought
of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our
understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when
we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the
divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were
graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must
have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our
favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of
consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national
felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we
imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a
long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of
this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow
cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an
empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the
sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the House they labour in
vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that
without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building
no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little
partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we
ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And
what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance,
despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom and leave it to
chance, war and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move – that henceforth prayers imploring the
assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held
in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that
one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in
that service.1
According to James Madison’s records of the
Convention, the following is what occurred after Franklin’s speech.
Mr. Sherman seconded the motion.
Mr. Hamilton & several others expressed their apprehensions that
however proper such a resolution might have been at the beginning of
the convention, it might at this late day, 1. bring on it some
disagreeable animadversions. & 2. lead the public to believe that
the embarrassments and dissentions within the convention, had suggested
this measure. It was answered by Docr. F. Mr. Sherman & others,
that the past omission of a duty could not justify a further omission –
that the rejection of such a proposition would expose the Convention to
more unpleasant animadversions than the adoption of it: and that the
alarm out of doors that might be excited for the state of things
within. would at least be as likely to do good as ill.
Mr. Williamson, observed that the true cause of the omission could not
be mistaken. The Convention had no funds.
Mr. Randolph proposed in order to give a favorable aspect to ye.
measure, that a sermon be preached at the request of the convention on
4th of July, the anniversary of Independence,—& thenceforward
prayers be used in ye Convention every morning. Dr. Frankn. 2ded. this
motion. After several unsuccessful attempts for silently postponing the
matter by adjourng. the adjournment was at length carried, without any
vote on the motion.2
Alexander Hamilton’s objection at least made some
sense. What would people think if a minister was seen entering the the
building? Because of the complete secrecy of the Convention, curious
people were constantly hanging around outside hoping to get some idea
of what was going on. If a minister was suddenly allowed in, it might
appear that the Convention was in trouble. Hugh Williamson’s objection
that they had no money to pay a chaplain is ridiculous. Some of the
wealthiest men in the country were there. If they had really wanted
prayers, they could have scraped together the small amount of money
needed to pay a minister. They were also in a city full of Quakers,
whose ministers weren’t even allowed to accept money. There was even a
minister among the delegates. Abraham Baldwin was a former army
chaplain who had been offered the professorship of divinity at Yale. If
they were really concerned about a minister attracting the attention,
they could have asked Baldwin to lead their prayers. The delegates were
clearly just trying to find excuses to dismiss Franklin’s motion. They
even avoided voting on Edmund Randolph’s motion to postpone prayers
until the Fourth of July, which would also have solved the problem of a
minister being seen. Apparently, neither Randolph, or Franklin, who
seconded Randolph’s motion, saw a lack of funds as the problem, unless
they thought the Convention would suddenly be able to come up with
money on July 4 that it couldn’t on June 28.
Franklin made the following note at the end of his
handwritten copy of his speech.
The convention, except three or four persons, thought prayers
unnecessary.3
The religious right American history books contain
many variations of what occurred after Franklin’s motion, most of which
end up with prayers being held. In their book America’s Providential
History, for example, Mark Beliles and Stephen McDowell not only claim
that a vote was taken, but that the Convention found volunteer
chaplains.
According to Beliles and McDowell: “Mr. Sherman sec
— CHAPTER SEVEN —
Treaties with
the Barbary States
One of the most often used arguments that the United
States was not founded as a Christian nation is Article 11 of the 1797
Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey
and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary. This is a pretty good argument,
considering that the first sentence of that article begins with the
words, “As the government of the United States of America is not in any
sense founded on the Christian Religion...” Because the authors of the
religious right version of American history can’t deny that these words
are there, they attempt to dismiss them, usually using one, or a
combination of, several different arguments.
The first argument is really just a diversion,
created by pointing out a mistake sometimes made by those who bring up
this treaty. The mistake is attributing the words of Article 11 to
George Washington. Because the treaty is dated January 4, 1797, two
months before Washington left office, an assumption has occasionally
been made that he was the president who signed it. The treaty, however,
did not reach the United States until after Washington left office, so
it was actually signed by John Adams. It really doesn’t matter, of
course, whether it was Washington or Adams who signed the treaty. This
doesn’t change the fact that it contained these words.
Instances of this treaty being attributed to
Washington can be found as early as the mid-1800s, not only in
arguments about the separation of church and state, but also in
articles about the Barbary conflict or treaties in general. With the
exception of appearing on the websites of a few overzealous
separationists who, like their religious right counterparts, copy
quotes without checking their sources, the wrong attribution isn’t seen
much anymore. Nevertheless, the Liars for Jesus continue to use it an
example of secularist history revisionism. This serves two purposes.
First, of course, pointing out this error provides a way to dismiss the
treaty. Second, there are only two separationist misquotes that have
ever appeared with any frequency, and this is one of them. The second
is an out of context sentence from a lettter written by John Adams.
Religious right authors who claim that there are many such misquotes
need to use both of these because they can’t find any other examples,
although David Barton implies that he has found a third.
According to David Barton, in his book Original Intent: “Those who
advance the notion that this was the belief system of the Founders
often publish information attempting to prove that the Founders were
irreligious. Some of the quotes they set forth include:
This would be the best of all possible Worlds, if there were no
Religion in it. JOHN ADAMS
The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the
Christian religion. GEORGE WASHINGTON
I disbelieve all holy men and holy books. THOMAS PAINE
Are these statements accurate? Did these prominent Founders truly
repudiate religion? An answer will be found by an examination of the
sources of the above statements.”
Barton throws in a Thomas Paine misquote to fill out
his meager list of some of the quotes used by separationists, only to
pretend, five pages later, that this could possibly be a genuine quote,
saying that “the real story is not the accuracy of Paine’s quote, but
rather how the other Founders reacted to Paine’s declarations.”
Barton’s source for this Paine misquote is an obscure document from the
Society of Separationists that is never actually used or copied by any
separationists. A search on Google for this misquote, for example, does
not produce a single hit. Yet Barton implies that this is a commonly
used misquote by presenting it along with the two misquotes that are
actually used. Adding this virtually unheard of misquote, of course,
also gives him a reason to present several pages of quotes from
founders who denounced Paine and his writings.
Barton’s footnote for his three misquote examples
says to “see also” an op-ed piece by Steven Morris entitled America’s
Unchristian Beginnings, which appeared in the Los Angeles Times on
August 3, 1995. Morris, however, did not misquote Paine, and did not
wrongly attribute the quote from the Treaty of Tripoli to George
Washington. He accurately quoted a passage from Paine’s Age of Reason –
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the
Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the
Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those
churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I
disbelieve them all” – and correctly said of the Treaty of Tripoli that
it “was during Adam’s administration that the Senate ratified the
Treaty.”
There is no great number, or widespread use, of
separationist misquotes. In fact, there are far more religious right
websites pointing out and correcting the Adams and Washington misquotes
than separationist websites that actually use these misquotes.
Similarly, a search for Barton’s sources turns up only rebuttals of the
Morris piece, and copies of Barton’s citation of the Society of
Separationists document, but no instances of anybody using or quoting
from either. The only part of Barton’s straw argument that has any
merit is the use of the out of context quote from John Adams, which
was, in fact, used by Morris in his 1995 article. This misquote still
appears on a significant number of websites, and is occasionally seen
elsewhere. The majority of separationists, however, know that this
quote is taken out of context, and not only do not use it, but point it
out to others as a misquote. For example, the foreword to one popular
collection of separationist quotes, which is available in print and on
the internet, contains the following statement: “All of these quotes
have been throughly researched. None are ‘out of context’ or otherwise
misleading. For example, the bogus John Adams’ quote, ‘...this would be
the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it ...’ is
not included.”1
According to Barton: “The John Adams quote is taken from a letter he
wrote to Thomas Jefferson on April 19, 1817, in which Adams illustrated
the intorlerance often manifested between Christians in their
denominational disputes. Adams recounted a comversation between two
ministers he had known:
[S]eventy years ago....Lemuel Bryant was my parish priest, and Joseph
Cleverly my Latin schoolmaster. Lemuel was a jocular [humorous] and
liberal scholar and divine. Joseph a scholar and a gentleman....The
Parson and the Pedagogue lived much together, but were eternally
disputing about government and religion. One day, when the schoolmaster
[Joseph Cleverly] had been more than commonly fanatical and declared
‘if he were a monarch, he would have but one religion in his
dominions;’ the Parson [Lemuel Bryant] cooly replied, ‘Cleverly! you
would be the best man in the world if you had no religion.’
Lamenting these types of petty disputes, Adams de-clared to Jefferson:
Twenty times, in the course of my late reading
— CHAPTER EIGHT —
Treaties with
Christian Nations
According to the religious right version of American
history, references to Christianity in treaties with European powers
are to be interpreted as acknowledgements by the Americans who signed
those treaties that America was a Christian nation.
D. James Kennedy, in his book What If America Were A Christian Nation
Again?, states: “The Treaty of Paris of 1783, negotiated by Ben
Franklin, John Adams, and John Jay, acknowledged the Trinity as it made
official our separation with Britain.”
David Barton, in his book Original Intent, uses the same example:
“...on September 8, 1783, the formal peace treaty with Great Britain
was signed by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay. Like so many
of the other official records of the Revolution, that document, too,
openly acknowledged God. The opening line of the peace treaty declared:
In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.”
This reference to the trinity was not an
acknowledgement by the government of the United States that America was
a Christian nation. It was an acknowledgement by the government of
England that England was a Christian nation. “In the name of the Most
Holy and Undivided Trinity” was the customary way that England, like
most of the Christian nations of Europe, began their treaties and other
documents. The United States had nothing to do with this wording.
Unlike the Arabic and Turkish treaties in the
previous chapter, where the religious references of the other party
were removed during the translation process, treaties with England were
already in English, so they were just copied as is. Where the customary
“may God strengthen” after the names of Barbary rulers was omitted, the
customary “by the grace of God” between the name and title of Christian
monarchs remained.
Most treaties began with a preamble that included
the reason for the treaty, the names and titles of the parties
involved, and the agents each had authorized to make the treaty. In
these statements, the names of monarchs, and sometimes of agents, were
followed by all of the titles they held. Some of these titles
were religious and others were not, like those of George III.
...the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the
grace of God King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Duke of
Brunswick and Lunenbourg, arch-treasurer and elector of the holy Roman
Empire...1
In religious right history books, these strings of
titles are sometimes edited to show only the religious titles, such as
Defender of the Faith. This title, bestowed on Henry VIII by Pope Leo X
in the 1520s for taking a stand against Martin Luther continued to be
used by Henry, even after breaking with the Catholic Church. It was
defiantly included in the Preface to the 39 Articles of the Church of
England – “being by God’s Ordinance, according to Our just Title,
Defender of the Faith...” – and has been used by all monarchs of Great
Britain since.
Although also containing religious references, what
aren’t included in the religious right history books are the silly
sounding titles,
— CHAPTER NINE —
James Madison’s
Detached Memoranda
In 1946, a lost document written by James Madison
was found among the family papers of one of his biographers. This small
collection of essays, which Madison called Detached Memoranda, includes
some anecdotes about Benjamin Franklin, explanations of some key events
from the Washington administration, thoughts on banks and elections,
and recollections of writing the Federalist. It also includes an essay
titled Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical
Endowments, much of which is about religion and the government. In this
essay, Madison detailed his objections to mixing religion and
government in even the smallest ways. A few of the practices he singled
out as being unconstitutional or potentially dangerous were tax
supported chaplains in Congress and in the military, and government
proclamations of days of prayer and thanksgiving. Religious right
American history authors hate this document, and usually attempt to
discredit it in some way before even getting to its actual content.
Some begin by subtlety shedding a little doubt on
the document’s authenticity.
According to Daniel Dreisbach, in his book Real Threat and Mere Shadow:
“The ‘Detached Memoranda’ is a problematic document thought to be in
the hand of James Madison, discovered in 1946 in the family papers of
Madison’s biographer, William Cabell Rives.”
The Detached Memoranda are not “thought to be” in
the hand of James Madison. They are in the hand of James Madison. There
has never been any question about this.
According to David Barton, on his WallBuilders website: “Significantly,
the ‘Detached Memoranda’ was ‘discovered’ in 1946 in the papers of
Madison biographer William Cabell Rives and was first published more
than a century after Madison’s death by Elizabeth Fleet in the October
1946 William & Mary Quarterly.”
There is nothing at all significant about the fact
that this document was discovered in 1946, and 1946 was not the first
time that the document, at least the part regarding religion and
government, was published. The entire essay Monopolies, Perpetuities,
Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments was published in Harper’s
Magazine in 1914. This prior publication was mentioned by Elizabeth
Fleet in her 1946 William and Mary Quarterly article, the same article
that Barton refers to and cites as his source.
The interesting history of the Detached Memoranda,
and how a copy of one of its essays came to be in the hands of Harper
Brothers, was explained in part by Gaillard Hunt, who wrote an
introduction to Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical
Endowments for Harper’s Magazine in 1914. Hunt, of course, had no way
of knowing that this essay was copied from a larger document that
wouldn’t be found until 1946, or that this document was used and quoted
from by William Cabell Rives when he wrote his biography of Madison in
the 1860s. This part of the document’s history was filled in by
Elizabeth Fleet in her 1946 article.
The following was Gaillard Hunt’s introduction to
the 1914 publication of Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations,
Ecclesiastical Endowments in Harper’s Magazine.
James Madison retired from the Presidency in 1817 and died in 1836,
nineteen years later. This was the growing period of American
nationality, and it was during these years that an enduring attachment
was formed for the frame of government under which the growth took
place. So, as
— CHAPTER TEN —
The Election of 1800
Most religious right American history books contain
at least a few quotes from various founders warning of the danger of
atheists and infidels in the government. While the majority of these
quotes, and misquotes, come from debates and letters about the
Constitution’s no religious test clause, there are some that come from
another source – the anti-Jefferson pamphlets distributed by religious
leaders during the presidential campaign of 1800. Quoting these
pamphlets, however, is a bit tricky for those authors who, elsewhere in
their books, attempt to prove that Thomas Jefferson was a devout
Christian. The problem is that the religious leaders who wrote these
pamphlets weren’t trying to prove that Jefferson was a Christian. They
were trying to prove that he wasn’t. Today’s religious right authors,
not wanting to pass up a goldmine of quotes about the importance of
electing only Christians to the government, have found a few ways to
get around the fact that their predecessors considered Jefferson not
only irreligious, but a danger to religion. Some claim that the
pamphleteers of 1800 were wrong about Jefferson but right about
everything else. Others quote the statements about the dangers of
electing infidels, and simply omit that Jefferson was the infidel these
statements were aimed at.
One of Jefferson’s biggest adversaries was a Dutch
Reformed minister from New York, Rev. William Linn. During the campaign
of 1800, Rev. Linn published Serious Considerations on the Election of
a President: Addressed to the Citizens of the United States, a pamphlet
in which he argued that Jefferson was unfit to be elected president
because he was at best a deist, and at worst an atheist. Much of the
evidence presented by Linn to support his assertions came from
Jefferson’s own book, Notes on the State of Virginia.
Although a number of other ministers wrote similar
pamphlets, Rev. Linn’s Serious Considerations is the one most often
quoted in the religious right American history books. The reason for
this is that, eleven years earlier, Linn had been elected by the House
of Representatives as their first chaplain. By coupling quotes from his
1800 pamphlet with his election by the House of Representatives in
1789, the authors of these books are able to imply that the same
Congress that wrote the Bill of Rights also endorsed Linn’s opinion
that allowing atheists and infidels to hold public office was a danger
to America.
In his book America’s God and Country, William Federer describes Rev.
Linn, and uses what is probably the most popular quote from Serious
Considerations: “William Linn on May 1, 1789, was elected by the United
States House of Representatives as its chaplain, and a salary of $500
was appropriated from the Federal treasury. Being a respected minister
in New York City, and the father of the famous poet John Blair Linn
(1777-1804), William Linn alleged:
Let my neighbor once persuade himself that there is no God, and he will
soon pick my pocket, and break not only my leg but my neck. If there is
no God, there is no law; no future account; government then is the
ordinance of man only, and we cannot be subject for conscience sake.”
What William Federer neglects to mention is that
this quote was Rev. Linn’s response to the following statement from
Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia.
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are
injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say
there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks
my leg.1
David Barton, in his book The Myth of Separation,
does mention that Serious Considerations was an attack on Jefferson. He
even quotes Jefferson’s statement from Notes on Virginia, and
acknowledges that this is what Rev. Linn was responding to. Barton just
fails to attribute Jefferson’s statement to Jefferson, attributing it
only to an anonymous prominent man of the founding era. Then, to
eliminate any possible connection to Jefferson, he places these
statements about two hundred pages after the part of his book on the
election of 1800, and omits the fact that Linn’s statement came from
Serious Considerations.
According to Barton: “The argument of whether religion is necessary to
society and government is not new. The same dispute occurred between
two prominent men in the founding era. The first asserted:
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are
injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say
there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks
my leg.
William Linn, an outspoken critic of this philosophy, responded with a
statement that summarized the convictions of the majority of the
Founders and that has since been confirmed by experience in this
country:
Let my neighbor once persuade himself that there is no God, and he will
soon pick my pocket, and break not only my leg but my neck. If there is
no God, there is no law; no future account; government then is the
ordinance of man only, and we cannot be subject for conscience sake.”
The following is the section of Linn’s Serious
Considerations in which the quote used by Barton and Federer appears.
THERE is another passage in Mr. Jefferson’s Notes which requires the
most serious attention. In showing that civil rulers ought not to
interfere with the rights of conscience, and that the legitimate powers
of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others,
he says, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only
as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour
to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor
breaks my leg.” The whole passage is written with a great degree of
spirit, it is remarkable for that conciseness, perspicuity and force
which characterize the style of Mr. Jefferson.
Some have ventured from the words I have quoted, to bring even the
charge of atheism against him. This is a high charge, and it becomes
carefully to examine the ground upon which it rests. Though the words
themselves, their connection, and the design for which they are
introduced may be insufficient to support it, yet there are concurrent
circumstances to be taken into consideration, and which will fix at
least a suspicion. These circumstances are, a general disregard of
religious things, the associates at home and abroad, and the principles
maintained in conversation. with these things I am not so well
acquainted as many. I shall only mention what passed in conversation
between Mr. Jefferson and a gentleman of distinguished talents and
services, on the necessity of religion to government. The gentleman
insisted that some religious faith and institutions of worship,
claiming a divine origin, were necessary to the order and peace of
society. Mr. Jefferson said that he differed widely from him, and that
“he wished to see a government in which no religious opinions were
held, and where the security for property and social order rested
entirely upon the force of the law.” Would not this be a nation of
Atheists? Is it not natural, after the free declaration of such a
sentiment, to suspect the man himself of Atheism? Could one who is
impressed with the existence of a God, the Creator,
— CHAPTER ELEVEN —
More Lies About
Benjamin Franklin
While his famous motion for prayers at the
Constitutional Convention is by far the most popular, and often the
only, Benjamin Franklin story in religious right American history
books, some books contain a number of other Franklin lies. Many of
these are simply out of context quotes, such as the following from
David Barton’s book Original Intent, which has become a favorite on
websites that support censorship.
According to Barton: “Concerning the balance between the freedom of the
press and the responsibility of the press, printer and publisher
Benjamin Franklin ex-plained:
If by the liberty of the press were understood merely the liberty of
discussing the propriety of public measures and political opinions, let
us have as much of it as you please; But if it means the liberty of
affronting, calumniating [falsely accusing], and defaming one another,
I, for my part...[am] willing to part with my share of it when our
legislators shall please so to alter the law, and shall cheerfully
consent to exchange my liberty of abusing others for the privilege of
not being abused myself.”
What Barton quotes is from a satire written by
Franklin in 1789 entitled An Account of the Supremest Court of
Judicature in Pennsylvania, viz., The Court of the Press. Franklin was
condemning abuses of the press, as well as people who supported these
abuses by creating a market for them, but he wasn’t seriously proposing
limiting the freedom of the press. By the end of this article, Franklin
had arrived at what he thought was a very practical solution to the
problem – leave the freedom of the press alone, but change the battery
laws to make it perfectly legal for a victim of libel to give their
libeller “a good drubbing.”
...since so much has been written and published on the federal
constitution, and the necessity of checks in all other parts of good
government has been so clearly and learnedly explained, I find myself
so far enlightened as to suspect some check may be proper in this part
also; but I have been at a loss to imagine any that may not be
construed an infringement of the sacred liberty of the Press. At
length, however, I think I have found one that, instead of diminishing
general liberty, shall augment it; which is, by restoring to the people
a species of liberty, of which they have been deprived by our laws, I
mean the liberty of the Cudgel.—In the rude state of society prior to
the existence of laws, if one man gave another ill language, the
affronted person would return it by a box on the ear, and, if repeated,
by a good drubbing; and this without offending against any law. But now
the right of making such returns is denied, and they are punished as
breaches of the peace; while the right of abusing seems to remain in
full force, the laws made against it being rendered ineffectual by the
liberty of the Press.
My proposal then is, to leave the liberty of the Press untouched, to be
exercised in its full extent, force, and vigour, but to permit the
liberty of the Cudgel to go with it pari passu. Thus, my
fellow-citizens, if an impudent writer attacks your reputation, dearer
to you perhaps than your life, and puts his name to the charge, you may
go to him as openly and break his head. If he conceals himself behind
the print
— CHAPTER TWELVE —
More Lies About
Thomas Jefferson
While different types of lies about Thomas Jefferson
are created for different purposes, most of those regarding the years
of his presidency are designed primarily to make it appear that he
approved of government financial support for religion. One such lie,
found in religious right American history books for years, has recently
become very popular among the supporters of faith-based initiatives.
According to David Barton’s WallBuilders website: “Jefferson assured a
Christian religious school that it would receive ‘the patronage of the
government.’”
According to Mark Beliles, in the introduction to his version of the
Jefferson Bible: “ ...in an 1804 letter to the Ursuline nuns in New
Orleans, he personally promised his government would help their
Catholic school.”
Jefferson did not promise any government funding
whatsoever to the school referred to in this lie.
When the United States purchased Louisiana from
France in 1803, the nuns at the Ursuline convent in New Orleans, like
many of the territory’s inhabitants, were concerned about the status of
their property. The Ursulines’ convent and school had been built on
land granted by government of France in 1734, and much of the income
that supported these institutions came from two other properties,
granted by the later Spanish government. Following the purchase of the
territory, a wide variety of rumors were spread by anti-American
natives of New Orleans. Among these were two about the convent. One was
that the United States government planned to confiscate the convent’s
property and immediately expel the nuns from the country. The other was
that no new novices would be allowed to enter the convent, but that the
government would let the nuns who were already there stay, and then
take the property after they all died off.
The nuns’ uncertainty about their future in New
Orleans actually began before the United States’ purchase, when the
French prefect, Pierre-Clemént Laussat, arrived to take
possession of Louisiana from Spain in March 1803. On June 10, 1803, the
territory’s twenty-six priests were given permission by their superiors
to return to Spain if they wanted to, and all but four did. Although
the Ursulines were assured by Laussat that they had nothing to fear
from the French government, most of them, including the convent’s
mother superior, also left New Orleans, requesting to be sent to
Havana. Only nine of the twenty-five decided to stay, electing Sr.
Therese de St. Xavier Farjon to be their new mother superior.
Within a week of the official proclamation of the
treaty ceding Louisiana to the United States, William C.C. Claiborne,
the territorial governor, attended a ceremony at the convent and
personally assured the remaining nuns that both their property and
religious liberty would be protected by their new government. On
December 27, 1803, Claiborne wrote to Secretary of State James Madison
that he had visited the convent, and that the nuns who had fled to
Havana would soon be returning.
As far as Claiborne could tell, he had successfully
convinced the nuns that their property and other rights were protected
by the treaty of cession and the Constitution. In June 1804, however,
he was asked by Mother Farjon to forward a letter from the convent to
Thomas Jefferson. Claiborne sent this to Jefferson, accompanied by the
following cover letter.
At the particular request of the Superior of the Convent in this city,
I have the honor to enclose you a communication from the Ursuline Nuns.
These respectable ladies merit and possess a great share of the public
esteem; their conduct is exemplary, and their time is usefully employed
in the education of female youth. During my short residence in this
city, I have paid the Nuns very great respect and given them assurances
of the protection and friendly regard of the Government of the United
States. I believe I have succeeded in conciliating their affections,
and rendering their minds tranquil: it seems however that, they of late
entertain some fears that their property cannot be secured to them and
their successors without an act of Congress, and I understand that it
is on this subject they have addressed you.1
Mother Farjon’s letter, as Claiborne had expected,
was a request from the nuns to have their property officially confirmed
to them by Congress.
Emboldened by the favorable mention you have been pleased to make of
their order, the Nuns of St. Ursula at New Orleans take the liberty of
addressing you on a subject highly interesting to their institution!
They believe that without any direct application, the treaty of
Cession, and the sence of Justice which marks the character of the
United States, would have secured to them the property they now
possess, but considering a sacred deposit, they would fail in a duty
they deem essential were they to ommit requesting, that it may be
formally confirmed to them & their successors, & that you may
be pleased to communicate this request to the Congress of the United
States in such a manner as you may deem proper....2
Jefferson’s reply to this letter is the source of
the lie that he promised financial support to a Catholic school. The
sentence this lie is based on, however, had nothing to do with money.
Jefferson obviously suspected from the timing of the nuns’ request that
this sudden renewal of concern about their property might have been
caused by a recent incident in which another Catholic church in New
Orleans was shut down by United States officials. Claiborne had been
promising the nuns for months that there was no truth to the rumors
that their property might be confiscated, and that the government of
the United States would never interfere with a religious institution,
so the closing of this church, and the fact that Claiborne had
apparently done nothing to stop it, would naturally have given them
cause to doubt his promises.
The situation that caused the closing of the church
had to do with a dispute between two rival priests. Laussat had
replaced the priest at this church, but the head of the Catholic church
in Louisiana objected to the appointment and reinstated the old priest.
When both priests, along with their supporters, showed up for mass on
the same Sunday, the district commandant closed the church to prevent a
riot from breaking out. Jefferson did not approve of this preemptive
action, as he wrote to Madison on July 5, 1804.
I think it was an error in our officer to shut the doors of the church,
and in the Governor to refer it to the Roman catholic head. The priests
must settle their differences in their own way, provided they commit no
breach of the peace. If they break the peace they should be arrested.
On our principles all church-discipline is voluntary; and never to be
enforced by the public authority; but on the contrary to be punished
when it extends to acts of force. The Govr. should restore the keys of
the church to the priest who was in possession.3
About a week after writing this to Madison,
Jefferson received the letter from the Ursuline convent. Jefferson knew
that there was no point in laying the convent’s request before Congress
because they were not yet making determinations about land claims in
the territory, so he began his reply by assuring the nuns that their
property was secure even without an official confirmation. The rest of
his letter, based on his assumption that the nuns’ concern was caused
by the clos
— CHAPTER THIRTEEN —
Jefferson, Madison,
and Blackstone?
One name almost always found in arguments that our
laws are based on the Bible is Sir William Blackstone, an English
jurist and law professor, whose lectures were published in the 1760s as
a four volume work entitled Commentaries on the Laws of England.
Blackstone’s Commentaries contains many references to Christianity,
most found in a chapter entitled “Of Offences Against God and
Religion.” The first step of these Blackstone arguments is to present a
few passages from this chapter. The following are two of the most
popular.
[T]he preservation of Christianity, as a national religion, is,
abstracted from its own intrinsic truth, of the utmost consequence to
the civil state, which a single instance will sufficiently
demonstrate....1
To deny the possibility, nay, actual existence of witchcraft and
sorcery, is at once to contradict the revealed word of God in various
passages both of the Old and New Testaments...2
Once they’ve established that Blackstone considered
Christianity to be an integral part of English common law, and pointing
out the widespread use of his Commentaries in America, the Liars for
Jesus single out Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, claiming that they
were two of Blackstone’s biggest fans. But, the truth is that Jefferson
and Madison were among those who most strongly disapproved of the use
of Blackstone’s Commentaries in America.
According to David Barton, in his book Original Intent: Blackstone’s
“influence in America was so great that Edmund Burke told the British
Parliament:
I hear that they have sold nearly as many of Blackstone’s Commentaries
in America as in England.”
The reason for pointing out the popularity of
Blackstone’s in America is, of course, to imply that all of our
founders considered Christianity to be an integral part of American
law. The real reason that so many copies of Blackstone’s were sold in
America, however, had nothing to do with religion, or even American
law. When Blackstone’s first became available in America, it wasn’t
only lawyers who were running out to buy it. It was average colonists
who wanted to educate themselves on the laws of England in order to
understand their rights as British subjects and to be able to recognize
when these rights were being violated. For this reason, sales of all
law books had increased to some degree in the years leading up to the
Revolution. When Blackstone’s was printed in America in 1771, it was an
instant best-seller. This was the first law book written in language
and arranged in a way that non-lawyers could easily understand. It was
The Laws of England for Dummies, and every American who could read was
reading it.
The sentence that David Barton takes out of context
from Edmund Burke’s March 1775 speech comes from a part of that speech
in which Burke attributed the “disobedient spirit in the colonies” in
part to the large number of colonists reading law books.
...The colonists have now fallen into the way of printing them for
their own use. I hear that they have sold nearly as many of
Blackstone’s Commentaries in America as in England. General Gage marks
out this disposition very particularly in a letter on your table. He
states, that all the people in his government are lawyers, or
smatterers in law; and that in Boston they have been enabled, by
successful chicane, wholly to evade many parts of one of your capital
penal constitutions. The smartness of debate will say, that this
knowledge ought to teach them more clearly the rights of legislature,
their obligations to obedience, and the penalties of rebellion. All
this is mighty well. But my honourable and learned friend on the floor,
who condescends to mark what I say for animadversion, will disdain that
ground. He has heard, as well as I, that when great honours and great
emoluments do not win over this knowledge to the service of the state,
it is a formidable adversary to government. If the spirit be not tamed
and broken by these happy methods, it is stubborn and litigious. Abeunt
studia in mores. This study renders men acute, inquisitive, dexterous,
prompt in attack, ready in defence, full of resources. In other
countries, the people, more simple, and of a less mercurial cast, judge
of an ill principle in government only by an actual grievance; here
they anticipate the evil, and judge of the pressure of the grievance by
the badness of the principle. They augur misgovernment at a distance;
and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze.3
After establishing that Blackstone’s Commentaries
was very religious, and that it sold well in America, the next step is
to connect its use to some prominent founders. The two founders whose
opinions of Blackstone’s are most often lied about are, of course,
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
According to David Barton, in his book Original Intent: “Blackstone’s
Commentaries on the Laws, introduced in 1766, became the law book of
the Founding Fathers. (In fact, so strong was its influence in America
that Thomas Jefferson once quipped that American lawyers used
Blackstone’s with the same dedication and reverence that Muslims used
the Koran.)”
The quip referred to by Barton is found in an 1810
letter from Jefferson to John Tyler, a Virginia judge, Governor of
Virginia, and father of the future president.
I have long lamented with you the depreciation of law science.
The opinion seems to be that Blackstone is to us what the Alcoran is to
the Mahometans, that everything which is necessary is in him, and what
is not in him is not necessary. I still lend my counsel and books
to such young students as will fix themselves in the neighborhood.
Coke’s institutes and reports are their first, and Blackstone their
last book, after an intermediate course of two or three years. It is
nothing more than an elegant digest of what they will then have
acquired from the real fountains of the law.4
Because the sole purpose of the authors of the
religious right version of American history is to promote the notion
that America is a Christian nation, they present everything only in
reference to religion. Most of these books are little more than lists
of isolated quotes and events, completely separated from any other
factors that led to these quotes or events. The Blackstone lies are a
good example of this. Of course Thomas Jefferson didn’t think the
religious laws in Blackstone’s were part of American law. That goes
without saying. His two biggest reasons for disliking Blackstone’s,
however, had nothing to do with it’s religious content.
The first is that Jefferson just didn’t consider
Blackstone’s to be very instructive for law students. He often
described it as nothing more than a summary of what was found in
earlier books, and told the students that he advised to read it only
after studying everything else. Jefferson’s opinion was that reading
Blackstone’s led students to think they knew a lot more than they
actually did, as he wrote in 1812 in another letter to John Tyler.
A student finds there a smattering of everything, and his indolence
easily persuades him that if he understands that book, he is master of
the whole body of the law. The distinction between these, and those who
have drawn their stores from the deep and rich mines of Coke on
Littleton, seems well understood even by the unlettered common people,
who apply the appellation of Blackstone lawyers to these ephemeral
insects of the law.5
The second, and most important, reason that
Jefferson disapproved of Blackstone’s was that it contained British
principles that were incompatible with, and even dangerous to, the
republican principles of American government. It wasn’t the founding
generation that was heavily influenced by Blackstone, as the religious
right authors claim. Most lawyers among the founders had studied law
before Blackstone’s Commentaries was even published. It was
Blackstone’s influence on the next generation of lawyers that Jefferson
was worried about. The use of Blackstone’s as a primary text book was
part of Jefferson’s overall concern about what was being taught in
America’s colleges in the early 1800s, particularly in the Northern
states, where lawyers who had been among the “British” Federalists in
the 1790s were teaching the next generation. This was the faction that
had always favored hanging on to the aristocratic and monarchical
customs of England, ideas which were glorified by Blackstone.
Jefferson wrote about this in an 1814 letter to
Horatio Spafford, who had just published A Gazetteer of the State of
New York and sent him a copy. Spafford noted in this book that, in his
state, the British principles that had never ceased to exist among
merchants and the clergy had also crept into the law profession. One of
the influences Jefferson blamed this on was Blackstone’s Commentaries.
They [lawyers] have, in the Mother country, been generally the firmest
supporters of the free principles of their constitution. But there too
they have changed. I ascribe much of this to the substitution of
Blackstone for my Lord Coke, as an ele
American
History, Religious Right, history revisionism, history revisionists,
Religious right history lies, Christian history lies, revisionists,
WallBuilders, David Barton, Myth of Separation, Original Intent, Church
and State, Separation of Church and State, Christian nation, James
Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Detached Memoranda, Benjamin Franklin, Liars
for Jesus, Northwest Ordinance, Treaty of Tripoli, William Federer, D.
James Kennedy, Gary DeMar, John Eidsmoe, Mark Beliles, Religious
Freedom, First Amendment, Bill of Rights, Founding Fathers, Founders,
Christian America, Church State Separation, Ten Commandments, Pledge of
Allegiance, Bible in Public schools, prayer in public schools, school
prayer, Franklin's motion for prayers
|
