tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post7913666443900074119..comments2024-03-27T18:18:11.525-06:00Comments on American Creation: Mel Bradford on the Founders, religious establishment, and the First AmendmentBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-51584387172919481172012-05-07T09:07:01.602-06:002012-05-07T09:07:01.602-06:00Sorry -- I read through your post too quickly -- y...Sorry -- I read through your post too quickly -- you said it wasn't Bradford. It would be interesting to know where it came from, but I admit I'm too busy to track it down. Thanks again.Joseph Talmadgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-75999558102437157682012-05-07T09:02:55.371-06:002012-05-07T09:02:55.371-06:00Thanks Mark -- it didn't sound like Madison, h...Thanks Mark -- it didn't sound like Madison, hence my question. <br /><br />It also appears to contradict his statement in the summary regarding the First Amendment debate that one of the purposes of that amendment was to make sure that the "necessary and proper" clause could not be applied to religion. I don't see how one can reconcile this with what Bradford claims, in what I assume now is his quote.Joseph Talmadgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-40827686332367767172012-05-06T22:37:08.097-06:002012-05-06T22:37:08.097-06:00Thanks for the question. I don't have a copy ...Thanks for the question. I don't have a copy of Bradford's book in front of me, but the quoted material is quoted in his book -- it isn't his language, although from the wording it sounds unlikely that it is a direct quote from Madison. It doesn't sound that 18th-century-ish to me. There was a footnote after the quote -- I do remember that. If you got a copy of the book you should be able to track down the source of the quote rather quickly. I should have done that myself, but as I don't have the book anymore (I got it via inter-library loan), I can't look at the source of the quote for you. My apologies.Mark D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05000893614655251587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-5808286439414181382012-05-06T13:24:02.581-06:002012-05-06T13:24:02.581-06:00A question, if I may. Regarding the quote,
"...A question, if I may. Regarding the quote, <br /><br />"should not prevent the federal government from giving nondiscriminatory assistance to religion, as long as the assistance is incidental to the performance of a power delegated to the government",<br /><br />is this actually a quote from Madison or is this a quote from Bradford, giving his interpretation of Madison's views? If this is from Madison, can you please give the source.Joseph Talmadgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-29477246057682372622012-05-06T00:37:51.047-06:002012-05-06T00:37:51.047-06:00There is no question that Bradford is controversia...There is no question that Bradford is controversial, however, it should also be said that serious historical scholars of the Constitution -- like Forest McDonald, for example -- have defended his work. And no less a scholar than Harry Jaffa defended Bradford from attack and supported Bradford's appointment to the NEH. I am far from a defender of the the Southern cause as viewed by most paleo-conservatives, but I think that Bradford's work on the Constitution in many ways transcends his own partisan limitations.Mark D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05000893614655251587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-69322917071091403032012-05-05T18:31:30.335-06:002012-05-05T18:31:30.335-06:00JRB, if your current career doesn't work out, ...JRB, if your current career doesn't work out, please look into stand up comedy ;-)bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20088826121651051522012-05-05T14:45:34.605-06:002012-05-05T14:45:34.605-06:00The Anti-Barton Party central command has not yet ...The Anti-Barton Party central command has not yet issued a clarification on whether to consider or respond to this post. <br /><br />Until such time I am not at liberty to mention that it is also interesting to consider that the states amended the US Constitution to include the 14th amendment as per the arrangement to amend contained in the constitution proper. Or that following the signing of the Constitution and for decades before its 14 amendment, the trend among the states was toward non-establishment.<br /><br />There are other thoughts that I am not at liberty to have or to share until I hear from the regional Party Commissar as to whether I actually have them or can share them.<br /><br />I'll just say that Mr. Bradford's non existent historical training, his tireless work to advance the paleo-conservative cause, and his writing for such historical outlets as <i>Southern Partisan</i> magazine are also interesting. Not to say that he was wrong. But, it's possible. <br /><br />Oh no. I may have said too much. If anybody from the Party starts asking around, I've headed to the corner store for a sandwich and a six pack. If that doesn't work, I'm hiking the Appalachian Trail.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-76429273555454762462012-05-05T13:34:24.306-06:002012-05-05T13:34:24.306-06:00A heady post, Mark. Unfortunately you neglected t...A heady post, Mark. Unfortunately you neglected to mention David Barton, so nobody actually read through all those words and ideas and stuff. Get with the program.<br /><br />That the First Amendment was specifically if not explicitly designed to leave religion to the individual states ["<i>Congress</i> shall make no law"] is an interesting argument against incorporation, though. ;-PTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com