Documentation & Confirmation
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Dick Puter
Sep 3, 2008, 9:19:48 PM9/3/08
to american...@googlegroups.com
Our friend Jon is quick to cite someone he has criticized for poor scholarship, revisionist thinking, and just plain dishonesty if it happens to suit him. How David Barton can go from PT Barnum-like huckster to credible researcher in a matter of seconds is amazing indeed!
As I said in an earlier post, even the "unconfirmed" quotations have ample CONFIRMED evidence to if not authenticate them individually, certainly do so collectively. Jon likes to take a quote here and there and isolate it. Taking the comments of the majority of the FF's in context provides me with a very clear picture of where they were coming from. As Peter Marshall stated, "as a historian, I reject totally any attempts to shoe-horn historical evidence to fit one's thesis - that has no moral integrity whatsoever..." That Jon still accuses Marshall of citing "phony" quotations "as recently as a few months ago" must mean that he (Jon) knows something the rest of us do not. That would also mean that Marshall is both a liar and a hypocrite, given his statement just cited.
It would seem that SOMEONE is dealing off the bottom of the deck, for sure.
TL
Jon
Sep 3, 2008, 10:14:37 PM9/3/08
to American Heritage
Heh. Once more:
I quote Peter Marshall:
"For example, Patrick Henry, a great Founding Father, and one of the
strongest evangelical Christians of his time, said that 'It can not be
too often repeated, or too strongly emphasized that America was not
founded by religionists nor on any religion, but by Christians on the
Gospel of Jesus Christ.' This is a statement that never shows up in
the history books that are read by the vast majority of American
schoolchildren."
http://petermarshallministries.com/about/index.cfm
Henry didn't say it; it's bogus; it exists nowhere in the primary
sources of Henry's official record. In addition to the fact that the
quote doesn't exists in the primary sources, I've seen it attributed
to 1765 when America wasn't even a "nation," but a bunch of English
colonies (so you have to wonder what "great nation" Henry would be
referring to: England?). Further, Henry was a militant anti-
Federalist who did not speak of the United States in a singular sense;
he would say the United States "are" not "is." He objected to the US
Constitution (remember Henry, an anti-Federalist, was AGAINST the US
Constitution) in large part because it said "we the people," not "we
the states." In short the notion that the United States of America
were a "great nation" would make Henry want to puke. It wasn't even
settled that the US was one big "a" "great" "nation" until after 1865
anyway. The quotation smacks of invention in the post-Lincoln era.
I don't think Marshall knew he was peddling fraudulence; it's just
sloppy scholarship. But in 2008, he should know better.
On Sep 3, 6:19 pm, "Dick Puter" <panzerleh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Our friend Jon is quick to cite someone he has criticized for poor
> scholarship, revisionist thinking, and just plain dishonesty if it happens
> to suit him. How David Barton can go from PT Barnum-like huckster to
> credible researcher in a matter of seconds is amazing indeed!
>
> As I said in an earlier post, even the "unconfirmed" quotations have ample
> CONFIRMED evidence to if not authenticate them individually, certainly do so
> collectively. Jon likes to take a quote here and there and isolate it.
> Taking the comments of the majority of the FF's *in context *provides me
I quote Peter Marshall:
"For example, Patrick Henry, a great Founding Father, and one of the
strongest evangelical Christians of his time, said that 'It can not be
too often repeated, or too strongly emphasized that America was not
founded by religionists nor on any religion, but by Christians on the
Gospel of Jesus Christ.' This is a statement that never shows up in
the history books that are read by the vast majority of American
schoolchildren."
http://petermarshallministries.com/about/index.cfm
Henry didn't say it; it's bogus; it exists nowhere in the primary
sources of Henry's official record. In addition to the fact that the
quote doesn't exists in the primary sources, I've seen it attributed
to 1765 when America wasn't even a "nation," but a bunch of English
colonies (so you have to wonder what "great nation" Henry would be
referring to: England?). Further, Henry was a militant anti-
Federalist who did not speak of the United States in a singular sense;
he would say the United States "are" not "is." He objected to the US
Constitution (remember Henry, an anti-Federalist, was AGAINST the US
Constitution) in large part because it said "we the people," not "we
the states." In short the notion that the United States of America
were a "great nation" would make Henry want to puke. It wasn't even
settled that the US was one big "a" "great" "nation" until after 1865
anyway. The quotation smacks of invention in the post-Lincoln era.
I don't think Marshall knew he was peddling fraudulence; it's just
sloppy scholarship. But in 2008, he should know better.
On Sep 3, 6:19 pm, "Dick Puter" <panzerleh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Our friend Jon is quick to cite someone he has criticized for poor
> scholarship, revisionist thinking, and just plain dishonesty if it happens
> to suit him. How David Barton can go from PT Barnum-like huckster to
> credible researcher in a matter of seconds is amazing indeed!
>
> As I said in an earlier post, even the "unconfirmed" quotations have ample
> CONFIRMED evidence to if not authenticate them individually, certainly do so
> collectively. Jon likes to take a quote here and there and isolate it.
Tigerlilly66
Sep 5, 2008, 8:28:05 AM9/5/08
to American Heritage
I can accept that Marshall may be guilty of flawed scholarship, given
the fact that he is made of the same clay you and I are. I will ask
him about that quote specifically and let you know what he says. I'm
sure you'll want his updated Light & Glory so you can verify the
changes he's said were made in it.
TL
> > TL- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
the fact that he is made of the same clay you and I are. I will ask
him about that quote specifically and let you know what he says. I'm
sure you'll want his updated Light & Glory so you can verify the
changes he's said were made in it.
TL
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tigerlilly66
Sep 12, 2008, 12:02:43 AM9/12/08
to American Heritage
Your cynicism is truly impressive. I wonder what it is that launched
you on this "crusade" for lack of a better word? Can you apply that
same cynical approach to other areas? How about our friend Barack
Hussein Obama...how does he stack up in your eyes?
Not changing the focus of the debate, but my email to Peter hasn't yet
been answered about the Henry quote you dismiss as "bogus". I read
his whole piece and found it quite good. Is the Adams quote about the
type of government Americans would have also an attempt to mask the
"true" intent of the FF's?
One question I've asked more than once that I still have not received
a reply concerning causes me to wonder if you just dismissed it as
unworthy of a reply, or perhaps for another reason? I challenged you
to find ONE quote from a Unitarian, Revisionist Historian, or Deist
concerning our various topics from the last hundred YEARS that even
remotely resembles those made by many of the FF's that I've already
entered into the record. I maintain that you cannot because they do
not exist. They do not speak like Christians because they aren't and
would have no reason nor desire to do so. While this "evidence from
silence" does not necessarily debunk your a priori, it sure speaks
loudly to me.
TL
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
you on this "crusade" for lack of a better word? Can you apply that
same cynical approach to other areas? How about our friend Barack
Hussein Obama...how does he stack up in your eyes?
Not changing the focus of the debate, but my email to Peter hasn't yet
been answered about the Henry quote you dismiss as "bogus". I read
his whole piece and found it quite good. Is the Adams quote about the
type of government Americans would have also an attempt to mask the
"true" intent of the FF's?
One question I've asked more than once that I still have not received
a reply concerning causes me to wonder if you just dismissed it as
unworthy of a reply, or perhaps for another reason? I challenged you
to find ONE quote from a Unitarian, Revisionist Historian, or Deist
concerning our various topics from the last hundred YEARS that even
remotely resembles those made by many of the FF's that I've already
entered into the record. I maintain that you cannot because they do
not exist. They do not speak like Christians because they aren't and
would have no reason nor desire to do so. While this "evidence from
silence" does not necessarily debunk your a priori, it sure speaks
loudly to me.
TL
Tigerlilly66
Sep 15, 2008, 10:19:56 PM9/15/08
to American Heritage
Well, Jon...I heard back from Peter. He said (paraphrasing) that the
authenticity of the Henry quote has been questioned. He added that he
didn't have time to confirm or deny it as of now. As it concerns our
discussion, I have no problem dropping it from consideration Not
because you offered compelling "proof" that it is false because you
didn't, but because there are more than enough fully documented and
accepted quotes from the FF's to offset any value it may have. Your
problem is that you cannot just wave your hand and make those others
just fade away. I liken this to a large group of people who witness a
crime take place. Whereas the culprit might succeed in getting the
testimony of one or two of them thrown out of court, the majority of
the others will have their say and he will be convicted. Of course,
in his own mind, even though he full well knows he's guilty, he'll
moan and whine about the verdict. The verdict of history is in, Jon,
and all your posturing, pontificating, and flailing away won't change
anything. The Deists and Unitarians couldn't cut the mustard because
they had nothing whatsoever to offer.
TL
authenticity of the Henry quote has been questioned. He added that he
didn't have time to confirm or deny it as of now. As it concerns our
discussion, I have no problem dropping it from consideration Not
because you offered compelling "proof" that it is false because you
didn't, but because there are more than enough fully documented and
accepted quotes from the FF's to offset any value it may have. Your
problem is that you cannot just wave your hand and make those others
just fade away. I liken this to a large group of people who witness a
crime take place. Whereas the culprit might succeed in getting the
testimony of one or two of them thrown out of court, the majority of
the others will have their say and he will be convicted. Of course,
in his own mind, even though he full well knows he's guilty, he'll
moan and whine about the verdict. The verdict of history is in, Jon,
and all your posturing, pontificating, and flailing away won't change
anything. The Deists and Unitarians couldn't cut the mustard because
they had nothing whatsoever to offer.
TL
Jon
Sep 16, 2008, 9:55:25 PM9/16/08
to American Heritage
"The verdict of history is in, Jon,..."
Well I guess "history" is in the eye of the beholder because the
historical academy laughs off the "Christian Nation" claim ala Peter
Marshall and David Barton. The folks who accept Barton's and
Marshall's claims are, unsurprisingly, the "Christian Nation" crowd.
You live in a very closed off system on these matters. I'm to the
right of the historical academy and present a moderate, balanced,
nuanced, middle ground.
Well I guess "history" is in the eye of the beholder because the
historical academy laughs off the "Christian Nation" claim ala Peter
Marshall and David Barton. The folks who accept Barton's and
Marshall's claims are, unsurprisingly, the "Christian Nation" crowd.
You live in a very closed off system on these matters. I'm to the
right of the historical academy and present a moderate, balanced,
nuanced, middle ground.
Jon
Sep 16, 2008, 10:04:17 PM9/16/08
to American Heritage
Couldn't cut the mustard? The Deists and Unitarians were America's
key Founders. At least, that's what virtually every major historian
concludes. America's first "Christian" President as you define the
term arguably was Andrew Jackson. The others were, "Deists and
Unitarians." (A better term might be "theistic rationalists" which is
a mean between Christianity and Deism with "rationalism" as the
trumping element.) Even the leading evangelical Christian historian
Dr. Gary Scott Smith of Grove City College endorses this.
(By the way, check out the author of the post that Andrew Sullivan's
blog links to.)
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/who-was-the-fir.html
key Founders. At least, that's what virtually every major historian
concludes. America's first "Christian" President as you define the
term arguably was Andrew Jackson. The others were, "Deists and
Unitarians." (A better term might be "theistic rationalists" which is
a mean between Christianity and Deism with "rationalism" as the
trumping element.) Even the leading evangelical Christian historian
Dr. Gary Scott Smith of Grove City College endorses this.
(By the way, check out the author of the post that Andrew Sullivan's
blog links to.)
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/who-was-the-fir.html
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages