gravitybow

This lengthy post is a spin-off of Buffman's <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000739" target="_blank">David Barton Automatons</a> thread concerning an e-mail he received, and warranted a separate thread. The first paragraph of the e-mail goes like this:

I have been analyzing just this first paragraph of the e-mail copy Buffman found on the Web. Like Buffman, I was immediately suspicious upon reading the first "52 of the 55 signers". In fact, since he and others have already tackled the first two related sentences, my attention has focused only on the third and fourth sentences. And it's amazing what you can uncover about two sentences.:

THE THIRD SENTENCE
The incarnation we know today as the American Bible Society was founded in 1816 in New York. Its first president was Elias Boudinot.
<a href="http://www.americanbible.org/library/page.cfm?id=0E32E0EA-96E5-11D5-A07D000629388716" target="_blank">ABS timeline</a>

Initially, I could not find any connection to Congress at all. You would think that, being a historical matter, citations would be easy to come by. But a few days ago, I stumbled onto <a href="http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/DAILYF/2002/05/daily-05-02-2002.shtml" target="_blank">this bit</a> :

You can also read his election for yourself in the <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjclink.html" target="_blank">Journals of the Continental Congress, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1782.</a> (index)

Elias Boudinot, one of the presidents of the Continental Congress, is the only connection I can find so far to the American Bible Society, who elected him their first president in 1816. Perhaps some careless reader conflated his two presidential elections into one position and, by implication, joined the Congress to the ABS. But who knows?

Perhaps the American Bible Society itself knows.
So I telephoned and e-mailed the ABS and inquired about any connections they have had with the Continental Congress. First, I talked to "Angel" (hehehe), who didn't know. But he gave me an executive's e-mail address, and I forwarded it there. I received the following response:

Any questions?


THE FOURTH SENTENCE
Immediately?
The DoI was signed July 4, 1776
The resolution to purchase Bibles was taken September 11, 1777.
I don't think a 14-month interim qualifies as "immediately" by any stretch. But it certainly was advantageous for the writer in order to sell the idea of Christianity as a priority among the "Christian" founders, wasn't it? Just how much of an "immediate" priority was it? Well:

Congress passed a resolution to distribute 20,000 Bibles, but NEVER ACTED ON IT.
<a href="http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~ghibben/FAMILY_BIBLE_NOTES.htm" target="_blank">http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~ghibben/FAMILY_BIBLE_NOTES.htm</a>
<a href="http://logosresourcepages.org/aitken.htm" target="_blank">http://logosresourcepages.org/aitken.htm</a>

I don't think this point should be undersold. I found many Christian sites that promote these Bibles as having been purchased AND distributed. Here's one example from an individual who feels <a href="http://members.truepath.com/highway30cofc/history.html" target="_blank">cheated out of history</a> :

Yikes! Can't folks relate history without introducing revisions of their own? The Federal Government didn't exist in 1777. Federalism did not begin until the later 1781 Articles of Confederation were revoked. Under the Articles, States shared power equally, and that was a catastrophe. Federalism, with its strong central government, began when the U.S. Constitution was put into effect on March 4, 1789. The First Amendment, proposed in 1789 and ratified in 1791, also did not exist in 1777.

Returning to the 20,000 Bibles, the Continental Congress, and immediacy: let's put a timeline to all this. I'm using as a basis <a href="http://logosresourcepages.org/1st.htm" target="_blank">this preface</a> written by Margaret Hills, former Secretary for Research of The American Bible Society. It is in chronological agreement with everything I've read to date, and she presents the material in a relatively objective fashion. Most of the other citations come from <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjclink.html" target="_blank">Journals of the Continental Congress--In Thirty-Four Volumes</a> . Originally, each of those links took you directly to imaged pages from the Journals. Unfortunately, there is a coding conflict in UBB/HTML that won't allow me to post URL's containing parentheses (such as the Journals of Congress). You'll have to navigate from the index to the dates yourself to read the imaged pages.


TIMELINE

July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence signed.

September 25, 1776 Congressional appointment of Robert Aitken as the official printer of the Journals of the Continental Congress.
<a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=005/lljc005.db&recNum=406&itemLink=D?hlaw:12:./temp/~ammem_sW1D::%230050407&linkText=1" target="_blank">Journals of Congress, Wednesday, September 25, 1776</a> (image)

July 7, 1777 A petition from three ministers for Bibles is read in Congress and passed on to a three-man committee including John Adams.
<a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=008/lljc008.db&recNum=162&itemLink=D?hlaw:11:./temp/~ammem_BSvr::%230080163&linkText=1" target="_blank">Journals of Congress, Monday, July 7, 1777</a> (image)
Petition found in <a href="http://logosresourcepages.org/1st.htm" target="_blank">Hills' preface</a>

September 11, 1777 The three-man committee reports that printing 30,000 copies of Bibles would be very difficult. Resolution to order Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles passes by narrow seven-to-six margin, "[t]he consideration thereof be postponed to Saturday next, to be taken up after reading the public letters."
<a href="http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjclink.html" target="_blank">Journals of Congress, Thursday, September 11, 1777</a> (index)

No more entries concerning consideration are found. The Congress appears to be preoccupied prosecuting a war of some sort.

October 26, 1780 A motion to allow "States who may think it convenient for them" to print their own Bibles. Referred to a committee.
<a href="http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjclink.html" target="_blank">Journals of Congress, Thursday, October 26, 1780</a> (index)

January 21, 1781 Robert Aitken pens a "memorial" (statement of facts to a legislative body in the form of a petition) to Congress for aid in printing a Bible. Aitken, being the publisher of the Journals of Congress, is known to its members. It is clear that his Bible is substantially under way, and he is concerned that his endeavor should have Congressional approval. As M. Hills points out, "Prior to the War of the Revolution, there had been no publication of the English Bible in the Colonies...It was, in fact, illegal for any printer in the Colonies to produce the English Bible." Aitken is looking for legitimization.
Comments and text of the memorial in <a href="http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:TCEay0wDS0oC:logosresourcepages.org/1st.htm+%22american+bible+society%22+%22continenta l+congress%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8" target="_blank">Hills' preface.</a>

January 26, 1781 Aitken's memorial referred to "the committee on the motion for printing the old and new Testament." (note: Margaret Hills changes the sense by capitalizing "motion", "printing", "old", and "new" in <a href="http://logosresourcepages.org/1st.htm" target="_blank">her preface</a>, as if the committee were formally titled that. It is not capitalized in the Journal, meaning that there was a favorable motion to print, followed by a referral.)
<a href="http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjclink.html" target="_blank">Journals of Congress, Friday, January 26, 1781</a> (index)

October 19, 1781 Cornwallis surrenders at Yorktown. Hostilities cease. Trade with Europe soon follows.

March 15, 1782 The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania offers a one hundred and fifty pounds interest-free loan to Aitken. No record of acceptance.
<a href="http://logosresourcepages.org/1st.htm" target="_blank">Hills' preface</a>

September 1, 1782 Chaplains of Congress asked to examine Aitken's nearly completed Bible.
Recorded in the September 12 Journals of Congress.

September 9, 1782 Aitken completes his Bible.
<a href="http://logosresourcepages.org/1st.htm" target="_blank">Hills' preface</a>

September 10, 1782 Chaplains submit their report.
"...He undertook this expensive work at a time, when from the circumstances of the war, an English edition of the Bible could not be imported, nor any opinion formed how long the obstruction might continue..." (further evidence that Congress never imported 20,000 Bibles)
Recorded in the September 12 Journals of Congress.

September 12, 1782 Congress gives approval of Aitken's Bible.

From the Chaplains' report:
"...Being ourselves witnesses of the demand for this invaluable book, we rejoice in the present prospect of a supply, hoping that it will prove as advantageous as it is honorable to the gentleman, who has exerted himself to furnish it at the evident risk of private fortune..." (cost borne by Aitken, not Congress)

Entire text of the so-called "blessing" by Congress:
Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled, highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report, of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorise him to publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.
<a href="http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjclink.html" target="_blank">Journals Of Congress, Thursday, September 12, 1782</a> (index)

September 25, 1782 Aitken issues his Bible.
<a href="http://logosresourcepages.org/1st.htm" target="_blank">Hills' preface</a>

September 3, 1783 Treaty of Paris. Revolutionary War officially ends.

1789 "In 1789, Aitken appealed to Congress for a patent for the exclusive right to print Bibles in America for fourteen years. It was denied."
<a href="http://logosresourcepages.org/1st.htm" target="_blank">Hills' preface</a>
This paragraph discusses specific editions being printed at the time.

1790 and 1791 Congress records receiving numerous petitions to protect the accuracy and integrity of Bibles now being widely printed in the colonies. All petitions are allowed to "lie on the table," meaning "debate ceases and motion 'Lies on Table' until raised by a subsequent motion." No evidence that Congress ever undertakes subsequent motions on these petitions.
<a href="http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsjlink.html" target="_blank">Senate Journal, First Congress, Second Session -- MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1790</a> (index)
<a href="http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwhjlink.html" target="_blank">House Journal, First Congress, Third Session -- WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 5, 1791</a> (index)
<a href="http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwhjlink.html" target="_blank">House Journal, First Congress, Third Session -- WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1791</a> (index)
Use the NAVIGATOR at each of the above links.

?, 1791 from Aitken to John Nicholson:
I have calculated from my true loss by Continental money £ 3,000 and on the Edition of 10,000 Bibles £ 4000 -- owing to these you may readily figure my situation. My house is under mortgage for a considerable sum, a foreign debt, though not of its value. I have other debts to pay, not considerable--what I earn goes to pay them as soon as earned...
<a href="http://logosresourcepages.org/1st.htm" target="_blank">Hills' preface</a>


FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

There are only three instances of "Aitken" where Congress records paying him any money. All of these are related to his position as official printer.:
"37 41/90 dollars" February 7, 1777
"1,487 6/90th dollars" and a "copper plate printing-press" June 27, 1777
"3483 45/90 dollars" March 9, 1779


There are only two instances of "Bible" or "Bibles" in the Journals of Congress around the War years. These dates are already discussed above:
Journals of Congress, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1777
Journals of Congress, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1782


CONCLUSIONS

Congress had nothing to do with the formation of the American Bible Society.
Somebody connected the wrong dots to arrive at the "Congress formed the ABS" conclusion. After much researching, I turned up nothing. The American Bible Society's own researcher shows nothing.

Congress did not take up the cause of Bibles "immediately".
The years-long timeline speaks for itself.

Congress did not purchase 30,000 Bibles, 20,000 Bible, or 10,000 Bibles.
Page after page of the Journals of Congress reads like a ledger, recording loans and expenses of a few dollars to those in the tens of thousands of dollars. Aitken lost £ 4000 on his 10,000 copies of Bibles. A purchase of a similar magnitude or greater would have certainly been recorded by Congress.

Congress did not independently initiate any action to purchase Bibles.
The records are clear that Congress was petitioned by citizens for their Bible problems, and only then did Congress discuss Bibles. No record of concrete action is ever recorded.

Support for the resolution to import 20,000 Bibles was not universal.
It passed by a one-vote margin.

Congress did not cause Bibles to be printed.
Aitken was already well under way with his Bible when he petitioned for aid from Congress.

Congress did not actively promote Aitken's Bible.
Congress gave Aitken a pat on the back, a nice recommendation, and let Aitken "publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper." Aitken put it in the front of his Bibles himself without being ordered to by Congress, as some have suggested.

Congress did nothing to protect Aitken's interest.
His petition for a patent was denied.

Congress did not buy Aitken's book.
Aitken lost his shirt and went into heavy debt by his own reckoning.

The Continental Congress was over its head fighting the Revolutionary War. Bibles were not a priority: no assets to print, no money for imports, petitions deferred to committees, petitions allowed to languish, etc. When a solution presented itself in the form of Aitken's Bible, Congress did not finance, print, promote, protect, or purchase it. Aitken bore the risk alone.


A FINAL NOTE

I'm not an expert on early American history, but I have been very interested in Constitutional and Church/State issues. It is only by spending hours researching this one post, piecing the timeline together, spending time in the <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjclink.html" target="_blank">Journals of the Continental Congress--In Thirty-Four Volumes</a> , that I came to the understanding I present here. This is my most time-intensive post. I have caught errors along the way, and if I am wrong about anything else I have related here, please let me know. All I ask is that you please give me a decent citation to look at. I have made an honest attempt to cut through the murk, which is more than I can say about some self-professed historians. I hope this is useful to you in refuting any other related claims that come down the pike.


-gravitybow-

(edited for format and to renumber sentences)
(edited to correct Elias Boudinot from "first president" to "a president" of the Continental Congress. Boudinot was actually <a href="http://lego70.tripod.com/us/contcongress.htm" target="_blank">farther down the list</a> of Continental Congress presidents.)
(edited to change "4000 English pounds" to "£ 4000" in CONCLUSIONS, as reflected in Aitken's letter. I need to look at this in more depth.)

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: gravitybow ]</p>

Ab_Normal

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

dangin

Yes, very nice work indeed.

beejay

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Let me add congratulations. Incredibly good work there.

Buffman

Research and presentation worthy of the highest praise. I hope that II elects to place this in their own storehouse of accurate historical knowledge. Thank you for the outstanding research.

(This was an absolute joy to read. Have you considered submitting it for publication in national media outlets or professional history journals?)

Stephen Maturin

gravitybow,

That's genuinely outstanding scholarship! Thanks a million for passing it along.

Accomodationists figured out long ago that it takes but a couple of sentences and very little effort to disseminate whole cornucopia of lies. By contrast, debunking those lies takes countless hours of research, analysis and writing. Fortunately enough, our side has folks like you--highly skilled people willing to expend in the necessary time and effort.

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Toto

It is great work. It should be in the II Library.

GaryP

Thanks, gravitybow. I appreciate your hard work.

Something I'll keep bookmarked.

fromtheright

I must give credit where it's due. Excellent work!
<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

gravitybow

Thank you all for the accolades. Maybe this will redeem me from all those trashy posts in the lower forums.

When I got going on this, I couldn't quit. A labor of love. But I honestly want you guys to poke holes in it or point out anything questionable, no matter how small.

Thanks, Buffman. You are certainly one who has set a standard of documentation to emulate. I'm still finding little tweaks here and there to make it as accurate as possible. I don't want some yo-yo trashing the whole thing because I made an error somewhere. For instance, I really need to look closer at the significance of Aitken's £ 4000 loss. As I've recently discovered, Continental money became nearly worthless after the war, more had been printed than could be backed up. It's possible Aitken is referring to this devaluation to some degree. But, for other reasons already addressed, that doesn't change the conclusion that Congress did not buy Aitken's book . I may have to alter the tag a bit, that's all.

Amen! I really didn't know how many hours until I got started. Like countless needles in a haystack, these claims have invisible sources requiring a magnifying glass to track down each one. Yet they are freely dispensed as the truth without question.

What? And blow my super-secret crimefighting identity?

Actually, I'll consider it. It would be worth it. You may have to direct me to someone about formatting it appropriately and submitting it. I'm glad you think it worthy of the Library, Toto.

I'm going to be out of town for a few days and completing other projects when I return. But I hope you folks give my post a good scrutinizing. In other words, don't poke your fundie Uncle Joe in the eye with it just yet. After finding and reviewing more drivel on the Internet, I know of at least one other conclusion that must be added as an antidote.