The Jefferson Lies being pulled by Thomas Nelson did not make this book go away any more than it made Barton himself go away. Barton is still selling off the thousands of copies he bought back from Thomas Nelson, and, although his claim that the book has been picked up by Simon & Schuster is certainly just another one of his lies, I have no doubt it will be republished by somebody when the supply of Thomas Nelson leftovers runs out. Therefore, I've continued my debunking of Barton's little masterpiece of historical revisionism.
Monday, September 16, 2013
New Post From Rodda on HuffPo
Check it out here. A taste:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
Chris failed to prove her claim in this article. She claimed that Rhode Island did not send delegates to the Constitutional Convention and refused to ratify the Constitution because that state "had essentially become a state run by criminals." In support of this claim, Chris only presented claims from people outside of that state who brought accusations against it. She did not produce a single statement from the state itself explaining their refusal to send delegates to the Convention or their refusal to ratify the Constitution. She did include some statements from citizens of Rhode Island complaining about the paper money bill, but that's a far cry from an explanation for their initial rejection of the Constitution.
Let me make the suggestion that if Chris were to consult the actual debates of the Rhode Island ratifying convention, she might find a very different reason for Rhode Island's reluctance. In support of this suggestion, let me present an excerpt from a letter sent by the state of Rhode Island to the President, Senate and Congress of the eleven united states assembled:
The people of this State from its first settlement have been accustomed and strongly attached to a Democratical form of Government. They have viewed in the Constitution an approach, though perhaps, but small towards that form of Government from which we have lately dissolved our connection, at so much hazard and expence of Life and treasure they have seen with pleasure the administration thereof from the most important trust downwards committed to men who have highly merited and in whom the people of the United States place unbounded confidence: yet even in this circumstance, in itself so fortunate, they have apprehended danger by way of Presedent—can it be thought strange then that with these impressions they should wait to see the proposed system organised and in operation? to see what further checks and securities would be agreed to and established, by way of amendments, before they could adopt it as a Constitution of Government for themselves and their posterity? These amendments we believe have already afforded some relief and satisfaction to the minds of the people of this State And we earnestly look for the time when they may with clearness and safety be again united with their sister States, under a Constitution and form of Government, so well poised as neither to need alteration, or be liable thereto, by a majority only of nine States out of thirteen, a circumstance which may possibly take place against the sense of a majority of the people of the United States. We are sensible of the extremes to which Democratical Government is sometimes liable, something of which we have lately experienced, but we esteem them temporary and partial evils compared with the loss of Liberty and the rights of a free people, neither do we apprehend they will be marked with severity by our sister States, when it is considered that during the late trouble, the whole United States notwithstanding their joint wisdom and efforts fell into the like misfortune.
While this letter does not prove Barton's claim any more than it proves the claim made by Chris, it does seem to tilt the scale more in Barton's favor by indicating that the people of Rhode Island were concerned about the loss of liberty rather than the continuation of a corrupt government.
So, Bill ... you're saying that George Washington, James Madison, Francis Hopkinson, and Edward Carrington were ALL wrong about the real reason that Rhode Island wasn't sending delegates when they and the other big name founders were all writing back and forth to each other about it in 1787? These were just some people from other states who didn't know what was really going on? WOW! You'll try to defend Barton no matter what the evidence, won't you?
And quoting from the ratifying convention, as you did, says nothing about their reason for not sending delegates to the convention. Of course they said the same thing that all the other anti-federalist were saying about wanting the amendments before agreeing to ratification once the Constitution was written.
Oh, and I should add that it wasn't the "people of Rhode Island" who were opposed to sending delegates to the Constitutional Convention. But the average, honest citizens of the state had no say in the matter. The sending of delegates was up to the legislature, which was full of the dishonest, corrupt men who didn't want a strong federal government that would interfere with their abuses of the average citizens. The average farmers and merchants WANTED a strong federal government, which also kills Barton's argument that the Baptists being afraid of a federal government for religious reasons had anything to do with this.
Actually, Chris, I did not quote from the ratifying convention. I quoted a letter sent from the government of Rhode Island to the government of the eleven united states prior to that convention in which they offered their side of the story. Unfortunately, you have still not provide any documentation from the government of Rhode Island at all.
Additionally, while I did not provide any insight into why Rhode Island did not send delegates to the convention, surely you realize that your implication that the people of Rhode Island were in favor of the Constitution is refuted by the fact that Rhode Island originally chose not to ratify the Constitution because they sent copies of it all of their local town halls, and it was voted down by the people themselves. Their ratification did not occur until their state government formed a convention to reexamine the Constitution in light of the amendments.
As for Barton, I've disagreed with him as often as I have agreed with him, and in this instance, I have not sided with either of you yet. I am simply pointing out that your argument is flawed.
But the anti-federalist/wanting amendments before ratification stand was just something that was typical in all the states that demanded amendments. This says NOTHING about why Rhode Island didn't send delegates to the convention.
And you didn't answer my question.
Do you think that George Washington, James Madison, Francis Hopkinson, and Edward Carrington were ALL wrong about the real reason that Rhode Island wasn't sending delegates when they and the other big name founders were all writing back and forth to each other about it in 1787?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
I suspect that their accusations were more nuanced than you are admitting, but in order to determine whether these were true or not, we must compare them with the actual deliberations of the government of Rhode Island. You have not attempted to do this.
Yes, because the members of the Rhode Island legislature were of course going to publicly say that they didn't want to send delegates to the convention because they didn't want a federal government that would put a stop to their money laundering scam.
And what on earth could possibly be considered "nuanced" about the statements from Washington, Madison, and the others? What is it that you think I'm not "admitting"?
Well, for one thing, you are completely ignoring the battle over the impost tax which Rhode Island single-handedly defeated by refusing her support. This conflict continued from 1781 to 1789, and it generated a huge amount of animosity against Rhode Island. It was this refusal to allow the federal government to impose taxes within the states that was the original source of the "Rhode Island bashing" that you referenced, and all of your quotes from the founders could be seen as references to this display of stubbornness.
Aside from this (or perhaps in light of this), the fact still remains that you have not proven your claim. If Rhode Island opposed the Constitution solely because it would force them to abandon a dishonest monetary system, then you should be able to provide documentation from the Rhode Island ratification letter as well as that state's collection of "Papers relating to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States." I have not read the latter, but the ratification letter did not make any mention of paper money in its 18 declarations of fact, and paper money was only the subject of one of the 21 amendments which they proposed.
Chris failed to prove her claim in this article.
Hilarious. Fortenberry out-Roddas Rodda. And didn't even need to stoop to calling her a "liar."
Therefore, I've continued my debunking of Barton's little masterpiece of historical revisionism.
Well, the reality is that Barton got dropped by publisher Thomas Nelson because some left-wing activist preachers made a stink about Barton soft-pedalling Jefferson's slaveowning and threatened a boycott, so whatever.
You guys are cracking me up. You really desperately need Barton to be right, don't you?
Please, please, please try to explain this one away, just to amuse me:
Barton writes:
It is important to note that it was not secular civil leaders who emphasized the separation of the Church from the control of the State but rather Bible-based ministers. In fact, it was English Reformation clergyman Reverend Richard Hooker who first used the phrase during the reign of England's King Henry VIII, calling for a “separation of… Church and Commonwealth.” (Recall that Henry wanted a divorce, but when the Church refused to give it, he simply started his own national church – the Anglican Church – and gave himself the divorce under his new state-established doctrines.)
Here we have another anachronism. Henry VIII was king of England from 1509 to 1547.
Richard Hooker wasn’t even born until 1554. I don’t think any further comment is necessary on this point.
Whoops ... my bold tags got messed up there so I'm posting my comment again.
You guys are cracking me up. You really desperately need Barton to be right, don't you?
Please, please, please try to explain this one away, just to amuse me:
Barton writes:
It is important to note that it was not secular civil leaders who emphasized the separation of the Church from the control of the State but rather Bible-based ministers. In fact, it was English Reformation clergyman Reverend Richard Hooker who first used the phrase during the reign of England's King Henry VIII, calling for a “separation of… Church and Commonwealth.” (Recall that Henry wanted a divorce, but when the Church refused to give it, he simply started his own national church – the Anglican Church – and gave himself the divorce under his new state-established doctrines.)
Here we have another anachronism. Henry VIII was king of England from 1509 to 1547. Richard Hooker wasn’t even born until 1554. I don’t think any further comment is necessary on this point.
Punking Barton is easy. Fortenberry punking Rodda by her own standards is where the humor comes in.
"Chris failed to prove her claim in this article. She claimed that Rhode Island did not send delegates to the Constitutional Convention and refused to ratify the Constitution because that state "had essentially become a state run by criminals." In support of this claim, Chris only presented claims from people outside of that state who brought accusations against it."
As for Rev. Richard Hooker, the "Father of Anglicanism," his argument about the separation of "church and Commonwealth" deserves to be discussed in its own right, not used as a mere tool for punking Barton over an anachronism. The point holds. This is the difference between being concerned with truth, and merely being concerned with getting at David Barton and the Religious Right.
For those concerned with the truth of the matter, the always-excellent scholar Jordan Ballor weighs in here
http://calvinistinternational.com/2012/05/29/calvin-2k-1/
Well, Chris, I'm not really sure why you brought up this second example. I already told you that I have disagreed with Barton as often as I have agreed with him. However, my disagreements are usually of the sort that lead to a stronger position in favor of what you might call "the Christian nation theory." Barton's error in regards to Richard Hooker is an excellent example of this.
Barton actually made two mistakes in this paragraph. First, as you have pointed out, he mistakenly states that Hooker wrote during the reign of Henry VIII. This is incorrect as you have already pointed out. Hooker actually wrote during the reign of Elizabeth I, the daughter of Henry VIII.
The second error is that Barton implied that Hooker used the phrase "separation of ... church and commonwealth" as part of an argument in favor of this level of religious freedom. In actual fact, Hooker used this phrase in the negative in order to argue against those who were calling for true religious freedom after the brutal persecution of non-Catholics by Mary I. It was those religious groups which had been so greatly persecuted by Mary who were calling for the separation of church and commonwealth not Hooker. Elizabeth rejected their pleas and established herself as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Elizabeth's establishment of the Church of England continued unabated through the duration of her reign, but when James took the throne in 1603, efforts to establish religious freedom were renewed. It was at this time that the first book in the English language which argued for religious freedom was published by the Baptist minister, Thomas Helwys.
Well, if I don't stop now, I may end up posting an entire book, and I'm sure you wouldn't want that. Suffice it to say that I agree with you that Barton was in error in regards to the date of Hooker's comment on the separation of church and commonwealth, but I find myself in complete agreement with his claim that the call for religious freedom among Englishmen was championed by ministers of the church rather than secular leaders.
Bill ... I didn't leave out Barton's other "error" about Hooker. It's thoroughly explained in my book. I just didn't post that whole part of the section of my book about Barton's Hooker claim here.
Hey ... If you guys really want to discuss Hooker and what was going on in England in his time instead of all this stupid Barton stuff, I'm all for that.
What I found interesting in my research for my book was that the separatists that Hooker was arguing against actually WEREN'T calling for a separation of church and state as we would think of it. Their problem with a state run religion was much more specific. The only "separation" that they were actually calling for was not allowing anybody to hold a position in the church and a civil government office simultaneously.
wsforten – “While this letter does not prove Barton's claim any more than it proves the claim made by Chris, it does seem to tilt the scale more in Barton's favor by indicating that the people of Rhode Island were concerned about the loss of liberty rather than the continuation of a corrupt government.”
ws, you’ve changed the terms of Barton’s claim from a specifically religious fear of persecution by a specific religious sect to one of general loss of liberty, which is easier to rightly defend.
The Barton claim is this:
Barton (from Chris’ first text block) – “For this reason [fear of persecution by a government established church] the predominantly Baptist state of Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the Constitutional Convention.”
Specifically, Barton is claiming that the political actions of Rhode Island were directly and predominantly controlled by sectarian Baptist concerns. While this likely is a subset of the whole, it’s not the predominant reason for Rhode Island’s refusal to send a delegation.
There’s an online resource provided by the University of Wisconsin-Madison history department’s Center for the Study of the Constitution(1) that focuses primarily on Rhode Island’s actions during ratification(2). It includes a contextual essay and pro-and anti- federalist letters to editors.
It would seem that the overarching concern was control of fiscal affairs which, following the revolution and acquisition of war debt as well as conflict between lenders and borrowers, drove much of the public sentiment. The site doesn’t shed light on the legal or extra-legal nature of local financial dealings.
There also seemed to be, at least rhetorically, a good deal of concern of loss of state sovereignty and preservation of liberty (and a concern about the centralizing nature of the proposed constitution and the potential for tyrannous activity), but upon closer study it wouldn’t surprise me that these concerns were fueled largely or solely by the state’s financial calamity and the divide between the “Country party” and the “Mercantile party”, to use the essay’s terminology.
Given this, and absent additional corroborating evidence for Barton’s position, it appears that his initial claim that the predominant factor was sectarian (Baptist) and a matter of religious liberty is misleading (although among the Baptists at the time it may have had more immediate importance).
1) http://history.wisc.edu/csac/documentary_resources/ratification.htm
2) http://history.wisc.edu/csac/documentary_resources/ratification/ri.htm
@ jimmiraybob ...
Your last point about the Baptists' concerns is why I looked at the Baptists in other states to see if they were against the Constitution, and if so whether or not it was out of a fear of loss of religious liberty (which, as you say, is what Barton's actual claim is.)
What I found, as I wrote in this excerpt from my book, is that the answers are no and no. The Baptists in the other states generally supported the Constitution, and the anomaly of North Carolina was explained by Dr. Smylie as being due to the geography of districts represented by the Baptists at the NC ratifying convention and had nothing to do with their religion or a fear of losing their religious freedom. Barton's claim is just plain wrong.
And, yes, I noticed that Bill tweaked Barton's claim to make it easier to argue that he's right, but that's to be expected.
You are mistaken, Jim. I did not change Barton's claim. I specifically stated that the evidence which I presented did not prove Barton's claim. I simply pointed out that Chris failed to prove her case and that the statements from the government of Rhode Island are more in line with Barton's view than Chris's. I really don't care if either or neither view ends up being correct.
wsfortan - "You are mistaken, Jim."
Not being one to assume infallibility I'll concede that I can be wrong at times. For instance, not heading up to Woodstock, NY in '69 for that music festival thingy.
As to this instance, I provided reasonably full quotes and what I feel is a valid observation.
Regardless, I stand by my conclusion.
jimmiraybob ...
It's pointless to argue with someone like Bill. I didn't even bother earlier with his "theory" that the founders I quoted were talking about Rhode Island's past actions regarding the impost of 1781 and not the corruption in 1787. Obviously, Bill has the reading comprehension to see that the founders I quoted were absolutely talking about the paper money scam and not some earlier issue. He just chooses to misread the quotes.
The two quotes I used from Madison could not possibly be about anything other than the paper money scam. Madison actually mentions paper money that's devalued eight for one (which was the exact depreciation at the time) and talks about "the measures they are pursuing" in the present tense, obviously meaning the paper money scam and not some earlier issue. To claim that Madison might have been talking about something else is ridiculous and Bill knows it, but he'll keep trying to twist it anyway.
Here are the quotes from Madison again.
James Madison to Colonel James Madison:
"Rhode Island alone has refused her concurrence. A majority of more than twenty in the Legislature of that State has refused to follow the general example. Being conscious of the wickedness of the measures they are pursuing, they are afraid of everything that may become a controul on them."
James Madison to Edmund Randolph:
"Rhode Island has negatived a motion for appointing deputies to the Convention, by a majority of twenty-two votes. Nothing can exceed the wickedness and folly which continue to reign there. All sense of character as well as of right is obliterated. Paper-money is still their idol, though it is debased to eight for one."
Chris Rodda said...
jimmiraybob ...
It's pointless to argue with someone like Bill.
That's ad hom, and a tacit admission of defeat.
Actually, Bill won this debate fair and square. His original point holds, and indeed has been furthered by this discussion.
Blogger wsforten said...
Chris failed to prove her claim in this article. She claimed that Rhode Island did not send delegates to the Constitutional Convention and refused to ratify the Constitution because that state "had essentially become a state run by criminals." In support of this claim, Chris only presented claims from people outside of that state who brought accusations against it. She did not produce a single statement from the state itself explaining their refusal to send delegates to the Convention or their refusal to ratify the Constitution. She did include some statements from citizens of Rhode Island complaining about the paper money bill, but that's a far cry from an explanation for their initial rejection of the Constitution.
Tom ...
I'll ask you the same question I asked Bill:
Do you think that George Washington, James Madison, Francis Hopkinson, and Edward Carrington were ALL wrong about the real reason that Rhode Island wasn't sending delegates when they and the other big name founders were all writing back and forth to each other about it in 1787?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
The debate is over. You lost.
Blogger wsforten said...
Chris failed to prove her claim in this article. She claimed that Rhode Island did not send delegates to the Constitutional Convention and refused to ratify the Constitution because that state "had essentially become a state run by criminals." In support of this claim, Chris only presented claims from people outside of that state who brought accusations against it. She did not produce a single statement from the state itself explaining their refusal to send delegates to the Convention or their refusal to ratify the Constitution. She did include some statements from citizens of Rhode Island complaining about the paper money bill, but that's a far cry from an explanation for their initial rejection of the Constitution.
In other words, Tom is afraid to answer my simple yes or no question because he knows his answer will be tantamount to saying I'm right.
Well, it's been fun. See you guys next time Jon posts about something I've written. :-)
Not afraid, Chris--I'm not part of the debate. Fortenberry took your article to school, using the same tactics you use against Barton. You didn't prove your case, as he said.
If you don't like being embarrassed like this, ask Jon to keep your name off our front page and stick with your left-wing websites that swallow everything you say.
Chris,
Arguing with Tom is futile. He has locked into wsforten's "refutation" and that becomes the Truth by way of validating Tom's personal ideological narrative. Facts, as has often been seen in the past, play little role in his greater metaphysical Truth framework.
But then, you know that.
Cheers.
Peace be with all.
Peacing out here boss.
Actually, WSForten won the debate on formal grounds. I trust you know what that means--or perhaps you don't, which is why you're still whining.
Bill's thesis was that Chris didn't substantiate her point in her article. She still hasn't. Therefore Bill has won.
Chris' nitpicking got nitpicked. Her work is not nearly as sloppy as Barton's, but it's still sloppy. Fortenberry took her to her own school.
This is off topic but likely of interest to the blog via John Fea's place. From the Journal of the American Revolution - The Presbyterian Rebellion?
@
http://allthingsliberty.com/2013/09/presbyterian-rebellion/
Dr. John Fea has been a friend of this blog. Calvinist [Presbyterian] Resistance Theory is a frequent topic on this blog. One of the foremost scholars on the subject of "The Presbyterian Rebellion", Dr. Mark David Hall, has been quoted and has even been a guest contributor on this blog.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2013/06/mark-david-hall-responds-to-dghart.html
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2013/06/mark-david-hall-on-religion-and-founding.html
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/06/mark-david-hall-influence-of-reformed_30.html
With all due respect, sir--and thank you for going off-topic in the very boring topic of Chris Rodda getting her butt kicked to the curb yet once again:
Perhaps you can get your pal Ms. Rodda to read this blog even when her name isn't mentioned. After you start reading it yourself. It's not all about Barton and Rodda.
Actually, Tom, I do read other stuff on this blog. I just don't feel the need to comment on the posts I read unless I really have something to add. In fact, I have saved a number of Jon's posts because he has a knack of finding great examples of things that I plan on writing about in future books and I don't want to forget about a particular letter or something that he posted.
jimmiraybob: thanks for the link. I'd heard about these quotes but could never find the sources.
Ah, yes, the old debate about the American creation and the rise of the automobile...I can see Washington driving a red Corvette off into the sunset...
Top Ten Classified Website List, Pakistani Classified Sites, USA Classifieds, Indian Classifieds, Entertainment Articles, Entertainment News, Entertainment Pictures, Bollywood, Hollywood and Lollywood Pictures and Videos, Entertainment Latest updates, Hot Entertainment News and Pictures Funny Entertainment Pictures, lol Pictures, Funny Pictures and every thing you want...
www.hotcurrentaffairs.com
Classified Sites, Pakistani Classified Sites, USA Classifieds, Indian Classifieds, Entertainment Articles, Entertainment News, Entertainment Pictures, Bollywood, Hollywood and Lollywood Pictures and Videos, Entertainment Latest updates, Hot Entertainment News and Pictures Funny Entertainment Pictures, lol Pictures, Funny Pictures and Much More Fun Only on 1 Current Affairs Network
hotcurrentaffairs.com
The Best Lol n Troll Network with the Name of Lols Gag... Troll Images, Prank Peoples, Funny Peoples, funny planet, funny facts, funny cartoons, funny movies pics, iphone funny, funny jokes, Prank Images, Fail Pictures, Epic Pictures, Lols and Gags, Lol Pictures, Funny Pictures, Lol is the Laugh out of Laugh where you can Fun Unlimited and Laughing Unlimited.
LolsGag.Com
Make Money Online is very easy now, In Internet system we have now best earning system without any work, Just Invest some Money into your Business and Make Perfect Life time Earnings with this Business.
Join Now for Make Perfect Business and Earn Money online from home.
www.hotfxearnings.com
Make Money Online is very easy now, In Internet system we have now best earning system without any work, Just Invest some Money into your Business and Make Perfect Life time Earnings with this Business.
Join Now for Make Perfect Business and Earn Money online from home.
www.hotfxearnings.com
Make Money Online is very easy now, In Internet system we have now best earning system without any work, Just Invest some Money into your Business and Make Perfect Life time Earnings with this Business.
Join Now for Make Perfect Business and Earn Money online from home.
www.hotfxearnings.com
Latest cars and vehicles, Latest Mazda Models, Racing Cars, International Sport Cars, Concept Cars, PS-Pod, Strange Vehicles, Nissan, Royce Corniche, Ford Concept Cars, Strange Vehicles, Mercedes and More Sport Cars and Vehicles with Pictures and Info
WorldLatestVehicles.blogspot.com
Post a Comment