Buffman

Radorth

Really? Who wrote the note Buffman?

I don't know.

Steele never says anything like "these were Dayton's exact words." In fact he says "as best as I recollect.

And if he did hear the anecdote from Dayton, it was as best as Dayton could recollect after 28 years. Did he say that to Steele? Steele doesn't tell us.,,,and all that we keep reading is that it is "authentic." Why is that stressed?

Also Madison seems to be admitting Franklin did make a proposition and it was considered:

Good golly, man! Read the speech!

Finally!

I agree that Steele is putting words in Franklin's mouth, but what is the great difference in what Madison and Steele say Franklin is asking for? Steele says:

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 1]

(pg.450)

(Extract)
[Note 12: 12 Madison originally made an abstract of Franklin's speech in about 200 words. This was later stricken out--and this note made: “see opposite page & insert the speech of Doctr F in this place.” On the opposite page under the heading “June 28, in convention” is the speech which is here given--but without Franklin's name.
Among the Franklin Papers in the Library of Congress is a copy of this speech differing hardly at all from the text except in more frequent use of capitals.]
(End extract)

So he is asking to employ clergy to pray before the convention opens "every morning."

Yes!

And what main events is Steele in disagreement with Madison about? None that I can see.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

(Jer. 5:21 and "The proverb has been traced back in English to 1546 (John Heywood), and resembles the Biblical verse quoted (above). In 1738, it was used by Jonathan Swift in his 'Polite Conversation,' and is first attested in the United States in the 1713 'Works of Thomas Chalkley'..." )

Madison does not tell us anything about facial expressions, so there is really nothing in the record to refute the quote I used anyway.

Better pay close attention. There soon could be a very sound refutation of the Steele/Barton/Lederer use of this anecdote.

But I am curious, Buffman: who wrote that note you made much of and say is on the official record? You don't say who wrote it or when. I presume it was Madison. But if so, how is it Congress did start employing clergy?

Last question first. I answered this the last time you ask it. In the Continental Congress.

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/chaptest.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/chaptest.htm</a>


Now your first part. Go back to my opening post on this Topic. Scroll down to the last paragraph and go look it up yourself. Like I say above... I DON"T KNOW. Please go to the Library of Congress and ask to see the Franklin speech and then you might be able to tell all of us who wrote the note. Perhaps it was Ben himself. It was his speech. Hire a hand writing expert.

If you wish to contribute to this historical treasure hunt, see if you can determine if there was/was not any way that Wm Steele could have gained access to the Franklin speech other than from someone who heard it at the Convention...before he wrote his letter. Thanks.

gravitybow

Here is what you said that I responded to:

You said Dayton could have been doing the looking through rose-colored glasses. How can one not see that as a firsthand characterization, looking at the world through Dayton's eyes? It's not a fair assessment because the account comes from William Steele who could have had the rose-colored glasses.

You asked a reasonable question (Radorth: Is that a fair assessment or not?), I provided a brief, civil answer. Can we set the "rather belabored witch-hunt" rhetoric aside? I would appreciate it.

Radorth

You know Buffman, you quote Madison as if he was the final authority on everything constitutional, when in fact he was outvoted on many, many occasions. He does question whether paid chaplains are a violation of the "wall" and I think it is a fair question. Unfortunately, Madison is in a small minority of what, two people? Now if you want to argue Madison was right and everybody else was wrong, go ahead. Sometimes I just wish you would say the founders were WRONG about this or that instead of impugning peoples motives when they are winning the "quote war." Here you are apparently arguing they intended greater separation based on the musings of Madison, who's imaginations turned out to be unfounded I think.

Interesting the reasons WHY the bill to support churches was turned down, and that it was nixed by the most zealous Christians. Personally I think it was a really dumb, unworkable bill.

Well I can't imagine what you'll come up with to refute Steele's little anecdote. Somebody saying Washington was actually grinning at Martha making faces through a window?

Rad

Buffman

Radorth

You know Buffman, you quote Madison as if he was the final authority on everything constitutional, when in fact he was outvoted on many, many occasions.

That's ridiculous. I am quoting Madison's records of the Convention as found in Ferrand's works, not Madison's votes. Madison's records are the most accurate ones. Here is an excerpt from the Preface to my copy of the "Debates", written by Richard S. Alley.

(Excerpt)
In his volume titled '1787: The Grand Convention', the well known scholar Clinton Rossiter noted: "As one learns in comparing his notes with those of other self-appointed but only part-time scribes (Yates, Lansing, King, McHenry, Paterson, Hamilton, Pierce), the record he (Madison) left us is remarkably full, impartial, and accurate."
(End excerpt)

Sometimes I just wish you would say the founders were WRONG about this or that instead of impugning peoples motives when they are winning the "quote war."

Muhahahahaha! You are such a clown. That's it! I give up. You win. You are simply too sharp and clever for me. I don't have the patience or enough years left in my life to waste any more of them responding to your manner of post. You seem to be more interested in attempting to elevate yourself by attacking me than contributing anything tangible or valuable to the content of my posts. That's sad. Even so, I wish you Happy Holidays. I feel sure "your" Santa will answer all your prayers.

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Radorth

Some where in the following, Buffman says "I don't know." Help Rad solve the mystery, kids.

(Rad, holding up mirror) Gee, I read a lot of conclusions based on a totally mysterious comment which could have been written by anybody. But then atheists automatically have more integrity than Christians, so we don't really care who wrote that. Buffman thinks it has a nice ring to it. And never mind that the Congress began post-Constitutional life by hiring Protestant chaplains and Jefferson was soon attending "divine services" held in public buildings. A plot to tear his wall down had been hatched already.

Gee I guess we won't get the promised rebuke of Steele's rather innocuous assertion, as Buffman has once again elevated himself above speaking to the lowly Rad.

Criminy. I'm glad I didn't give up. I would have missed all the fun.

Rad

Rusting Car Bumper

Can someone **briefly** sum up the Dayton-Steele-Madison controversy.

This thread does not clearly indicate what the base claims are or at least I don't seem to be deriving them.

DC

Toto

Our side: at one highly contentious point in the Constitutional Convention debates that led to the writing of the US Constitution, it seemed that the delegates were at an impasse. Benjamin Franklin proposed that a minister be brought in to pray for divine guidance. His motivation was not clear, and the assembled delegates said, no thanks, not necessary. No more mention of prayer. This is supported by the documentary evidence, although the record of what happened at the convention may not have been complete.

Steele's fable: After Franklin's speech, which is recorded as more elaborate and flowery than others remembered it, Washington looked grateful for the idea, the motion passed, and the delegates adjourned for three days while they went and prayed in local churches, then reassembled to finish the writing of the Constitution. This is supported by the second hand recollections many years after the fact told by Dayton to Steele, and recorded in a letter from William to Jonathan Steele.

Did I get that right?

Rusting Car Bumper

Our side? hehe. My side is which ever side is supported by the evidence... anyway...

If you can.. How was this story told? Dayton told it to one Steele and then to another? In whose handwriting does the evidence exist for the claim?

Is there any independent lines off evidence support either claim?

DC

Toto

DC - on the first page of this thread, I converted some of Buffman's links so they could be posted. You will find 4 links with 'snurl' in them - the actual links are incompatible with UBB. The first is a letter from Steele, written years after the fact, which is the only evidence for Rad's/David Barton's claim that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention spent 3 days praying to God for guidance, before they finished writing a godless Constitution. The other three cast doubt on the claim. That's all I have time for now.

Buffman

DC

1. William Steele, in a Sep 1825 letter to his son, Jonathan D. Steele, claims that roughly ten years earlier, Jonathan Dayton told him an anecdote about the day (June 28, 1787) that Ben Franklin addressed the Convention and called for prayers to assist them in their deliberations. The description about the effect of this speech on the assembled delegates and the events that stemmed from it, are highly suspect.

2. The basic text of the Wm Steele letter, which Jonathan Steele allows to be printed by a private company and placed in the public domain, differs in many factual ways from the 1840 James Madison report of that speech and associated events.

3. The Wm Steele letter is far more religious in tone than any other information available concerning that day or those days that followed.

4. James Madison remarks (in 1831 & 34) that the information contained in an earlier "National Intelligencer" publication contains erroneous information....though Madison provides little of a specific nature, at that time, to support his contention.

Like most attempts to provide verifiably accurate historical information, it requires considerable time and effort to do so. Since, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever throughly investigated the Wm. Steele letter account of June 28, 1787, I thought the readership might find it interesting and informative if I attempted to do so here.

Additionally, since it was Radorth (using a David Barton original citation) who called my attention to this letter, I had hoped that he might be interested in helping to either confirm or deny its credibility. That's what this topic is all about...the verifiability and credibility of the William Steele letter of September 1825. Is it possible to confirm any, or all, of the information contained within it? (i.e.: Did Jonathan Dayton ever tell the ancedote to Wm. Steele? If so, how accurately did he relate it some 28 years after the fact? What motivated Wm. Steele to write it at the time he is alleged to have done so? There are tons of questions still unanswered...few of which can be done "briefly."