Psycho Economist

"UFOlogists" are also especially notorious for doing that sort of thing, so I'm not surprised that reconstructionists do.

Buffman

RufusAtticus

You backward, Imperial, Romans are all alike when given a taste of power....critics without portfolio.

Buffman

Here are the latest research developments into the so-called "General" Jonathan Dayton narrative of the June 28, 1787 Ben Franklin speech. My special thanks to Jim Allison for his assistance and for placing this information in chronological order.

I have yet to find anything that indicates that Jonathan Dayton rose above the rank of Captain. However, his father, Elias, WAS a General. Though Elias was nominated to attend the Convention, he turned it down and recommeded that Jonathan replace him.--- Additionally, I have found nothing to indicate that William Steele even knew Jonathan Dayton, let alone well enough to have heard this anecdote from him, supposedly repeated 28 years after the actual occurance; and then written down by William and sent to his son, Jonathan D. Steele 11 months after the death of J. Dayton.

James Madison's official "Journal of the Convention" was printed in 1819...roughly six years before the copy of the Wm Steele letter was published.

>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >

So far the chronology appears to be:

JUNE 28, 1787: The actual events took place. No mention of most of this information and a different version of Franklins speech, etc.
--------------------------------------------------

1815: Sometime around 1815, William Steele claims to have been talking with Jonathan Dayton who related the anecdote to him. The information related would have been 28 years old at that time. [Buffman]
--------------------------------------------------

xxxxx Someone should attempt to confirm my math. I am basing that year only on the written dialogue between Wm and Jonathan Steele. That's why I said "sometime around." Rather flaky![Buffman]

OCTOBER 9, 1824: Jonathan Dayton died.[Buffman]
--------------------------------------------------

SEPTEMBER 1825:

Farrand's Records--CCCLV. William Steele to Jonathan D. Steele.[1]

Painted Post, September, 1825.
My dear Son: --

[Actual text of the letter followed, but snipped here to save band width.] Buffman

I am, very affectionately,
Your father,Wm. Steele.

To Jonathan D. Steele. -------------------

[Note 1: 1 Littell's Living Age, 25 May, 1850, [pp. 357-359] The National Intelligencer of August 26, 1826, had printed this with the following introduction from the New York Gazette:
"A friend has favored us with an interesting Manuscript, relating to a most important period of our history. The circumstances here detailed are new to us, and we believe they have never before been published. The narrative is in the words of General --, one of the members of the General Convention which framed the Constitution. It was committed to paper by the gentleman to whom General -- detailed the facts, and we now have the satisfaction of laying it before our readers."
For Madison's comment on this anecdote see CCCLXXIX and CCCXCIII below.]
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Volume III, Appendex A, [Farrand's Records, Volume 3] CCCLV. William Steele to Jonathan D. Steele.[1] Pp. 467- 473

[Specific URL deleted because of UBB Code incompatibility:Buffman]

--------------------------------------------------

In September of 1825, from Painted Post, NY, William Steele writes his son, Jonathan D. Steele, providing him with the, now, 38 year old anecdote that he has finally set to paper....even though claiming to have repeated the anecdote to other "gentlemen of information" over those ten years and alleging that he had intended to get Dayton's permission to write it all down but that Dayton had died before he could. (Hold on here. Dayton died on October 9, 1824. Therefore Wm. Steele had nine years to get that permission even though he had been telling the story to others for allthose years. However, within a year after Dayton's death he has written the story down and sent it to his son, rather than those others? Hmmmmmm? What's wrong with this picture?) [Buffman]
===============================================

AUGUST 26, 1826: The National Intelligencer article containing the Steele
letter.

[As yet not physically confirmed.:Buffman]
================================================

APRIL 8, 1831: Farrand's Records--CCCLXXIX. James Madison to Jared Sparks.[2]

Montpellier, April 8, 1831.

"It was during that period of gloom, that Dr. Franklin made the proposition for a religious service in the Convention, an account of which
was so erroneously given, with every semblance of authenticity, through the National Intelligencer, several years ago." [1]
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Volume III, Appendex A, [Farrand's Records, Volume 3] CCCLXXIX. James
Madison to Jared Sparks. p. 499-500

[URL-UBB incompatibility:Buffman]
==================================================

APRIL 1831: Farrand's Records--CCCLXXX. James Madison to J. K. Paulding.[2]

Montpellier, Apl--, 1831.

Of Franklin I had no personal knowledge till we served together in the Federal Convention of 1787, and the part he took there has found its way to the public, with the exception of a few anecdotes which belong to the unveiled part of the proceedings of that Assembly.
[Note 2: 2 Letters and other Writings of James Madison, IV, 174--175, 177.]
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Volume III, Appendex A, [Farrand's Records, Volume 3] CCCLXXX. James
Madison to J. K. Paulding. p. 500

[URL-UBB incompatibility.:Buffman]

==================================================

JANUARY 6, 1834: Farrand's Records--CCCXCIII. James Madison to Thomas S. Grimke.[1]

"Montpr. Jany, 6. 1834.
You wish to be informed of the errors in your pamphlet alluded to in my last. The first related to the proposition of Doctor Franklin in
favor of a religious service in the Federal Convention. The proposition was received & treated with the respect due to it; but the lapse of time which had preceded, with considerations growing out of it, had the effect of limiting what was done, to a reference of the proposition to a highly respectable Committee. This issue of it may be traced in the printed Journal. The Quaker usage, never discontinued in the State & the place where the Convention held its sittings, might not have been without an influence as might also, the discord of religious opinions within the
Convention, as well as among the Clergy of the Spot. The error into which you had fallen may have been confirmed by a communication in the NationalIntelligencer [2] some years ago, said to have been received through a respectable channel from a member of the Convention. That the communication was erroneous is certain; whether from misapprehension or misrecollection, uncertain."
[Note 1: 1 Documentary History of the Constitution, V, 395--398.]
[Note 2: 2 See CCCLV and CCCLXXIX above.]
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Volume III, Appendex A, [Farrand's Records, Volume 3] CCCXCIII. James
Madison to Thomas S. Grimke. p. 531

[URL-UBB incompatibility.:Buffman]

xxxxx "Clergy of the Spot?" [Buffman]

===============================================

1840: Notes of debates in the Federal Convention of 1787. First published in v. 2-3 of The papers of James Madison, Washington, 1840. First published separately in 1893 under title: Journal of the Federal Convention.
--------------------------------------------------

APRIL 29, 1850

New York, April 29th, 1850.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVING AGE:

When I promised, last week, in Boston, that I would send you a copy of a letter from my father, received twenty-five years ago, narrating a most interesting historical fact, not elsewhere so minutely recorded, I think you concurred with me in the opinion that its publication could not
but be useful at this time, when the wisdom and sagacity of our Franklin, and the spirit of conciliation and mutual concession evinced by the
convention which adopted our Constitution, are so much needed at Washington.
On Saturday last, I took from my files the original letter, which I now enclose to you, (and which, as I informed you, was published in the Daily Advertiser, in 1825,) and handed it to my clerk to copy. Judge, then, of my surprise, on opening the New York Observer, of the same day,
Saturday, 27th, to find that, by a singular coincidence, some ancient reader, and rememberer, too, of the paper of my late valued friend, Theodore Dwight, Esq., had without my knowledge, brought forward from the dark recesses of years long elapsed, this identical letter, in the same spirit in which you proposed to republish it. As everything which relates to the formation of our glorious Union is deeply interesting to all those who wish for its perpetuity, I should be gratified to see an historical anecdote of
so much interest, and of undoubted authenticity, transferred to the pages of the "Living age.."

xxxxx (Made some minor typo corrections in the above.)[Buffman]

--------------------------------------------------

3. Evidently, in the "Living Age" letter of 29 April 1850, J.D. Steele infers that he provided his father's letter to Theodore Dwight who published the anecdote in the "New-York Daily Advertiser" within the last three months of 1825. J.Steele goes on to mention that he has just read
(Saturday, April 27, 1850, in the "New York Observer" ) the identical article that had appeared in 1825. This contradicts the Ferrand's
contention that it was first published in "The National Intelligencer " (A Washington D.C. paper) of August 26, 1826 with an introduction from the "New York Gazette." claiming it had NOT been published before. Yet this is nearly one full year from the date that Wm Steele posted it to his son, Jonathan. Obviously the only way to resolve this conflict would be to have the alleged "Advertiser's" (Oct?/Nov?/Dec?) 1825 copy to compare to that of the alleged "Intelligencer's" Aug. 26, 1826 copy. However, we also have the 1831 and 1834 words of James Madison claiming that it was published in the "National Intelligencer." (Madison references his official "Journal of the Convention", which was published in 1819, for the accurate descriptions of the events of June 28, 1787. However, it wasn't until around 1840 that a final manuscript of the "Debates in the Convention of 1787" was printed.) [Buffman]

xxxxx (Deleted an "and" & "the")[Buffman]

I have this for the Journal of the Convention. Are we talking about the same thing?
1840: Notes of debates in the Federal Convention of 1787. First published in v. 2-3 of The papers of James Madison, Washington, 1840. First published separately in 1893 under title: Journal of the Federal Convention.

xxxxx (See separate message)[Buffman]

4. Now we have E.C. M'Guire, "The Religious Opinions and Character of Washington "(NY: Harper & Brothers, 1836), p. 151 book citing the Jonathan Dayton June 28, 1787, in the Constitutional Convention, alleged observations. However, exactly what did M'Guire cite on that "one" page?[Buffman]

5. Given the content and verifiable chronological errors in the Wm. Steele rendition of the alleged Dayton anecdote, and that Madison
wrote his Journal as the actual events transpired, and that there is a certified copy of the Franklin speech available for comparison, the Wm. Steele letter to his son sounds like a complete Christian propaganda reworking of the historical events that actually took place.. especially since the Franklin speech is the only claim that Christians have that their supernatural beliefs were ever discussed in the entire convention. Why else would Timothy Dwight, Theodore's religiously zealous brother, have publicly sermonized, on July 1812, that the Convention was Godless? [Buffman]

Radorth

I don't see where you refute my quote about Washingtons's visage, Buffman. You are simply trying to refute the whole by finding an error in the part. I could refute entire atheist propaganda essays using that technique, of course.

This seems to be the key problem:

Ah, so even Madison admits that the record is real, but that Dayton could have been looking through rose colored glasses at Washington and Franklin. Is that a fair assessment or not?

I don't know, but when I see it, I will decide whether Dayton was just inventing things, or may have honestly recorded what he thought. The quotes I used still seems rather innocent to me. Not sure why you are making a crusade out of turning a misdemeanor into a felony, and claiming this huge underground plot against the truth.

All you've shown is that Dayton may have misread Washington's face after Franklin's prayer, or that he saw friendlier feelings when there were not. Right?!

I still see no reason to doubt the quotes I gave, particilarly since Madison is not referring to them, and Madison tells us almost nothing about the visages of the delegates at various points.

Rad

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

Radorth

And I DO NOT use quotes where Barton and/or a modern Christian publication is sole source, but neither do I reject them out of hand just because they use them. That would be silly, and your innuendo is getting a little old.

BTW, the "primitive Christianity" Franklin quote atheists claim is bogus is used on an atheist site I found yesterday, to prove some case they were making. So either they don't check sources, or they know it is valid. (It comes from a letter he wrote to the French Ministry apparently)

Rad

gravitybow

Not a fair assessment. Madison is criticizing a communication from William Steele (the letter which his son eventually published), not a first-hand recollection by Dayton. Steele, who was not at the Convention, presents an account denied by Madison. Madison says that this particular communication is incorrect.

What Buffman has shown is that the Steele narrative is suspect and countered by Madison.

Toto

Here are some of Buffman's links, transformed using <a href="http://www.snurl.com" target="_blank">www.snurl.com</a> , a nifty free site that handles long and complicated links.

letter from Wm. Steel to Jonathan Steel
<a href="http://snurl.com/Steel" target="_blank">http://snurl.com/Steel</a>

letter from Madison to Sparks
<a href="http://snurl.com/MadisonSparks" target="_blank">http://snurl.com/MadisonSparks</a>

letter from Madison to Paulding
<a href="http://snurl.com/MadisonPaulding" target="_blank">http://snurl.com/MadisonPaulding</a>

letter from Madison to Grimke
<a href="http://snurl.com/MadisonGrimke" target="_blank">http://snurl.com/MadisonGrimke</a>

Buffman

Radorth

I don't see where you refute my quote about Washingtons's visage, Buffman.

What has Washington's visage got to do with the fact that James Madison states that the Wm Steele account is in error?

You are simply trying to refute the whole by finding an error in the part.

I guess that if I believed in virgin births, resurrections and all the other supernatural miracles that are a part and parcel of your faith belief system, I wouldn't question the divinely inspired label of your Holy Book either. However, since I don't believe in ghosts, fairies, imps, gremlins, or miracles. Therefore I guess I will just have to question the honesty of the person who composed that Wm. Steele letter because it has so many lies in it.

I could refute entire atheist propaganda essays using that technique, of course.

Don't let me stop you. Go for it!

This seems to be the key problem:
quote:

The error into which you had fallen may have been confirmed by a communication in the NationalIntelligencer [2] some years ago, said to have been received through a respectable channel from a member of the Convention. That the communication was erroneous is certain; whether from misapprehension or misrecollection, uncertain."

Ah, so even Madison admits that the record is real, but that Dayton could have been looking through rose colored glasses at Washington and Franklin. Is that a fair assessment or not?

What on earth are you claiming? Madison admits that a letter was printed. However, he points out that the content of that letter "is erroneous." Then, gentleman that he is, he offers two possible explanations for why the content "is erroneous" ...a failure to understand what "might" have been said at the time, or a failure to accurately recall what might of been said. But that is all irrelevant because there is a original copy of what Ben Franklin actually said in the Library of Congress. All that talk about what some chaplain will do in the Convention has been manufactured in the mind of the author of the letter...along with much of the supposed Dayton amplifying narrative.

quote:

Now we have E.C. M'Guire, "The Religious Opinions and Character of Washington "(NY: Harper & Brothers, 1836), p. 151 book citing the Jonathan Dayton June 28, 1787, in the Constitutional Convention, alleged observations. However, exactly what did M'Guire cite on that "one" page?

I don't know, but when I see it, I will decide whether Dayton was just inventing things, or may have honestly recorded what he thought.

Exactly how and why would you make a decision based on a one page entry in a different book that merely references a letter that appeared in a newspaper offering an obviously erroneous description of words and events of 28 June 1787. Why on earth would you accept the word of someone who wasn't at the Convention over someone that was? Please don't say that Dayton was at the Convention also. We only have the word of the person who wrote the WM Steele letter that Dayton said these things 28 years after the fact...and another ten years before those alleged words were even written...and only after Dayton was dead. You aren't undermining me with this nonsense. You are attempting to undermine the official records. Attack them if you can. That's what I'm doing. If you think that the WM Steele letter content is valid, then find some verifiable evidence that it is. I haven't found any. I have actually found a bunch of verifiable conflicts that lead me to believe that it is intentional religious propaganda/ misinformation. What verifiable evidence do you have that Dayton said any of the things claimed in that letter? That's the real issue.

My current concern is who was Wm Steele and,

1. If he ever even knew or met Jonathan Dayton in 1815,
2. If so, why he waited until after Dayton's death to write down the anecdote, and
3. If he even wrote that letter to his son. (Where is the original letter today?)

The quotes I used still seems rather innocent to me. Not sure why you are making a crusade out of turning a misdemeanor into a felony, and claiming this huge underground plot against the truth.

Why am I not surprised that you do not understand? I am interested in the verifiable facts. What are your interests? As I have told you many times, a lie is a lie regardless of the author. There has been a "plot" to sell Christian Everlasting Life Insurance Policies for around 2000 years. Why would that effort change now?

All you've shown is that Dayton may have misread Washington's face after Franklin's prayer, or that he saw friendlier feelings when there were not. Right?!

Wrong! I have shown that Datyon may not have said any of the things being claimed and reported as his words. Thank you for calling my attention to this issue.

[b]I still see no reason to doubt the quotes I gave, particilarly since Madison is not referring to them, and Madison tells us almost nothing about the visages of the delegates at various points.

And exactly to what is Madison referring if not the inaccuracy of the words as published in the National Intelligencer? If the accuracy of the Franklin speech is in doubt, then the accuracy of the rest of the letter's narrative can be, and should be, placed in question. Once again, rather than working so hard attempting to undermine my research efforts, why don't you do some research of your own and provide everyone with your evidence that Dayton did relate this anecdote to Wm. Steele exactly as Steele wrote it down ten years later. That kind of effort would be most welcome.

And I DO NOT use quotes where Barton and/or a modern Christian publication is sole source,...

Prove it! Provide some URL links or verifiable references. I have researched most of your quotes back to Barton. How do you explain that? And this is one of them.

....but neither do I reject them out of hand just because they use them.

Neither do I. But I go much further than you do. I make a very concerted effort to confirm the authenticity of the quote. That's what brought me to the Sec Web over two years ago. I was attempting to confirm a Marquis de Lafayette quote I found listed on almost every atheist Web quote URL. I wound up sending out at least a half-dozen e-mails to these page owners telling them that they should not use it until if could be verified. I just sent an e-mail to Ed Buckner telling him that there was a questionable quote attribution on one of his pages. (And if you don't know Ed buckner, put his name in a Google search.)

That would be silly, and your innuendo is getting a little old.

That sounds like another personal problem. Perhaps you should learn how to deal with it more successfully.

BTW, the "primitive Christianity" Franklin quote atheists claim is bogus is used on an atheist site I found yesterday, to prove some case they were making. So either they don't check sources, or they know it is valid. (It comes from a letter he wrote to the French Ministry apparently)

I don't know at the moment. I am working this issue, not that one.

Radorth

Really? Who wrote the note Buffman?

I never said it was a first-hand account. The account by Steele is untrustworthy given it is second hand and had ten years to ferment in Steele's mind. But I'm sorry, this inquiry smacks of a rather belabored witch-hunt. Steele never says anything like "these were Dayton's exact words." In fact he says "as best as I recollect..

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

"The first related to the proposition of Doctor Franklin in favor of a religious service in the Federal Convention. The proposition was received & treated with the respect due to it; but the lapse of time which had preceded, with considerations growing out of it, had the effect of limiting what was done, to a reference of the proposition to a highly respectable Committee. This issue of it may be traced in the printed Journal. The Quaker usage, never discontinued in the State & the place where the Convention held its sittings, might not have been without an influence as might also, the discord of religious opinions within the Convention, as well as among the Clergy of the Spot. The error into which you had fallen..."

So what is this great gulf between Madison's and Steele's reports? While I think Madison's was more accurate (and Federer does too by the way) both reports have Franklin asking that heaven be implored "henceforth."

(More)

Radorth

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 doctor continued: “Before I sit down, Mr. President, I will suggest another matter; and I am really surprised that it has not been proposed by some other member at an earlier period of our deliberations. I will suggest, Mr. President, the propriety of nominating and appointing, before we separate, a chaplain to this Convention, whose duty it shall be uniformly to assemble with us, and introduce the business of each day by an address to the Creator of the universe, and the Governor of all nations, beseeching Him to preside in our council, enlighten our minds with a portion of heavenly wisdom, influence our hearts with a love of truth and justice, and crown our labors with complete and abundant success!”

In Madison's account, Franklin asks that:

"I therefore beg leave to move- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning...and that one or more clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service."

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

Neither I nor Federer is even using Steele's account, except as the only known source of how Washington reacted to Franklin's plea. Is it really such a stretch to think Washington would have been impressed with Franklin's speech, given Franklin's "deism"? And what main events is Steele in disagreement with Madison about? None that I can see.

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

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?

Rad

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