tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post5882066631101691568..comments2024-03-27T18:18:11.525-06:00Comments on American Creation: A Taste of What I've Been Working OnBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-31913836467317757332009-08-26T09:12:22.152-06:002009-08-26T09:12:22.152-06:00In other words, more people should be interested.In other words, more people should be interested.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-72816057683537067272009-08-26T08:52:52.360-06:002009-08-26T08:52:52.360-06:00.
In a way, the September/October 2009 issue of t....<br />In a way, the September/October 2009 issue of the magazine, <i>ADBUSTERS</i> deals with what some of us are doing here.<br />.<br />It's more than study for the sake of study to me.<br />.<br />I think Prof. Rowe's dealing here puts us at good advantage regarding those Founding years as they unfolded into the nineteenth century as well as things are coming to be today. <br /><br /> <br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-4149677291799049502009-08-24T23:33:38.353-06:002009-08-24T23:33:38.353-06:00BHart:
It is difficult to know what to make of Jef...BHart:<br />It is difficult to know what to make of Jefferson and abolition==a mixture of idealism, self interest, and practical difficulties. He owned slaver, but he also in his Summary View of the Rights of British America argued that "The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state." He also blamed the British government for slavery in his original draft of the DOI.During the early years of the war, Jefferson, George Wythe, and Edmund Pendleton served on a Virginia House of Delegates committee to revise the laws of Virginia.They drafted, but never submitted a plan for gradual emancipation. And law drafted by Jefferson permitting emancipation of slaves by individual owners, something illegal under the colonial government w/o approval of the Governor's Council, was passed in 1782. But then for many years after this Jefferson remained silent on the quesition of emancipation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-25845916888203668542009-08-24T19:37:22.405-06:002009-08-24T19:37:22.405-06:00I don't have an opinion regarding Lincoln'...<i>I don't have an opinion regarding Lincoln's interpretation of original intent, but ... my understanding is that slavery was not mentioned in the constitution as a compromise between those who wanted to continue the practice and those who saw it as an affront to the new Nation's principles. The subject is all sort of tongue-n-cheeky.</i><br /><br />Quite so, Mr. Abbott. The [in]famous Three-Fifths Compromise was what got the constitution done atall.<br /><br />But so frequently overlooked in these discussions [I confess I didn't know until recently meself, shame shame] is:<br /><br />http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html<br /><br /><i>In Article 1, Section 9, Congress is limited, expressly, from prohibiting the "Importation" of slaves, before 1808. The slave trade was a bone of contention for many, with some who supported slavery abhorring the slave trade. The 1808 date, a compromise of 20 years, allowed the slave trade to continue, but placed a date-certain on its survival. Congress eventually passed a law outlawing the slave trade that became effective on January 1, 1808.</i><br /><br />Slaveholders among the Founders like Madison and Jefferson surely understood [and, we hope, supported] that slavery's days were seen as numbered in the Founding era.<br /><br />Of course, it didn't get resolved all that cleanly...Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-36935321962865763312009-08-24T17:04:29.075-06:002009-08-24T17:04:29.075-06:00I don't have an opinion regarding Lincoln'...I don't have an opinion regarding Lincoln's interpretation of original intent, but ... my understanding is that slavery was not mentioned in the constitution as a compromise between those who wanted to continue the practice and those who saw it as an affront to the new Nation's principles. The subject is all sort of <i>tongue-n-cheeky</i>.<br /><br />So I don't see constitution as touching the issue at all. It neither <i>explicitly</i> preserves or extinguishes the practice of slavery. I think the founders as individuals each had a prefernce, but as a collective elevated the cohesion of the union of the 13 states as being more important that protecting or abolishing slavery.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-46185499887813371232009-08-24T14:16:32.275-06:002009-08-24T14:16:32.275-06:00Hamilton's The Farmer Refuted
Note Ham's ...<i>Hamilton's The Farmer Refuted</i><br /><br />Note Ham's references to the dastardly .......David Hume's essay, THAT POLITICS MAY BE REDUCED TO A SCIENC---fairly indicative of Hamilton's Tory inclinations. <br /><br />Ham. supported the AmerRev mainly for tea-bagger reasons: he wants lower taxes, and less govt. control (even if the govt was monarchical). <br /><br />He also seems to suggest (as did Hume) that rights be somewhat controlled or limited to the....gentry. Which is to say, the "Farmer Refuted" serves as more evidence of the influence of Hume on the Framers (especially on the Federalists....tho' Franklin was friendly with Hume, and considered him a mentor as well).Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-87227917202456034872009-08-24T14:03:57.769-06:002009-08-24T14:03:57.769-06:00Secular writes:
"Lincoln, in my mind the bes...Secular writes:<br /><br /><em>"Lincoln, in my mind the best interpreter of the founders, said the nation was dedicated to a different idea: the proposition that all men are created equal."</em><br /><br />Are you sure? Wasn't it the founders who installed a constitutional protection for slavery? Didn't the very author of the DoI keep 300+ slaves in bondage? And let's not forget the rights of MANY others (classless whites, women, natives, etc.) The founders were great, but they were also elite gentrymen, who embraced the stereotypes of their day. Hardly indicative of a dedication to "all men [being] equal."Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37926511738471985362009-08-24T13:57:54.878-06:002009-08-24T13:57:54.878-06:00I too am excited to read the completed article.I too am excited to read the completed article.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-40011622516329073882009-08-24T13:04:18.776-06:002009-08-24T13:04:18.776-06:00I'm looking forward to seeing the full article...I'm looking forward to seeing the full article. Thanks.<br /><br />I like your point about the place of Adams in the conventional narrative. I think the way that Adams framed his questions as statements cause many to misread his writings.James Stripeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13437334325501974461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-62506965397332471772009-08-23T13:41:27.598-06:002009-08-23T13:41:27.598-06:00Oh, yeah. And I'd say that the development of...Oh, yeah. And I'd say that the development of the notion of individual and political liberty per natural law achieved fruition uniquely in the American Founding. Even Britain took some time to catch up.<br /><br />I was splitting hairs in that Providence is an active thing---<i>a posteriori</i>, as it were--- but liberty via natural law is an innate thing, an <i>a priori</i> claim, and also that the concept of "natural law" in the American Founding needs to enjoy center stage.<br /><br />Otherwise, you get people claiming to find political liberty directly in the Bible instead of as a product of Christian and/or philosophical thought. You know how that song goes.<br /><br />;-)Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-81848189225359726402009-08-23T13:13:30.894-06:002009-08-23T13:13:30.894-06:00BTW, your Hamilton #1 quote from Farmer Refuted is...<i>BTW, your Hamilton #1 quote from Farmer Refuted is much more about natural law than it is about Providence:...</i><br /><br />It's about both; but more importantly it's about a rights granting God, one who grants unalienable rights through Nature, not necessarily revelation which is not mentioned in the Farmer Refuted.<br /><br />Surely you can appreciate it will be a good thing for the think tank to be getting THAT.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-61759951616960779902009-08-23T13:11:42.696-06:002009-08-23T13:11:42.696-06:00Well I think "conventional" Christianity...Well I think "conventional" Christianity is "traditional" Christianity. Of course there will always be arguments on things like TULIP, the Eucharist and whatnot. But there's that little thing called the Nicene creed whose historic importance to Christian "convention" can't be so easily explained away.<br /><br />I think Barton plays games with his evangelical audiences. If he were to squarely address the issue of heresy with them I'd respect him more. But I'm not even so sure if he's fully aware of these issues as for instance, Noll, Frazer, or even Gary North is. As we've noted in one of Barton's articles he lists the Unitarian Jonathan Mayhew as one of the preachers of the "Great Awakening."Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-64977722009869481522009-08-23T12:39:36.925-06:002009-08-23T12:39:36.925-06:00Franklin sums up the matter well:
"Morality...Franklin sums up the matter well:<br /><br /><br />"Morality or Virtue is the End, Faith only a Means to obtain that End: And if the End be obtained, it is no matter by what Means."<br /><br />The chief architects of the Const. and DoI were obviously not concerned with preserving judeo-christian orthodoxy, but with using religion only as it pertained to Virtue; if "the End be obtained" (virtuous citizens) without religion, that would also suffice. That said, the Founding Fathers, especially the Lockean, Democratic sorts, were perhaps overly optimistic (the Federalists not quite as optimistic).Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-71867427261043352822009-08-23T12:37:41.084-06:002009-08-23T12:37:41.084-06:00I don't know what "conventionally underst...I don't know what "conventionally understood" means. There are a few fringe preachers whom you can argue that way against, but even David Barton doesn't argue what you're arguing against.<br /><br />As for John Adams, I agree, and again it illustrates how successfully he kept his private thoughts on theology a secret, and for good reason.<br /><br />BTW, your Hamilton #1 quote from Farmer Refuted is much more about natural law than it is about Providence:<br /><br /><i>I shall, henceforth, begin to make some allowance for that enmity, you have discovered to the natural rights of mankind. For, though ignorance of them in this enlightened age cannot be admitted, as a sufficient excuse for you; yet, it ought, in some measure, to extenuate your guilt. If you will follow my advice, there still may be hopes of your reformation. Apply yourself, without delay, to the study of the law of nature. I would recommend to your perusal, Grotius, Puffendorf, Locke, Montesquieu, and Burlemaqui. I might mention other excellent writers on this subject; but if you attend, diligently, to these, you will not require any others.</i>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-91778193205594015452009-08-23T12:01:10.545-06:002009-08-23T12:01:10.545-06:00I do focus on Adams quite a bit because, the typic...I do focus on Adams quite a bit because, the typical narrative -- and I think this is because that's the impression many of the Founding era got -- was that Franklin and Jefferson were the Deist outliers and that Adams was a conventional Christian.<br /><br />In reality Adams was arguably was further to the Left on religious matters than Franklin. Yet, he was viewed as a pretty mainstream/conservative figure.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78792854735878584592009-08-23T11:58:09.407-06:002009-08-23T11:58:09.407-06:00Secular Square:
The way I think this is relevant:...Secular Square:<br /><br />The way I think this is relevant: We aren't just speaking of "demographics," as in the US is predominantly Christian in the same way that it's predominantly white. Rather we are speaking about the way government treats its people on account of their religion, similar to the way it treats its people on account of their race and gender.<br /><br />We are also looking at how government treat "religion" and how the various religions inform government principles.<br /><br />In that civil sense, America was not founded to be a "Christian" nation as conventionally understood. At least that's why I argue.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-48473531149306069712009-08-23T11:56:33.103-06:002009-08-23T11:56:33.103-06:00John Adams, Franklin, and of course Jefferson. Th...John Adams, Franklin, and of course Jefferson. The usual suspects and indeed, mostly the only ones.<br /><br />But as Rev. Jasper Adams wrote in a highly praised [Justices John Marshall, Joseph Story] in 1833:<br /><br />http://candst.tripod.com/jasp2.htm<br /><br /><i>What must have been the strength of the conviction of Christian Truth in the American mind, when the popular names of Franklin and of Jefferson among its adversaries, have not been able much to impair its influence. May a high reverence and sacred regard for this Heavenly Wisdom remain with us to the end of time, the crowning glory of the American name.</i><br /><br />...and of course Franklin wasn't exactly an adversary, more an agnostic on the doctrines of the prevailing orthodoxy.<br /><br />And of course, federalism left religion to the states.<br /><br />Mr. Square puts it well:<br /><br /><i>Or is the question, WAS AMERICA A CHRISTIAN NATION WHEN FOUNDED? In this sense, surely the answer is yes. Most Americans of the early national period, whether or not they regularly attended church, surely had a Christian worldview. Of course, other intellectual traditions as well contributed to this world view. And the state constitutions (with acknowledgment of God as the source of our rights and even religious tests for office holding) and public buildings and monuments reflect that fact. As an outpost of Western civilization or Christendom, what else would it be?</i><br /><br />The ratification of the Constitution changed the states' status quo on religion not an iota.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-65832493340787005322009-08-23T09:13:39.442-06:002009-08-23T09:13:39.442-06:00Thanks Ben.
That was just a taste. I have a lot m...Thanks Ben.<br /><br />That was just a taste. I have a lot more bullet points.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57243343070485488522009-08-23T09:08:32.869-06:002009-08-23T09:08:32.869-06:00As a recent and somewhat occasional visitor to AC,...As a recent and somewhat occasional visitor to AC, I am not familiar with the ground covered already on the "Christian Nation" question. When I read some of the interchanges, I sense a lack of clarity about the main point of disagreement. At the risk of commenting ingorantly on something AC bloggers established already, may I offer a suggestion on clarifying the question. <br /><br />Is it, WAS AMERICAN FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION? In what sense? If it means dedicated to Jesus or the promotion of God's kingdom on earth (or to some eschatological vision of the future)it does not seem to be so. Lincoln, in my mind the best interpreter of the founders, said the nation was dedicated to a different idea: the proposition that all men are created equal.<br /><br />Or is the question, WAS AMERICA A CHRISTIAN NATION WHEN FOUNDED? In this sense, surely the answer is yes. Most Americans of the early national period, whether or not they regularly attended church, surely had a Christian worldview. Of course, other intellectual traditions as well contributed to this world view. And the state constitutions (with acknowledgment of God as the source of our rights and even religious tests for office holding) and public buildings and monuments reflect that fact. As an outpost of Western civilization or Christendom, what else would it be?<br /><br />There are other ways to formulate the quesition . . . you who are debating the issue maybe know the best formulation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20953932222178162282009-08-22T22:51:16.752-06:002009-08-22T22:51:16.752-06:00Regarding the Franklin quote, I neglected to provi...Regarding the Franklin quote, I neglected to provide a reference. Here's the link to <a href="http://www.historycarper.com/resources/twobf1/sd9.htm" rel="nofollow">Silence Dogood, No. 9</a>bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-7930381264251176232009-08-22T22:45:28.625-06:002009-08-22T22:45:28.625-06:00Jon, If you'd like to add a fifth bullet on th...Jon, If you'd like to add a fifth bullet on the principles of separation of C&S, the quotes by Jefferson and Madison are well know ... but Franklin had also expressed such. For example ...<br /><br />"But the most dangerous Hypocrite in a Common-Wealth, is one who leaves the Gospel for the sake of the Law: A Man compounded of Law and Gospel, is able to cheat a whole Country with his Religion, and then destroy them under Colour of Law: And here the Clergy are in great Danger of being deceiv'd, and the People of being deceiv'd by the Clergy, until the Monster arrives to such Power and Wealth, that he is out of the reach of both, and can oppress the People without their own blind Assistance."<br />-- Benjamin Franklinbpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.com