Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Gardiner Meet Mr. Madison

0 views

Skip to first unread message

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Dec 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/29/99

In the index of the Ketcham Bio of Madison there is a section under James
Madison that says:

Familiarity with writings

of: Addison, Aristotle,Arbuthnot, Francis Bacon, Barbeyrac, Bentham,
Burlamaqui, Samuel Butler, Bynkershoeck, Caesar, CALVIN (MY GOODNESS),
Cicero, Edward Coke, Condorcet, Cumberland, DeMosthenes,
Diderot, Abbe Du Bos, DuPont de Nemours, Fortune, Barthilemy de Felice,
Ferguson, Fielding, Franklin, Godwin, Grotius, Harrington, Hobbes,
Homer, to; Horace, Hume, Hutcheson, Johnson,
Justinian, Lord Kames, Kant, Livy, Locke, Longinus, Lucian, Abbe de
Mably, Machiavelli, Mandeville, Martens, Abbe Millot, Milton,
Montaigne, Montesquieu, Thomas More, Cornelius Napes, New
Testament, Newton, Ovid, Robert Owen, Paine. the philosophes, Plate,
Plutarch, Polybius, Pope, Priestley, Pufendorf, de Retz,;
William Robertson, Rousseau, Sallust, Selden, Shaftesbury,
Shakespeare, Sidney, Smollett, Steele, Swift, Tacitus, Terence,
Thou, Thucydides, Tucker, Vattel, Virgil, Voltaire, 45, 166, r8j;
Xenephon,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is interesting that there is no mention of Luther.
Now there are a few others not mentioned as well, which we do know he at
least knew of, such as Blackstone, and Witherspoon. But Witherspoon is
mentioned in other places.

Luther is mentioned no where, nor is Blackstone mentioned anywhere in the
index.

Now Calvin was mentioned and one page number was given for him.
Let's see what it says::
==============================================================
Madison insisted, as he remarked during the Federal Convention,
that in framing governments, "we must not shut our eyes to the nature of
man, nor to the light of experience." I;ollowing Locke"s empirical method,
he studied as fully and carefully as he could the experience of mankind
recorded in the histories of his day. From these books, and from the
generalizations of philosophers from Aristotle to David Hume, Madison
absorbed a sober view of human history. The record was generally one of
war, tyranny, violence, stupidity, and corruption, with distressingly few
instances of peace, prosperity, and enlightenment. The thought of
Machiavelli, Calvin, and Hobbes, known to, though largely rejected by,
Madison, helped keep him in mind of human depravity. Unlike some
Enlightenment thinkers, who emphasized human goodness to the point of
blaming all evil on social conditions, Madison sought always to recognize
and take into account the limitations of human nature.
Shunning the extreme attitudes on human nature helped Madison avoid
simplistic and impractical theories of government. "If men were angels," as
he had pointed out in Federalist Number 51, "no government would be
necessary." On the other hand, if men were absolutely evil, as he told
the Virginia Convention of 1788, "we are in a wretched condition . . .
[where] no form of government can render us secure."
================================================================

Gee, so much for any of your claims regarding Calvin and Madison, huh?
Luther didn't even get an honorable mention. In fact, thus far I have yet
to find any mention of Luther in any book concerning Madison.

**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."

Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.

Page is a member of the following web rings:

The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring

Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring

Legal Research Ring
**********************************************

Rick Gardiner

unread,

Dec 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/29/99

Thanks again for this important info:

buc...@exis.net wrote:
>
> In the index of the Ketcham Bio of Madison there is a section under James
> Madison that says:
>
> Familiarity with writings
>
> of: Addison, Aristotle,Arbuthnot, Francis Bacon, Barbeyrac, Bentham,
> Burlamaqui, Samuel Butler, Bynkershoeck, Caesar, CALVIN (MY GOODNESS),
> Cicero, Edward Coke, Condorcet, Cumberland, DeMosthenes,
> Diderot, Abbe Du Bos, DuPont de Nemours, Fortune, Barthilemy de Felice,
> Ferguson, Fielding, Franklin, Godwin, Grotius, Harrington, Hobbes,
> Homer, to; Horace, Hume, Hutcheson, Johnson,
> Justinian, Lord Kames, Kant, Livy, Locke, Longinus, Lucian, Abbe de
> Mably, Machiavelli, Mandeville, Martens, Abbe Millot, Milton,
> Montaigne, Montesquieu, Thomas More, Cornelius Napes, New
> Testament, Newton, Ovid, Robert Owen, Paine. the philosophes, Plate,
> Plutarch, Polybius, Pope, Priestley, Pufendorf, de Retz,;
> William Robertson, Rousseau, Sallust, Selden, Shaftesbury,
> Shakespeare, Sidney, Smollett, Steele, Swift, Tacitus, Terence,
> Thou, Thucydides, Tucker, Vattel, Virgil, Voltaire, 45, 166, r8j;
> Xenephon,

Lets see what sort of people these men were:

Addison, Calvinist hymnwriter
Aristotle, Greek Philosopher
Arbuthnot, Presbyterian Physician
Bacon, Puritan Parliamentarian
Barbeyrac, Dutch Calvinist Legal Scholar
Bentham, British Philosopher
Burlamaqui, Swiss Calvinist Political Theorist, favorite of the Puritans
Butler, Bishop of the Anglican Church, best known as a Defender of the Proofs
for God's existence
Bynkershoeck, Dutch Calvinist International Lawyer
Caesar, Roman Emperor
Calvin, Protestant Reformer, Political Reformer and Theorist
Cicero, Stoic Roman Philosopher
Coke, Puritan Common Lawyer
Condorcet, French Philosophe
Cumberland, ?
Demosthenes, Greek Philosopher
Diderot, French Philosophe
Du Bos, French Philosophe
Du Pont, French Philosophe
Fortune, (no such person)
De Felice, French Philosophe
Ferguson, Tory Politician
Fielding, British Novelist
Franklin, American Philosopher
Godwin, Ordained Clergyman
Grotius, Dutch Theologian
Harrington, Puritan Theologian and Politician
Hobbes, Monarchal Political Theorist
Homer, Greek Poet
Horace, Greek Poet
Hume, Scottish Philosopher
Hutcheson, Scotch Presbyterian Moralist
Johnson, Dictionarist
Justinian, Roman Jurist
Kames, English Deist
Kant, German Philosopher
Livy, Latin Poet
Locke, British Latitudinarian
Longinus, Latin Poet
Lucian, Roman Theorist
Abbe de Mably, French theorist
Machiavelli, Renaissance Political Writer
Mandeville, Dutch Calvinist philosopher
Martens, Puritan Regicide
Abbe Millot, Fr. Philosophe
Milton, Puritan
Montaigne, French Skeptic
Montesquieu, Swiss Political Theorist
Thomas More, Roman Catholic Saint
Cornelius Napes, ??
New Testament, Good stuff
Newton, Physicist and Biblical Commentator
Ovid, Latin Poet
Robert Owen, unlikely... you mean John Owen, Puritan theologian
Paine, Deist
The Philosophes, already mentioned
Plate, Socrates' Pupile
Plutarch, Roman Historian
Polybius, Greek Historian
Pope, British Poet
Priestley, Ordained Presbyterian
Pufendorf, Calvinist political theorist, favorite of Puritans
de Retz, Devout Roman Caridinal
William Robertson, Scottish Presbyterian Professor
Rousseau, Swiss Political Theorist
Sallust, Roman Historian
Selden, Puritan Theologian
Shaftesbury, Deist Theologian
Shakespeare, Playwright
Sidney, Puritan Political writer
Smollett, Scottish Presbyterian Writer
Steele, author of "the Christian Hero"
Swift, Irish Satirist
Tacitus, Roman Historian
Terence, Roman Poet
Thou, shalt not kill?
Thucydides, Greek Historian
Tucker, Wm & Mary Common Law Prof.
Vattel, Swiss Natural Law Jurist
Virgil, Latin Poet
Voltaire, French Philosophe
Xenephon, Greek Historian

Insofar as the French Philosophe's were not widely published in America until
well after the Constitution had been written, the fact that Madison had
familiarity with these books was most likely more due to his later years.

This leaves primarily Greco-Romans and Protestants (and yes, a handful of
deists). But there is a bigger problem here. Your list is unquestionably
incomplete (see below).

> It is interesting that there is no mention of Luther.

Yes, very interesting since Madison himself credited Luther with leading the
way in church/state separation (letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 1821)

> Now there are a few others not mentioned as well, which we do know he at
> least knew of, such as Blackstone, and Witherspoon.

There are a lot of gaping wholes in your list. There is no question in
anyone's mind that Madison knew of Blackstone, Bolingbroke, Beccaria, De
Lolme, Trenchard & Gordon, not to mention Clarke, Jonathan Edwards, John
Bunyan, John Foxe, Leibniz, Spinoza, Descartes, Knox, Hale, and Mansfield.

> Luther is mentioned no where, nor is Blackstone mentioned anywhere in the
> index.

Madison mentions Luther in the letter I cited. If you think he wasn't familiar
with Blackstone, you shouldn't criticize Mr. Burton for his strange naivete.

> Now Calvin was mentioned and one page number was given for him.
> Let's see what it says::
> ==============================================================
> Madison insisted, as he remarked during the Federal Convention,
> that in framing governments, "we must not shut our eyes to the nature of
> man, nor to the light of experience." I;ollowing Locke"s empirical method,
> he studied as fully and carefully as he could the experience of mankind
> recorded in the histories of his day. From these books, and from the
> generalizations of philosophers from Aristotle to David Hume, Madison
> absorbed a sober view of human history. The record was generally one of
> war, tyranny, violence, stupidity, and corruption, with distressingly few
> instances of peace, prosperity, and enlightenment. The thought of
> Machiavelli, Calvin, and Hobbes, known to, though largely rejected by,

On what grounds do you think Madison "rejected" Calvin?

> Madison, helped keep him in mind of human depravity. Unlike some
> Enlightenment thinkers, who emphasized human goodness to the point of
> blaming all evil on social conditions, Madison sought always to recognize
> and take into account the limitations of human nature.
> Shunning the extreme attitudes on human nature helped Madison avoid
> simplistic and impractical theories of government. "If men were angels," as
> he had pointed out in Federalist Number 51, "no government would be
> necessary." On the other hand, if men were absolutely evil, as he told
> the Virginia Convention of 1788, "we are in a wretched condition . . .
> [where] no form of government can render us secure."
> ================================================================
>
> Gee, so much for any of your claims regarding Calvin and Madison, huh?
> Luther didn't even get an honorable mention. In fact, thus far I have yet
> to find any mention of Luther in any book concerning Madison.

You haven't read JAMES MADISON & RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, R.Alley, ed.

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Dec 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/30/99

Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

>:|Thanks again for this important info:

>:|

That's all nice and all.

I suggest that you have any problems with the list I provided, you contact
Ralph Ketcham.

I suggest if you have any problems with the way Ketcham used the list,
compiled it, used it, provided further information regarding it in the text
of his bio of Madison, you contact him.

I didn't include the page numbers for each entry, but do rest assured that
there are pages of text with each person provided and what connection it
might have had to Madison.

>:|Insofar as the French Philosophe's were not widely published in America until

>:|well after the Constitution had been written, the fact that Madison had
>:|familiarity with these books was most likely more due to his later years.

That's nice.

>:|
>:|This leaves primarily Greco-Romans and Protestants (and yes, a handful of

>:|deists). But there is a bigger problem here. Your list is unquestionably
>:|incomplete (see below).

Hey silly, it isn't MY list.

I guess you failed to grasp that. I don't claim things as mine that I
didn't create, perhaps you do?

>:|
>:|> It is interesting that there is no mention of Luther.

>:|
>:|Yes, very interesting since Madison himself credited Luther with leading the
>:|way in church/state separation (letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 1821)

You mean this:

DECEMBER 3, 1821

TO F. L. SCHAEFFER
MONTPELLIER, Dec. 3rd ,
1821
*NOTE: Madison is replying to the receipt of a sermon sent by Schaeffer, a
New York clergyman.

Revd Sir,--I have received, with your letter of November 19th, the
copy of your address at the ceremonial of laying the corner-stone of St
Matthew's Church in New York.
It is a pleasing and persuasive example of pious zeal, united with
pure benevolence and of a cordial attachment to a particular creed,
untinctured with sectarian illiberality. It illustrates the excellence of a
system which, by a due distinction, to which the genius and courage of
Luther led the way, between what is due to Caesar and what is due God, best
promotes the discharge of both
obligations. The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of
the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning
Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that
without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could
be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical
Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.
In return for your kind sentiments, I tender assurances of my
estaeem and my best wishes.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: To F. L. Schaeffer from Madison, December 3, 1821.
Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in Four Volumes, Published by
Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott & Co. Philadelphia, (1865),
pp 242-243. *James Madison on Religious Liberty, Robert S.Alley, Prometheus
Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this your foundation for seeing Luther in everything that Madison ever
did and said?

What I find interesting is that you have spent the better part of a year in
the NGs trying to claim Madison as one of yours, then Childress shows up
and you immediately follow his lead -- the only lead his limited knowledge
allows him, Carey and others like that to take-- and you try to smear
Madison. It just shows to what desperate lengths you will go to try and
make it look as if you have some sort of point that is valid.

>:|
>:|> Now there are a few others not mentioned as well, which we do know he at

>:|> least knew of, such as Blackstone, and Witherspoon.
>:|
>:|There are a lot of gaping wholes in your list. There is no question in
>:|anyone's mind that Madison knew of Blackstone, Bolingbroke, Beccaria, De
>:|Lolme, Trenchard & Gordon, not to mention Clarke, Jonathan Edwards, John
>:|Bunyan, John Foxe, Leibniz, Spinoza, Descartes, Knox, Hale, and Mansfield.

>:|

Not my list, silly. If you don't agree with it, or have problems with it,
contact Ralph Ketcham. He is or was a Professor of Political Science at
Syracuse University.

You know what, I bet he will tell you that his list works quote well for
the purpose that it was created. He might even tell you that these other
people you are trying to throw on there were of no importance to Madison.

>:|> Luther is mentioned no where, nor is Blackstone mentioned anywhere in the

>:|> index.
>:|
>:|Madison mentions Luther in the letter I cited. If you think he wasn't familiar
>:|with Blackstone, you shouldn't criticize Mr. Burton for his strange naivete.

Aaaahhhh, do you want to claim Burton, you do tend to embrace those who
show up, no matter how far out they are, if they tend to support your views
in any manner.
That damages your credibility as well. There are wackos on all sides of any
issue. Someone who wants to be viewed as a serious student and author on
these issues should be willing to tell the wackos, no matter which side
they are on that they are mistaken on those far out claims they show up and
post.

Now the matter of Blackstone and James Madison.
================================================================
The Papers of James Madison

VOLUME I, March 16 1751 to December 16, 1779
Blackstone, William, Commentaries, pp 98, 102-3, and n.

VOLUME II, March 20 1780 to Feb. 23, 1781
No references to Blackstone.

VOLUME III, March 3, 1781 to December 31, 1781
No References to Blackstone

VOLUME IV, Jan. 1, 1782 to July 31, 1782
Blackstone Commentaries pp 307 n.

VOLUME V, August 1, 1782 to December 31, 1782
No References to Blackstone

VOLUME VI, Jan. 1. 1783 to April 30, 1783
Blackstone, Sir William, pp 91

VOLUME VII, May 3, 1783 to Feb 20, 1784
Blackstone, Sir William pp 416 n2

VOLUME VIII, March 10 1784 to March 28 1786
No references to Blackstone

VOLUME IX, ODU DOESN'T HAVE IT OR IT WAS CHECKED OUT

VOLUME X May 27 1787 to March 3, 1788
No references to Blackstone

VOLUME XI, March 7, 1788 to March 1, 1789
No references to Blackstone

VOLUME 12, March 2, 1789 to Jan. 20, 1790
No references to Blackstone
==============================================================

This is as far as I have gotten so far. But based on the above we have
from 1751 to 1790, 39 years of Madison's life with only, what maybe five
mentions of Blackstone in letters, etc. Don't forget, The Papers of
Madison contain anything known to exist that Madison wrote or made
notations on, etc, plus letters, etc that others wrote to him.

I would say based on the above evidence, at least, William Blackstone,
neither the man, nor his Commentaries played much of a role in Madison's
life, private or public.

Of course, Madison wasn't a lawyer, so that is probably part of the reason.

As I finish these books I will go get the next group and check them out for
various names. You know, names like Backus, Blackstone, Calvin, Leland,
Luther, Witherspoon. etc.

>:|
>:|> Now Calvin was mentioned and one page number was given for him.

>:|> Let's see what it says::
>:|> ==============================================================
>:|> Madison insisted, as he remarked during the Federal Convention,
>:|> that in framing governments, "we must not shut our eyes to the nature of
>:|> man, nor to the light of experience." I;ollowing Locke"s empirical method,
>:|> he studied as fully and carefully as he could the experience of mankind
>:|> recorded in the histories of his day. From these books, and from the
>:|> generalizations of philosophers from Aristotle to David Hume, Madison
>:|> absorbed a sober view of human history. The record was generally one of
>:|> war, tyranny, violence, stupidity, and corruption, with distressingly few
>:|> instances of peace, prosperity, and enlightenment. The thought of
>:|> Machiavelli, Calvin, and Hobbes, known to, though largely rejected by,
>:|
>:|On what grounds do you think Madison "rejected" Calvin?

Check with Ketcham.

The grounds ins't important to me, it is you that keeps linking Calvin and
Luther to jefferson and Madison.

We have a letters from Jefferson denouncing Calvin and this "religion" and
we now have Ketcham's comment above saying that Madison also rejected
Calvin and others that probably shared ideas of his, etc.

>:|> Madison, helped keep him in mind of human depravity. Unlike some

>:|> Enlightenment thinkers, who emphasized human goodness to the point of
>:|> blaming all evil on social conditions, Madison sought always to recognize
>:|> and take into account the limitations of human nature.
>:|> Shunning the extreme attitudes on human nature helped Madison avoid
>:|> simplistic and impractical theories of government. "If men were angels," as
>:|> he had pointed out in Federalist Number 51, "no government would be
>:|> necessary." On the other hand, if men were absolutely evil, as he told
>:|> the Virginia Convention of 1788, "we are in a wretched condition . . .
>:|> [where] no form of government can render us secure."
>:|> ================================================================
>:|>
>:|> Gee, so much for any of your claims regarding Calvin and Madison, huh?
>:|> Luther didn't even get an honorable mention. In fact, thus far I have yet
>:|> to find any mention of Luther in any book concerning Madison.
>:|
>:|You haven't read JAMES MADISON & RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, R.Alley, ed.

Yep, I have, several times actually, over the past 5 or so years.

But you are correct, WE HAVE LOCATED ONE LETTER WHERE MADISON MENTIONS
LUTHER. LOL

I ask again, is this the foundation for you seeing Luther in every word and
action of Madison?

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Dec 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/30/99

Gardiner wrote:

> > > 3) The following "key founders" were strongly Christian, and by that,
> > > I mean traditional orthodox believers in the trinity:
> > >
> > > James Madison (father of the constitution)

>:|Uh...I don't know; I suppose everyone without a religious disposition attends
>:|divinity school and allows oneself to be mentored, discipled, and shepherded
>:|by a flaming Calvinist preacher (viz., Witherspoon). Have you ever read
>:|through Madison's notes which he took at Princeton? Do so and then say that
>:|there is "little if any evidence." Have you read Smylie's work on Madison
>:|which demonstrates that his political disposition was formed at the feet of
>:|Witherspoon? Do you contest the fact that Witherspoon was an orthodox
>:|Presbyterian theologian? Is your thesis that although Madison was steeped
>:|in Calvinism through his college education, he rejected all that he imbibed
>:|in his formative years and became averse to it?
[In addition, he has at times implied that Madison considered being a
minister and recommended to others they become such]
==============================================================

All of the above makes nice reading. [and yes, I have several pages of
material that Madison wrote or made notes about while at Princeton]

Can you link any of it to the James Madison that Wrote this question to a
former fellow class mate at princeton in Dec. 1772?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Is an Ecclesiastical Establishment absolutely necessary to support civil
society in a supream Government & how is it hurtful to a dependent state?"
(Guess by the time he got around to writing the letter to jasper Adams I
posted above he figured he had his answer)

To the same person a month later:
If the Church of England had been the established and general Religion In
all the Northern Colonies as it has
been among us hem and uninterrupted aanquillty had prewiled throughout the
Continent, It is clear to me that slavery and SubSection might and would
have been gradually insinuated among us. Union of Religious Sentiments
begets a surprizfng confidence and Ecclesiastical Establishments tend to
great ignorance and Corruption all of which facilitate the Execution of
mischievous Profects. But away with Politicks! Let me address you as a
Student and Philosopher & not as a Patriot now.

That Diabolical Hell conceived principle of persecution rages among and to
their eternal Infamy the Clergy can furnish their quota of Imps for such
business. This vexes me the most of any thing whatever. There are at this
[time?] in the adjacent County not less than 5 or 6 well meaning men in
close Goal [in jail] for publishing their religious Sentiments which in the
main are very orthodox. I have neither patience to hear talk or think any
thing relative to this matter, for I have squabbled and scolded abused and
ridiculed so long about it, [to so lit]tle purpose that I am without common
patience. So I [leave you] to pity me and pray for Liberty of Conscience
[to revive among us.].

_____________________________________________________________________

Now your task, should you accept it, is to show that from 1772 to 1836
Madison was Highly Christian. He did attend church on occasion, but no
records exist of him actually joining a church per se. I have read several
places that he, like Washington, did not take part in communion, etc. His
personal writings rarely mention, if mention at all, any personal religious
beliefs of his.

If he was highly religious then it was highly personal and highly private.
At any rate the historical record does not supply enough info on the
subject for you to prove your claim.

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Dec 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/30/99

This thread got started by accident

The original thread was

Gardiner meet Mr. Madison

But when I went to add this to it I titled the thread

Gardiner Meet Mr. Madison

Capping the "M" on meet turned it into a separate thread

So I will comment here and then repeat it in the "real" thread and any
further replies can be made in that thread.

mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:

WOW, look at what Gardiner did with Priestly. Yes Priestly was a very
famous scientist, and might have published far more things on science then
he ever did on religion.
Some credit Priestly as being the father of Unitarianism, or at least one
American version of it.

Jefferson was very much into Priestly's ideas regarding Unitarianism, some
have said that Jefferson misunderstood some portions of it, but Priestly
did play a big role in Jefferson's coming around to feeling he was a
unitarian.

>:|> Shaftesbury, Deist Theologian
>:|
>:|And tutor of Hutcheson.
>:|
>:|Wrote a history of England that is usually considered a continuation of
>:|Humes.
>:|
>:|> > Luther is mentioned no where, nor is Blackstone mentioned anywhere

>:|
>:|I'm familiar with Harold Robbins. It doesn't mean I like his books or
>:|have read more than one.
>:|

I have already posted in full the Schaeffer letter Gardiner refers to.
Considering the letter was written to a Protestant minister, and what was
actually said, is not all that big a deal.

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Dec 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/30/99

mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:

>:|> Priestley, Ordained Presbyterian
>:|
>:|See those two chapters. You might find them interesting. Wasn't
>:|Priestly also some kind of scientist? I don't know why that comes to
>:|mind. Maybe it has something to do with his dealings with Franklin.
>:|

Knowing how much more there is to the person above, and knowing that
Gardiner knows how much more there was to the person above shows just how
far he will go to slant things in his favor when he presents information.

In fact, the above can be said as a perfect picture of how Gardiner goes
about forming his side of the issues. All should keep this in mind when
reading him words. One is not getting even close to all that could be
given, but one is getting what Gardiner feels will best serve what he wants
all to know and most supportive of his position.

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Dec 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/30/99

0 new messages