tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post6285597681842303636..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Did Jefferson support public worship in federal buildings during his administration?Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-9906943845854837182010-02-18T10:53:09.848-07:002010-02-18T10:53:09.848-07:00EAI - "Neither would I take from it that the ...EAI - <i>"Neither would I take from it that the United States is a Shintoist or Buddhist nation.</i><br /><br />And if it's correct that "the cornerstone [of the Capitol building] was laid by President Washington in the building's southeast corner on September 18, 1793, <i>with <b>Masonic ceremonies</b></i>,*" I do not believe that we are a Masonic Nation. <br /><br />* <a href="http://www.aoc.gov/cc/capitol/capitol_construction.cfm" rel="nofollow">Architect of the Capitol</a>jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78949050751199029952010-02-18T10:46:50.647-07:002010-02-18T10:46:50.647-07:00Mark,
Thank you for correctly my oversight regard...Mark,<br /><br />Thank you for correctly my oversight regarding the Louisiana Territory not yet being a state.<br /><br />Regarding "<i>[...] the charitable objects of your institution cannot be indifferent to any; and its furtherance of the wholesome purposes of society, by training up its younger members in the way they should go, cannot fail to ensure it the patronage of the government it is under [...]</i>"<br /><br />If your understanding is that "patronage" is not synonymous with equal protection under the law, what is it you understand it to mean?<br /><br />I'm also interested in why you think Jefferson's implied more than equal protection ... and by "why" I'm hoping for evidence of what Jefferson meant.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-16699875505687282642010-02-18T10:39:39.300-07:002010-02-18T10:39:39.300-07:00To give some context to Jefferson's phrase, &q...To give some context to Jefferson's phrase, "...ensure it the patronage of the government it is under," it might be helpful to consider the mess of entanglements in play.<br /><br />In addition to what I would imagine were local/municipal governments there appears to have been a rather rapid development of a <a href="http://www.lib.lsu.edu/special/purchase/history.html#outline5" rel="nofollow">territorial government</a>, all of which would likely have had some level of competing jurisdictional claims on property decisions:<br /><br />• <i>Claiborne and Wilkinson [William Charles Cole Claiborne the first territorial governor and General James Wilkinson] arrived in Louisiana with 400 regular troops and about 100 Mississippi militiamen to take possession of the new American territory in December 1803. Claiborne faced a task never before encountered by an American. All previous United States territories had been inhabited in the main by English-speaking Protestants who shared a British tradition of self-government. Claiborne for a time became virtual dictator over people from radically different cultures who spoke different languages, practiced a different religion from the vast majority of U.S. citizens, and had no experience whatsoever with representative government” (Wall, p. 89).</i> <br /><br />• <i>In Louisiana, a territorial government with an elected legislature was established in 1805.</i><br /><br />• <i>In 1807, the Legislature created nineteen parishes as the unit of local government. A Civil Code was promulgated in 1807 that was modeled on Spanish law and the French Napoleonic Code.</i><br /><br />As a lawyer, politician, diplomat and all around well read guy, I'm guessing that when Jefferson replied to the Ursulines he no doubt understood the complexities involved and likely realized that the federal government wouldn't necessarily have a primary role in sorting things out at the local level - at least in the early going.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-34272250046399164992010-02-18T10:37:49.044-07:002010-02-18T10:37:49.044-07:00On "patronage," I took a quick look at t...On "patronage," I took a quick look at the definitions of "patron" and "patronage" in my unabrideged OED 2d. It looks to me like Jefferson used "patronage" to mean "protection," the nuance perhaps being "protection by a superior." <br /><br />On religious services in federal buildings, I recall that during the Japanese internment, when the federal government forcibly relocated 120,000 Japanese Americans to War Relocation Camps, it permitted Shinto and Buddhist religious services under governmental supervision in those federal camps. <br /><br />I would not infer from this that the Roosevelt administration meant to promote either Shintoism or Buddhism. Neither would I take from it that the United States is a Shintoist or Buddhist nation. <br /><br />I'll note in passing that Shintoism generally is deemed to be a polytheist religion, which acknowledges two co-creator gods (and many lesser deities). Buddhism, on the other hand, generally rejects the notion of any creator god. <br /><br />I do not think that the fact the federal government accomodated Shintoist and Buddhist services in federal buildings means that ours is a polytheist nation or an atheist nation, any more than the fact that Christian services have occasionally been held in federal buildings means that the American Republic is a Christian nation. <br /><br />It is a nation that comprises many Christians, and that is by no means hostile to Christianity in its many forms. But it comprises many people of other faiths too -- who are every bit as American as our Christian citizens. Or so it seems to me.Eric Alan Isaacsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14144268111747323445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3573079236547185382010-02-18T09:57:28.736-07:002010-02-18T09:57:28.736-07:00TVD - I would say the "patronage" Jeffer...TVD - <i>I would say the "patronage" Jefferson refers to would be similar to the "patronage" shown to the churches that wanted to borrow the government buildings for Sunday services while their own churches were under construction. A friendliness rather than a hostility: both Jefferson's attitude toward the good work of the nuns and Washington's Farewell Address approbation for religion in the new republic.</i><br /><br />I'd agree that there was a neighborliness quality to opening up the federal buildings to religious services at a time when DC wasn't much more than a bleak swampy wilderness wasteland inhabited by blood sucking insects and all manner of roaming vermin. (can I set em up or what?) And at a time when the federal buildings were the biggest and the best....barely (<a href="http://www.aoc.gov/cc/capitol/capitol_construction.cfm" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="http://www.ustreas.gov/education/history/events/1800-1899.shtml" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="http://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/buildings/section21" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/buildings/section20" rel="nofollow">here</a>).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/capital.htm" rel="nofollow">Excerpts: Abigail Adams in a letter to her sister (Nov 21, 1800)</a>:<br /><br /><i>“I arrived in this city on Sunday the 16th. Having lost my way in the woods on Saturday in going from Baltimore, we took the road to Frederick and got nine miles out of our road. You find nothing but a forest & woods on the way, for 16 and 18 miles not a village. Here and there a thatched cottage without a single pane of glass, inhabited by Blacks... I set out early, intending to make my 36 miles if possible : no traveling however but by day light; We took a direction as we supposed right, but in the first turn, went wrong, and were wandering more than two hours in the woods in different paths, holding down & breaking bows of trees which we could not pass, …”</i><br /><br /><i>“In the kindest, and politest manner he [Major Thomas Snowden] urged my return to his house, represented the danger of the road, and the impossibility of my being accommodated at any Inn I could reach: A mere hovel was all I should find.”</i><br /><br /><i>“[Georgetown] is the very dirtiest hole I ever saw for a place of any trade, or respectability of inhabitants. It is only one mile from me but a quagmire after every rain. … There must be a worse place than even George Town, that I would not reside in for three Months.”</i><br /><br />I would also guess that it was more than a coldly calculated political ploy on Jefferson's part to attend some of the services, although I don't completely discount this idea. Jefferson (and most in the capitol) would have found these gatherings of interest in a social/community sense (as bpabbott posted in earlier comments on a previous post) and as a place in which ideas were discussed and exchanged. And many no doubt more pious than Jefferson would have found sustenance in the religious message from the various denominations represented. <br /><br />An interesting source on early church history in DC is found <a href="http://theusgenweb.org/dcgenweb/earlychurches.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />So yes. Federal buildings, such as they were, were used to house religious services and social gatherings and Jefferson did attend at least some. Jefferson did not start a church in the Capitol. <br /><br />Just as some get rightly upset when religion in the early founding is slighted, some find it equally annoying when attempts are made to over represent by using misleading methods and language.<br /><br />With this I bid Barton a hearty so long. If I ever let myself comment on Barton again may lightning strike, may a thousand thousand fleas fill my tent, may.....um, nevermind.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-30856791485423361332010-02-18T09:47:47.046-07:002010-02-18T09:47:47.046-07:00When Jefferson writes of "patronage," he...When Jefferson writes of "patronage," he refers to "the government it [the nuns' charitable works] is under." Which government is he referring to, Louisiana or the federal government. I would the federal government, because Louisiana was not yet a state when Jefferson wrote the letter. It was a federal territory, and thus under the federal government. The letter was written in 1804. Louisiana did not become a state until 1812. The government over Louisiana until statehood was territorial, and thus federal.Mark D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05000893614655251587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-75602273500994969102010-02-18T06:30:51.710-07:002010-02-18T06:30:51.710-07:00Re: "religious services in public buildings&q...Re: "<i>religious services in public buildings</i>"<br /><br />I expect that this assertion was not contested because such services were common from the founding until to day.<br /><br />As such services were/are held is not a newly discovered fact, I'm surprised that their existence is the main focus of the post. Using my excellent <i>hind-sight</i>, the discussion above would have been more civil if the "secularist folks [...] who have been asserting meanings to the words and meanings", had enough information to infer the intended point and meaning of the words.<br /><br />Re: "<i>I don't assert that Jefferson was necessarily promising financial assistance when he used the word "patronage." I am simply asserting that he probably meant something different than simply "protection."</i><br /><br />I agree that it is likely that Jefferson intended to communicate something more than "protection". However, for clarity, his comment of patronage, appears to me, to be associated with the government of the state of Louisiana. Since the states were free to <i>patronize</i> religion in any way they choose, I don't see anything unusual with Jefferson's words.<br /><br />"<i>Whatever diversity of shade may appear in the religious opinions of our fellow citizens, the charitable objects of your institution cannot be indifferent to any; and its furtherance of the wholesome purposes of society, by training up its younger members in the way they should go, cannot fail to ensure it the patronage of the government it is under [i.e. the state of Louisiana]. Be assured it will meet all the protection which my office can give it. I salute you, holy sisters, with friendship & respect.</i>"<br /><br />To summarize, my reading indicates an expectation, on Jefferson's part, that Louisiana would continue its patronage, as well as an assertion that the government of the United States, and the principles, it was founded upon would ensure them equal protection under the law.<br /><br />I'll also reiterate that this, for me, gives a proper context to Jefferson's understanding of the concept of separation.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-68102135585758507852010-02-17T19:12:03.787-07:002010-02-17T19:12:03.787-07:00straw men that detract both from my main point
We...<i>straw men that detract both from my main point</i><br /><br />Well, it kind of hit me that way, Mark. Some acknowledgment of your main point would seem to have been in order.<br /><br />I would say the "patronage" Jefferson refers to would be similar to the "patronage" shown to the churches that wanted to borrow the government buildings for Sunday services while their own churches were under construction. A friendliness rather than a hostility: both Jefferson's attitude toward the good work of the nuns and Washington's Farewell Address approbation for religion in the new republic.<br /><br />In fact, I recall Hutson finding a contemporary reporting Jefferson saying it was his duty [perhaps not that word] to show face at these services as a good example to the nation. If anybody can help me with that---I can't relocate it, although I found some mentions on Google.<br /><br />And this is the larger thesis, supported by a lot of evidence across the board. It's OK to quibble on minor details, but not at the price of losing focus on the larger truth, which should be the good-faith aim of all of us. I do sometimes think that there's a technique at work sometimes to harp on a minor error as if that disproves the larger truth being offered.<br /><br />And frankly, when I think that's what's going on, I get annoyed.<br /><br />Such "patronage" that Jefferson speaks of, and that the nation exhibited in the early days of the republic by allowing the use of public buildings for "religion" is the larger truth. I think it would meet with a lot of resistance today as a lack of separation between church and state, which is why this issue is so instructive:<br /><br />It's clear that the government could <i>accommodate</i> religion without it being seen as endorsement, and it was not seen as any <i>establishment</i> of religion.<br /><br />I think it's a rather clean point.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-33314952161449560662010-02-17T18:41:27.006-07:002010-02-17T18:41:27.006-07:00I should clarify that when I say I didn't make...I should clarify that when I say I didn't make the connection that I wasn't saying you were wrong...only that it completely went over head when reading that particular query in "Notes..."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32714096001734186352010-02-17T18:40:18.683-07:002010-02-17T18:40:18.683-07:00This is off topic
Mark in Spokane wrote:
In his ...This is off topic<br /><br />Mark in Spokane wrote:<br /> In his Notes on Virginia, Jefferson expressed abhorrence for the notion of interracial relationships and mixed-race offspring, at least regarding African-Americans and whites. It was precisely Jefferson's well-known and uncontested philosophical views on the issue that kept many very well-established historians, like Joseph Elis, from accepting the possibility that Jefferson may have fathered children by his slave, Sally Hemmings. It was only when DNA offered proof of an overwhelmingly likely Jefferson-Hemmings relationship that the scholarly community shifted.<br /><br /><br />Mark,<br />I just read "Notes on a State of Virginia" for the first time and I didn't make that connection. His statements about slavery were unsettling to my 2010 mind (the obvious white superiority complex going on) but I didn't catch the whole Sally Hemmings connection. This is yet again, like attending services in the Capitol or buying the L Purchase even though it went against his views, an instance of Jefferson's humanity/falliability. <br /><br />He was a sly man!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-55302728711572952332010-02-17T18:27:52.024-07:002010-02-17T18:27:52.024-07:00I never asserted financial assistance to the nuns....I never asserted financial assistance to the nuns. I simply quoted Jefferson as offering "patronage." <br /><br />My initial point, as Tom has pointed out, remains unrefuted.<br /><br />I have no opinion about whether Jefferson did offer financial aid to the nuns or not. My only opinion has been to dispute, without further evidence, that "patronage" in the letter necessarily means the same thing as "protection." From a plain language reading of the letter, it appears that the two terms are not synonyms. That's all I have asserted.<br /><br />I have made no claims about what Jefferson meant or not. All I have pointed out is the plain language of the letter. <br /><br />It is the secularist folks commenting on my post who have been asserting meanings to the words and meanings to my post and my comments, creating what are in effect straw men that detract both from my main point and from the simple fact that Jefferson uses two different words. <br /><br />I agree with Tom that it is necessary for us to keep out eyes on the main points of this debate. And it is important to have controversial points substantiated by evidence. Undergirding my points here has been that we need to be guided by evidence, not ideological presuppositions and "what everybody knows."<br /><br />Tom, I don't assert that Jefferson was necessarily promising financial assistance when he used the word "patronage." I am simply asserting that he probably meant something different than simply "protection."Mark D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05000893614655251587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-38655488035560457352010-02-17T18:18:03.101-07:002010-02-17T18:18:03.101-07:00I'm with the contra side on this. First, ther...I'm with the contra side on this. First, there's no evidence of said financial support, and second that the Ursaline matter is a one-of-a-kind. Theses should be built on a multiplicity of evidence, not just an incident here or a quote there.<br /><br />Mark's <i>main</i> argument, about religious services in public buildings has been left untouched, however. Apparently David Barton was far more correct than incorrect, based on Mark's [and Ben's] evidence. <br /><br />At least one of the litigants in this thread here owes an acknowledgment of that.<br /><br />;-)<br /><br />We must keep our eye on the ball, lest we get hit in the head.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-10687006866082107202010-02-17T15:55:57.368-07:002010-02-17T15:55:57.368-07:00I did a quick transcription of the letter, in ques...I did a quick transcription of <a href="http://churchstatelaw.com/historicalmaterials/images/thomas_jefferson_letter_1804.pdf" rel="nofollow">the letter</a>, in question.<br /><br />"<i>To the Soeur Therese de St. Xavier Farjon Superior, and the Nuns of the order of St Ursula at New Orleans.<br /><br />I have received, holy sisters, the letter you have written me wherein you express anxiety for the property vested in you institution by the former governments of Louisiana. The principles of the constitution and government of the United States are a sure guarantee to you that it will be preserved to you sacred and inviolate, and that your institution will be permitted to govern itself according to its own voluntary rules, without interference from the civil authority. Whatever diversity of shade may appear in the religious opinions of our fellow citizens, the charitable objects of your institution cannot be indifferent to any; and its furtherance of the wholesome purposes of society, by training up its younger members in the way they should go, cannot fail to ensure it the patronage of the government it is under. Be assured it will meet all the protection which may office can give it. I salute you, holy sisters, with friendship & respect.</i><br /><br />It seems to me that Jefferson is communication his expectation that the virtue of the Nuns work will ensure the patronage (as in loyalty, protection, more?) of the Louisiana state government, which their institution was under, and that Jefferson personally assured them equal protection under of the laws of the Nation (perhaps implying that if their state government did provide equal protection, he'd take action?).<br /><br />Seems like a good example of how Jefferson understood the principle of separation ... am I missing something more?<br /><br />Is anyone suggesting that Jefferson offered the financial support of the Nation to the sisters? ... If so, is there any record that such support was rendered. If not, either Jefferson did not intend to imply such support was forthcoming, or he lied (I like the guy, but ... he is a politician. I don't think such a <i>falsehood</i> is beyond even the best of all politicians).bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-13066918473961065702010-02-17T15:36:36.060-07:002010-02-17T15:36:36.060-07:00Mark, any chance of you clarifying your position s...Mark, any chance of you clarifying your position sometime soon on the meaning of "patronage" and the significance of the Ursuline Affair* as derived from your plain text reading? Surely you wanted us to take away some understanding by its inclusion as an afterthought. And you appear to unsatisfied with what I and Mr. Issacson have offered so I assume** that there's an alternative.<br /><br />*I'm writing a screen play as we speak.<br /><br />**Yes, yes, I know what this breaks down to.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-47333280933980141742010-02-17T14:49:01.079-07:002010-02-17T14:49:01.079-07:00One more note: the reason why it is important to ...One more note: the reason why it is important to look at evidence like the actual phrasing of the letter, rather than just relying on what "everybody" knows about Jefferson's views on a given topic is that Jefferson often did not act in ways that were consisted with many of his more philosophically expressed views. Let me provide two examples:<br /><br />1) Jefferson did not believe that the executive possessed the power to effectuate the Louisiana Purchase. His strict constructionist approach to the Constitution simply was not consistent with such an exercise of executive power, and he recognized that. He did it anyway.<br /><br />2) In his Notes on Virginia, Jefferson expressed abhorrence for the notion of interracial relationships and mixed-race offspring, at least regarding African-Americans and whites. It was precisely Jefferson's well-known and uncontested philosophical views on the issue that kept many very well-established historians, like Joseph Elis, from accepting the possibility that Jefferson may have fathered children by his slave, Sally Hemmings. It was only when DNA offered proof of an overwhelmingly likely Jefferson-Hemmings relationship that the scholarly community shifted.<br /><br />With any historical figure, but particularly with somebody as shifty and mercurial as Jefferson, relying on their generally known statements is risky. What does the evidence say? Particularly evidence that doesn't fit into the narrative about what "everybody" knows...<br /><br />Because "everybody" has a tendency to be wrong when it comes to history.Mark D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05000893614655251587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-63857257176055330432010-02-17T13:34:12.666-07:002010-02-17T13:34:12.666-07:00And Mr. Issacson, if you actually read any of my p...And Mr. Issacson, if you actually read any of my posts -- something I doubt given the tone of your comment -- you might actually have noticed that I didn't make any of the arguments about funding of the nuns that you attribute to me. Nice setting up of a straw man, there. <br /><br />My basic point is simple: what does the letter say? I am looking at the text of the letter and trying to understand its words. The separate and distinct words used by its author. <br /><br />If you want to argue ideology and take the opportunity to push some kind of secularist agenda, that's fine. But that doesn't have anything to do with my point. My point regards what the letter says.Mark D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05000893614655251587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-5022840338054214392010-02-17T13:30:32.856-07:002010-02-17T13:30:32.856-07:00Mr. Isaccson,
Aside from speculation and an appea...Mr. Isaccson,<br /><br />Aside from speculation and an appeal to your own writing style, do you have any other references to support your reading of the letter?<br /><br />Jimmyraybob,<br /><br />Thanks for the concession.Mark D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05000893614655251587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-47681971952656984932010-02-17T10:59:54.092-07:002010-02-17T10:59:54.092-07:00Mark - Before we continue, do you concede that pat...Mark - <i>Before we continue, do you concede that patronage and protection refer to two different thing?</i><br /><br />I'll go even further and concede that "patronage" and "protection" could and very well may refer to two different things....or less or more.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-81666906935426731732010-02-17T10:42:10.870-07:002010-02-17T10:42:10.870-07:00So Mark DeForrest thinks that Jefferson responded ...So Mark DeForrest thinks that Jefferson responded to the Ursuline Sisters by promising to have the federal government cut them checks as part of an early nineteenth-century faith-based initiative? Okay. Fine. Whatever. <br /><br />My Black's Law Dictionary says that "patronage" means "1. The giving of support, sponsorship, or protection." <br /><br />Assuming the word might have meant something like that in 1804, I think that Jefferson's letter to the Ursuline Sisters is most naturally read as assuring the them that they'll receive ordinary protection of the government, without discrimination against them because they happen to be Catholics. <br /><br />That appears to be how the Ursuline Sisters understand the letter today -- for their web page links the letter to the doctrine set out by Justice Samuel Freeman Miller (an active Unitarian) in Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679 (1871). <br /><br />To suggest that either Thomas Jefferson, or Justice Miller for that matter, thought that the federal government should provide Catholic orders with special governmental "patronage," in the sense of financial support and endorsement of their peculiar doctrines, strikes me as more than a bit daft.<br /><br />Oh, but Mr. DeForrest says that "patronage" can't mean "protection" in Mr. Jefferson's letter, because the letter employs the word "protection" in the very next line. Jefferson simply COULDN'T have used two different words to mean much the same thing. <br /><br />Yet there's nothing at all unusual about employing synonyms in composing a letter. Some of us actually keep a thesaurus handy because we think it's good style to avoid monotonous repetition of the very same word from one sentence to the next. <br /><br />On Mr. DeForrest's logic, moreover, it would seem that I can't possibly mean to refer to the same religious body if I speak of the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in one sentence, and of "the Mormon Church" in the next. For why would I use different terms from one line to the next if I don't mean to convey dramatically different ideas with each of them? <br /><br />Jefferson's letter should be understood for what it is -- an assurance to the Ursuline Sisters that they had nothing to fear from the federal government to which they were newly subject following the Louisiana Purchase.<br /><br />That, again, is how the Ursuline Sisters themselves appear to understand the letter.Eric Alan Isaacsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14144268111747323445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-48884916517839301072010-02-17T09:44:09.422-07:002010-02-17T09:44:09.422-07:00Before we continue, do you concede that patronage ...Before we continue, do you concede that patronage and protection refer to two different thing?Mark D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05000893614655251587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-52697022293954249752010-02-17T06:15:30.732-07:002010-02-17T06:15:30.732-07:00It is simply what it states: an affirmation by the...<i>It is simply what it states: an affirmation by the president of patronage and protection to the nuns in question.</i><br /><br />Exactly. I would only add that the patronage and protection applied to the area of property rights/claims.<br /><br />That being settled, what do <i>you</i> make of the terms patronage and protection?<br /><br />I'm sad to say that I've let the crack legal team go. I'm sure they'll land on their feet.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-18131450781693265782010-02-16T22:01:53.060-07:002010-02-16T22:01:53.060-07:00You need to send your crack legal team back to law...You need to send your crack legal team back to law school. The letter isn't a contract between there is no offer and no acceptance and no consideration. It is simply what it states: an affirmation by the president of patronage and protection to the nuns in question.<br /><br />The parole evidence principle, though, applies in looking at documents to ascertain the document's stated intent. Look at the words in the document, and only look outside the document when: 1) the document itself refers to material outside the document; and 2) when the terms are ambiguous. If the plain language of a document can resolve the question in dispute, the plain language should be followed.<br /><br />It is a sad day when only lawyers are bound to such an approach to understanding texts. <br /><br />Keep drinking. You still haven't answered my questions.Mark D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05000893614655251587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-7999469661149295292010-02-16T21:27:15.362-07:002010-02-16T21:27:15.362-07:00Jefferson as patron saint? Interesting thought.
:...<i>Jefferson as patron saint? Interesting thought.</i><br /><br />:) I should have posted a warning that I was being a bit tongue in cheek.<br /><br />But seriously, parole evidence? I had to run this by my crack legal team and they seem to think that you might be making an assertion that Jefferson’s reply is intended to be a "final and complete expression of an agreement between the U.S. government and the Ursuline Sisters." <br /><br />I said, "no, comeon, get out."<br /><br />They said, "no, really."<br /><br />I poured a glass of wine.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-79891548948314910602010-02-16T21:01:09.924-07:002010-02-16T21:01:09.924-07:00Brian's last comment is much more accurate and...Brian's last comment is much more accurate and accommodating than what would have rolled off my finger tips. Kudo's Brian!bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-63706025237182490822010-02-16T19:21:55.641-07:002010-02-16T19:21:55.641-07:00Jimmyraybob,
Jefferson as patron saint? Interest...Jimmyraybob,<br /><br />Jefferson as patron saint? Interesting thought.<br /><br />He have have been attempting some kind of double meaning in his letter, but that's just speculation. What does the plain language of the letter indicate? If the plain meaning provides an answer, that's the best place to start. How were words used in their ordinary and standard usage in the letter? Those are the critical questions to ask whenever interpreting a document. It is only when the plain meaning fails to resolve an ambiguity that resort to parole evidence is appropriate, and then only to ascertain the meaning of the words used.Mark D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05000893614655251587noreply@blogger.com