Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Buffman · 12-16-2002, 07:25 PM

While involved in the Battle of the Quotes with Sec Web Member Radorth, I was intrigued by his Jonathan Dayton post because it was the first time I had ever heard about it; and it disagreed with many of the facts that I had accepted as accurate. I did a Google search on Dayton and discovered, much to my dismay, that a great many sites were using it. However, all these sites had several things in common. They were all religious or conservative ones; and they all seemed to be using William J. Federer's "America's God and Country Encylopedia of Quotations" as their source document. I was finally able to find a partial reproduction of his book quote and noticed that he was using David Barton as a source for the Dayton quotes. Alarms started ringing. As far as I am concerned, anyone who uses a Barton quote places their own level of accurate scholarship in jeopardy. Lederer's book immediately became, and remains, suspect.

One of the propaganda techniques employed by the radical religious right in this country is to author a great many books and then to use quotes from each other's works as accurate research scholarship. The bibliographies and footnotes will be packed with seemingly authoritative references...until one takes the time to investigate the backgrounds of each of the named authors. That is when the pattern of religiously motivated collusion begins to clearly emerge. Then names like McGuire, Weems, Sparks, Morris, Marshall, Barton and Lederer begin to appear over and over again as the reference sources.

Unfortunately I was unable to get any further information about the source of the Dayton quote from member Radorth, though he did seem to acknowledge that Lederer was his likely source. Since the posted narrative was supposedly based on a written document, I attempted, without success, to find it among the collected writings of Dayton. This caused me to go back to all the sites that were using this quote and see if one of them might provide me with a clue I could use to track it down to an original document. Fortunately I found two such clues. The first was a date of 1825, and the second was the surname "Steele". After a number of dead ends, I finally located the following which I present for general information/knowledge.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwfr.html

Farrand's Records Vol. III--CCCLV. William Steele to Jonathan D. Steele.1

(Extract)
[Note 1: 1 Littell's Living Age, 25 May, 1850. 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.]

Painted Post, September, 1825. (The entire story follows.)
(End abstract)

NOTE: Dayton was the youngest delegate and Franklin the oldest. Dayton arrived at the Convention on June 21, 1787. He died in 1824 before the publication of the supposed "authentic" narrative.

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/B/dayton/dayton.htm

Farrand's Records Vol. III--CCCLXXIX. James Madison to Jared Sparks.2

(Excerpt)
"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."
(End excerpt)

Farrand's Records Vol. III--CCCXCIII. James Madison to Thomas S. Grimke.1

(Excerpt)
"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 National Intelligencer2 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."
(End excerpt)

Clearly James Madison believed that this entire Dayton narrative was a contrived story that did not support the actual history involved. And who would know better what actually occurred than the man that chronicled all the debates with meticulous care? Additionally, it takes very little research to be able to conclusively show that the Dayton narrative is filled with errors...whether by knowledgeable design or not.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

What proved to be one of the most interesting side benefits of my research on this issue was the discovery of a footnote located at
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875 Farrand's Records, Volume 1 Page 452 of 606, mentioning that there is a note attached to the original manuscript of the Franklin speech maintained at the Library of Congress which states, "The Convention, except three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary." Even though the daily average of delegates was only around 40 of the 55 who attended the debates, that statement is a very strong indicator of their lack of the kind of dogmatic Christian zealotry that we see from certain individuals today.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]

Toto · 12-16-2002, 11:58 PM

Good research.

dangin · 12-17-2002, 10:03 AM

Equally interesting is Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith where he references (with footnotes) his own earlier book The Case for Christ. He is making a statement and using his own earlier publication as a reference.

Is this what passes for integrity among xian apologists.

hezekiah jones · 12-17-2002, 10:28 AM

Impossible. Radorth never uses David Barton as a source.

hezekiah jones · 12-17-2002, 10:38 AM

"[Strobel] is making a statement and using his own earlier publication as a reference."

I love that shit. A bit off topic, but in Stephen C. Meyer's article in the Utah Law Review in support of "intelligent design," Meyer makes the statement, pursuant to criticisms by the philosopher of science Larry Laudan of a certain creationism court decision: "More recent studies in the philosophy of science have confirmed and amplified Laudan's analysis." Footnote 151 below cites three separate articles, all of which are authored by Stephen C. Meyer!

I know they do that a lot in scientific journals, but that's different. Those are based on reproducible experimental results.

Buffman · 12-17-2002, 01:01 PM

H.J.

I have no particular topic other than to provide the most accurate source information I can find and let the chips fall where they may. Education is the goal. Your observation about the difference between the Meyer-Lauden use of references and those of David Barton is right on the money...."verifiable."

pz · 12-17-2002, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hezekiah jones:
<strong>
I know they do that a lot in scientific journals, but that's different. Those are based on reproducible experimental results.</strong>

Not exactly. I consider it extremely suspect when you read a paper, and find that a large number of the citations are from the same lab. It's not quite as masturbatory as what you described Meyer doing, but it's always better to see independent verification of a claim.

hezekiah jones · 12-17-2002, 01:35 PM

Not exactly. I consider it extremely suspect when you read a paper, and find that a large number of the citations are from the same lab.

Point taken, and the fact that such citations raise a red flag for you speaks to the fact that scientists are by nature a skeptical collection of individuals, and not just components of an uncritical, monolithic entity that the ID crowd paints the scientific "establishment."

Amen-Moses · 12-17-2002, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dangin:
Is this what passes for integrity among xian apologists.

Yes.

Amen-Moses

RufusAtticus · 12-17-2002, 05:34 PM

Buffman, your work is crap. As I showed earlier at <a href="http://iidb.org/123456" target="_blank">this location</a>.

Edit to add: That link is broken because the evil harry potter/atheist/wiccan/satanist/homosexual/black panther/islam/feminist/evolutionist/historian conspiracy has censored me! So I'm am left with the most powerful argument:

12-16-2002, 07:25 PM	#1
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Battle of the Quotes While involved in the Battle of the Quotes with Sec Web Member Radorth, I was intrigued by his Jonathan Dayton post because it was the first time I had ever heard about it; and it disagreed with many of the facts that I had accepted as accurate. I did a Google search on Dayton and discovered, much to my dismay, that a great many sites were using it. However, all these sites had several things in common. They were all religious or conservative ones; and they all seemed to be using William J. Federer's "America's God and Country Encylopedia of Quotations" as their source document. I was finally able to find a partial reproduction of his book quote and noticed that he was using David Barton as a source for the Dayton quotes. Alarms started ringing. As far as I am concerned, anyone who uses a Barton quote places their own level of accurate scholarship in jeopardy. Lederer's book immediately became, and remains, suspect. One of the propaganda techniques employed by the radical religious right in this country is to author a great many books and then to use quotes from each other's works as accurate research scholarship. The bibliographies and footnotes will be packed with seemingly authoritative references...until one takes the time to investigate the backgrounds of each of the named authors. That is when the pattern of religiously motivated collusion begins to clearly emerge. Then names like McGuire, Weems, Sparks, Morris, Marshall, Barton and Lederer begin to appear over and over again as the reference sources. Unfortunately I was unable to get any further information about the source of the Dayton quote from member Radorth, though he did seem to acknowledge that Lederer was his likely source. Since the posted narrative was supposedly based on a written document, I attempted, without success, to find it among the collected writings of Dayton. This caused me to go back to all the sites that were using this quote and see if one of them might provide me with a clue I could use to track it down to an original document. Fortunately I found two such clues. The first was a date of 1825, and the second was the surname "Steele". After a number of dead ends, I finally located the following which I present for general information/knowledge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwfr.html Farrand's Records Vol. III--CCCLV. William Steele to Jonathan D. Steele.1 (Extract) [Note 1: 1 Littell's Living Age, 25 May, 1850. 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.] Painted Post, September, 1825. (The entire story follows.) (End abstract) NOTE: Dayton was the youngest delegate and Franklin the oldest. Dayton arrived at the Convention on June 21, 1787. He died in 1824 before the publication of the supposed "authentic" narrative. http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/B/dayton/dayton.htm Farrand's Records Vol. III--CCCLXXIX. James Madison to Jared Sparks.2 (Excerpt) "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." (End excerpt) Farrand's Records Vol. III--CCCXCIII. James Madison to Thomas S. Grimke.1 (Excerpt) "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 National Intelligencer2 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." (End excerpt) Clearly James Madison believed that this entire Dayton narrative was a contrived story that did not support the actual history involved. And who would know better what actually occurred than the man that chronicled all the debates with meticulous care? Additionally, it takes very little research to be able to conclusively show that the Dayton narrative is filled with errors...whether by knowledgeable design or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What proved to be one of the most interesting side benefits of my research on this issue was the discovery of a footnote located at A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875 Farrand's Records, Volume 1 Page 452 of 606, mentioning that there is a note attached to the original manuscript of the Franklin speech maintained at the Library of Congress which states, "The Convention, except three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary." Even though the daily average of delegates was only around 40 of the 55 who attended the debates, that statement is a very strong indicator of their lack of the kind of dogmatic Christian zealotry that we see from certain individuals today. [ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-16-2002, 11:58 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Good research.

12-17-2002, 10:03 AM	#3
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	Equally interesting is Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith where he references (with footnotes) his own earlier book The Case for Christ. He is making a statement and using his own earlier publication as a reference. Is this what passes for integrity among xian apologists.

12-17-2002, 10:28 AM	#4
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Impossible. Radorth never uses David Barton as a source.

12-17-2002, 10:38 AM	#5
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	"[Strobel] is making a statement and using his own earlier publication as a reference." I love that shit. A bit off topic, but in Stephen C. Meyer's article in the Utah Law Review in support of "intelligent design," Meyer makes the statement, pursuant to criticisms by the philosopher of science Larry Laudan of a certain creationism court decision: "More recent studies in the philosophy of science have confirmed and amplified Laudan's analysis." Footnote 151 below cites three separate articles, all of which are authored by Stephen C. Meyer! I know they do that a lot in scientific journals, but that's different. Those are based on reproducible experimental results.

12-17-2002, 01:01 PM	#6
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	H.J. I have no particular topic other than to provide the most accurate source information I can find and let the chips fall where they may. Education is the goal. Your observation about the difference between the Meyer-Lauden use of references and those of David Barton is right on the money...."verifiable."

12-17-2002, 01:35 PM	#8
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Not exactly. I consider it extremely suspect when you read a paper, and find that a large number of the citations are from the same lab. Point taken, and the fact that such citations raise a red flag for you speaks to the fact that scientists are by nature a skeptical collection of individuals, and not just components of an uncritical, monolithic entity that the ID crowd paints the scientific "establishment."

12-17-2002, 05:34 PM	#10
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Buffman, your work is crap. As I showed earlier at <a href="http://iidb.org/123456" target="_blank">this location</a>. Edit to add: That link is broken because the evil harry potter/atheist/wiccan/satanist/homosexual/black panther/islam/feminist/evolutionist/historian conspiracy has censored me! So I'm am left with the most powerful argument:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.