<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: The Gnadenhutten Massacre Revisited: A Response to David Barton	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://wthrockmorton.com/2013/02/05/the-gnadenhutten-massacre-revisited-a-response-to-david-barton/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2013/02/05/the-gnadenhutten-massacre-revisited-a-response-to-david-barton/</link>
	<description>A [retired] college psychology professor&#039;s observations about public policy, mental health, sexual identity, and religious issues</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 20:23:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Zoe Brain		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2013/02/05/the-gnadenhutten-massacre-revisited-a-response-to-david-barton/#comment-92591</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Zoe Brain]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 20:23:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.wthrockmorton.com/?p=14030#comment-92591</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Source:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/02/13/david-barton-claims-that-gun-accidents-just-didnt-happen-in-the-founding-era-yeah-right/
Barton&#039;s claim : &lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;I have searched and in the founding era I think I&#039;ve only ever found two gun accidents, and everybody was hauling guns back then.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
That may very well be true - that he&#039;s only found two.
&lt;blockquote&gt;    BECK: &quot;Kids did not shoot each other.&quot;
    BARTON: &quot;Oh no. No, no, no. Again, two accidents I have seen in two hundred years of everybody having guns. It just didn&#039;t happen.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Ok, so let&#039;s just look at gun accidents involving children. And only in a period of 6 years, not 200.
&lt;blockquote&gt;From the Massachusetts Spy, Worcester, Massachusetts, October 1, 1789:
&quot;At Capeelizabeth, on Saturday the 5th inst., James Mayo, a child of two years old, was shot through the head by his brother, a boy about 12, who was playing with a loaded musket &#8212; The jury were of the opinion that the child&#039;s death was accidental.&quot;
From the Herald of Freedom, Boston, February 2, 1790:
&quot;UNFORTUNATE ACCIDENT
&quot;We learn from Shaftsbury, in Vermont, that a number of small boys were lately hunting there when one of them, named Ebenezer Bottom, was pushing a wad into his gun with his finger at the same time that another boy was priming it, the gun discharged, by which accident Bottom was badly wounded in the hand, and John Welsh, son of Mr. Ebenezer Welsh, of Norwich, was shot in the body and died in a few days after. &#8212; This affords a melancholly caution to parents not to trust their children with guns till they have discretion to know how to use them.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
There&#039;s the two, I assume.
&lt;blockquote&gt;From the Litchfield Monitor, Litchfield, Connecticut, August 17, 1791:
&quot;PORTSMOUTH, July 27.
&quot;Saturday last, the following melancholy accident happened in the parish of North-Hampton. &#8212; A son of Mr. John Page, about 12 years of age, went into the house of a negro family, in his father&#039;s neighbourhood, (the negro man and his wife were absent, and had left three or four children at home, the eldest about 7 years old) and observing a loaded gun in the corner of the room, he immediately took it into his hands, cocked it, and drew it by the muzzle to the door, when by some accident it went off, and discharged its contents of powder, shot, and wadding into his breast and out at his back, which put an immediate period to his existence.
&quot;We hope the above will serve as a caution to parents how they leave implements of destruction in the way of their children.&quot;
From the Weekly Register, Norwich, Connecticut, March 13, 1792:
&quot;The following accident happened in this city last Saturday &#8212; A loaded musket being left standing in the corner of a room in the house of Mr. Charles Jeffry, jun. a neighouring boy came in and took the musket to the door, where he discharged it; a girl of Mr. Jeffry&#039;s about seven years old, at the same instant coming in the door, the charge went through her arm, which took it off.&quot;
From the Litchfield Monitor, Litchfield, Connecticut, May 1, 1793:
&quot;Winchester, April 10, 1793:
&quot;On Tuesday the 9th inst. William Case, aged 18, son of Mr. William R. Case, of this town, died of a wound received in his right arm by the accidental discharge of a musket. The Wednesday preceding his death, the deceased, in company with a young man of the neighbourhood, went in pursuit of ducks: On their way to the pond, the unfortunate, being forward of his companion, whose gun unhappily went off, the contents was lodged as above; and notwithstanding every means and effort of the faculty and his friends, he died a few days after the accident. He was a promising youth, much endeared and lamented by his parents, and all his acquaintance. &#8212; It is hoped that this accident, among others, will be a lesson of caution to those who either for sport or exercise make use of fire arms.&quot;
From the Rising Sun, Keene, New Hampshire, October 6, 1795:
&quot;MELANCHOLY ACCIDENT.
&quot;Last week, at Chesterfield, a young man by the name of Johnson, about 16 years of age, was handling a loaded musket, it accidentally went off and discharged the contents into his throat, which killed him instantly.&quot;
From the Philadelphia Gazette, September 12, 1795:
&quot;A FATAL ACCIDENT.
&quot;On Tuesday last, a daughter of Mr. Thomas Davis, formerly of this place, was at a Mr. Strutton of Amherst, near Buffaloe river, and no person being present but children, a little son of Mr. Strutton, took up a loaded rifle, and while handling the piece, unfortunately discharged the ball through the head of Mr. Davis&#039; daughter, at which instant she fell, and lay a considerable time before any grown person arrived. &#8212; A lesson to the incautious heads of families.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt; etc etc etc.
So much for his extensive research.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Source:<br />
<a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/02/13/david-barton-claims-that-gun-accidents-just-didnt-happen-in-the-founding-era-yeah-right/" rel="nofollow ugc">http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/02/13/david-barton-claims-that-gun-accidents-just-didnt-happen-in-the-founding-era-yeah-right/</a><br />
Barton&#8217;s claim : </p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;I have searched and in the founding era I think I&#8217;ve only ever found two gun accidents, and everybody was hauling guns back then.</p></blockquote>
<p>That may very well be true &#8211; that he&#8217;s only found two.</p>
<blockquote><p>    BECK: &#8220;Kids did not shoot each other.&#8221;<br />
    BARTON: &#8220;Oh no. No, no, no. Again, two accidents I have seen in two hundred years of everybody having guns. It just didn&#8217;t happen.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Ok, so let&#8217;s just look at gun accidents involving children. And only in a period of 6 years, not 200.</p>
<blockquote><p>From the Massachusetts Spy, Worcester, Massachusetts, October 1, 1789:<br />
&#8220;At Capeelizabeth, on Saturday the 5th inst., James Mayo, a child of two years old, was shot through the head by his brother, a boy about 12, who was playing with a loaded musket &#8212; The jury were of the opinion that the child&#8217;s death was accidental.&#8221;<br />
From the Herald of Freedom, Boston, February 2, 1790:<br />
&#8220;UNFORTUNATE ACCIDENT<br />
&#8220;We learn from Shaftsbury, in Vermont, that a number of small boys were lately hunting there when one of them, named Ebenezer Bottom, was pushing a wad into his gun with his finger at the same time that another boy was priming it, the gun discharged, by which accident Bottom was badly wounded in the hand, and John Welsh, son of Mr. Ebenezer Welsh, of Norwich, was shot in the body and died in a few days after. &#8212; This affords a melancholly caution to parents not to trust their children with guns till they have discretion to know how to use them.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>There&#8217;s the two, I assume.</p>
<blockquote><p>From the Litchfield Monitor, Litchfield, Connecticut, August 17, 1791:<br />
&#8220;PORTSMOUTH, July 27.<br />
&#8220;Saturday last, the following melancholy accident happened in the parish of North-Hampton. &#8212; A son of Mr. John Page, about 12 years of age, went into the house of a negro family, in his father&#8217;s neighbourhood, (the negro man and his wife were absent, and had left three or four children at home, the eldest about 7 years old) and observing a loaded gun in the corner of the room, he immediately took it into his hands, cocked it, and drew it by the muzzle to the door, when by some accident it went off, and discharged its contents of powder, shot, and wadding into his breast and out at his back, which put an immediate period to his existence.<br />
&#8220;We hope the above will serve as a caution to parents how they leave implements of destruction in the way of their children.&#8221;<br />
From the Weekly Register, Norwich, Connecticut, March 13, 1792:<br />
&#8220;The following accident happened in this city last Saturday &#8212; A loaded musket being left standing in the corner of a room in the house of Mr. Charles Jeffry, jun. a neighouring boy came in and took the musket to the door, where he discharged it; a girl of Mr. Jeffry&#8217;s about seven years old, at the same instant coming in the door, the charge went through her arm, which took it off.&#8221;<br />
From the Litchfield Monitor, Litchfield, Connecticut, May 1, 1793:<br />
&#8220;Winchester, April 10, 1793:<br />
&#8220;On Tuesday the 9th inst. William Case, aged 18, son of Mr. William R. Case, of this town, died of a wound received in his right arm by the accidental discharge of a musket. The Wednesday preceding his death, the deceased, in company with a young man of the neighbourhood, went in pursuit of ducks: On their way to the pond, the unfortunate, being forward of his companion, whose gun unhappily went off, the contents was lodged as above; and notwithstanding every means and effort of the faculty and his friends, he died a few days after the accident. He was a promising youth, much endeared and lamented by his parents, and all his acquaintance. &#8212; It is hoped that this accident, among others, will be a lesson of caution to those who either for sport or exercise make use of fire arms.&#8221;<br />
From the Rising Sun, Keene, New Hampshire, October 6, 1795:<br />
&#8220;MELANCHOLY ACCIDENT.<br />
&#8220;Last week, at Chesterfield, a young man by the name of Johnson, about 16 years of age, was handling a loaded musket, it accidentally went off and discharged the contents into his throat, which killed him instantly.&#8221;<br />
From the Philadelphia Gazette, September 12, 1795:<br />
&#8220;A FATAL ACCIDENT.<br />
&#8220;On Tuesday last, a daughter of Mr. Thomas Davis, formerly of this place, was at a Mr. Strutton of Amherst, near Buffaloe river, and no person being present but children, a little son of Mr. Strutton, took up a loaded rifle, and while handling the piece, unfortunately discharged the ball through the head of Mr. Davis&#8217; daughter, at which instant she fell, and lay a considerable time before any grown person arrived. &#8212; A lesson to the incautious heads of families.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p> etc etc etc.<br />
So much for his extensive research.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Warren		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2013/02/05/the-gnadenhutten-massacre-revisited-a-response-to-david-barton/#comment-92537</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Warren]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 20:22:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.wthrockmorton.com/?p=14030#comment-92537</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://wthrockmorton.com/2013/02/05/the-gnadenhutten-massacre-revisited-a-response-to-david-barton/#comment-92519&quot;&gt;James Ferguson&lt;/a&gt;.

James - I agree that his loyal supporters will continue to believe him no matter what. Festinger identified the psychology of a true believer in his book When Prophecy Fails. Barton has many such true believers and I don&#039;t expect that we will reach many of them (although we have reached a few). The more general damage to education and evangelical scholarship is what I am more concerned about.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://wthrockmorton.com/2013/02/05/the-gnadenhutten-massacre-revisited-a-response-to-david-barton/#comment-92519">James Ferguson</a>.</p>
<p>James &#8211; I agree that his loyal supporters will continue to believe him no matter what. Festinger identified the psychology of a true believer in his book When Prophecy Fails. Barton has many such true believers and I don&#8217;t expect that we will reach many of them (although we have reached a few). The more general damage to education and evangelical scholarship is what I am more concerned about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Dan		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2013/02/05/the-gnadenhutten-massacre-revisited-a-response-to-david-barton/#comment-92539</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 20:22:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.wthrockmorton.com/?p=14030#comment-92539</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The men of the Washington County militia were true Christians.  They believed in the Bible and they lived their Biblical values.  That is why they killed all those people.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The men of the Washington County militia were true Christians.  They believed in the Bible and they lived their Biblical values.  That is why they killed all those people.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Chris Rodda		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2013/02/05/the-gnadenhutten-massacre-revisited-a-response-to-david-barton/#comment-92528</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Rodda]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 20:22:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.wthrockmorton.com/?p=14030#comment-92528</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Hey Warren ... one thing that should be clarified: By the time Jefferson was president, the legislation had nothing to do with the Delawares&#039; land -- not even in the sense of it having to do with the United Brethren being trustees of the land. Everything in the original act of 1796 regarding the Delawares&#039; land grant had been completed by 1798, before Jefferson was president. The only reason the United Brethren trust had been in the 1796 act in the first place was because the Delawares&#039; land grant was in the area of the military land grants, so it was ordered to be surveyed at the same time as the military land grants. The acts signed by Jefferson were only to extend the time for the claiming of military land grants. The United Brethren were still in the titles of these acts, but that was only because they were extensions of a part of the original 1796 act so the title of the act didn&#039;t change even though there was nothing whatsoever in them about the United Brethren trust.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Warren &#8230; one thing that should be clarified: By the time Jefferson was president, the legislation had nothing to do with the Delawares&#8217; land &#8212; not even in the sense of it having to do with the United Brethren being trustees of the land. Everything in the original act of 1796 regarding the Delawares&#8217; land grant had been completed by 1798, before Jefferson was president. The only reason the United Brethren trust had been in the 1796 act in the first place was because the Delawares&#8217; land grant was in the area of the military land grants, so it was ordered to be surveyed at the same time as the military land grants. The acts signed by Jefferson were only to extend the time for the claiming of military land grants. The United Brethren were still in the titles of these acts, but that was only because they were extensions of a part of the original 1796 act so the title of the act didn&#8217;t change even though there was nothing whatsoever in them about the United Brethren trust.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Tom Van Dyke		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2013/02/05/the-gnadenhutten-massacre-revisited-a-response-to-david-barton/#comment-92520</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tom Van Dyke]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 20:21:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.wthrockmorton.com/?p=14030#comment-92520</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I can&#039;t believe you&#039;re losing to this guy.
Jefferson saw the &lt;i&gt;social utility&lt;/i&gt; of religion, and that&#039;s just the truth.  The &quot;Christian Indians&quot; were given special if not unique consideration and reparations because they were Christian and not troublesome savages,
&lt;i&gt;1. That the said Indians, unoffensive and friendly to the White People and having many Years since been a Barrier and the means of averting the Indian Hatchet from the Neck of the Frontier Inhabitants, are in good Policy intitled (sic) to the Protection of the United States of America.&lt;/i&gt;
and
&lt;i&gt;an Honour to the Confession of the Christian Religion and the Public Weal.&lt;/i&gt;
The early American republic seldom did what was &quot;right,&quot; only that which was useful.
This whole discussion is a mess---the original pre-constitution 1783-85 Indian treaties and laws passed under the Articles of Confederation government are sloughed in with the Jefferson government&#039;s re-authorization of them in the 1800s, two different time periods, officially, two different US governments, the Articles gov&#039;t and the US Constitution gov&#039;t that elected GWash its first president and TJeff its 3rd.
Your debate with Barton here---again my taking no side in the substance---is reduced to your quotes and his:
&lt;i&gt;We actually do acknowledge that U.S. policy toward the Indians used religion as a misguided means of civilizing the Indians.&lt;/i&gt;
David Barton would be happy---or at least wise---to accept this statement by you as a win, a surrender on your part, to his greater thesis.  The US gov&#039;t gospelled the Indians.  Even though Jefferson wasn&#039;t a supporter, neither did e go to the mat against it.  Your war with barton has been about backing the other into the most absurd or indefensible claim, but bartom write at &lt;i&gt;World&lt;/i&gt; in reply, and in an ultimate victory for his greater thesis:
&lt;i&gt;Jefferson wanted a greater separation between church and state than many Founders, but even he did not advocate the complete and utter separation favored by contemporary organizations such as the ACLU. Given the many jurists, academics, and popular authors who claim that he did, it is a shame that Throckmorton misses this larger argument and instead strains at gnats.&lt;/i&gt;
The rest is indeed the battle of the meaning and interpretation of this factoid or that, straining at gnats.
&lt;i&gt;&quot;Let me close this section by pointing to one of the most strained arguments in Throckmorton&#039;s book. He suggests that the &quot;Indians&quot; mentioned in the title of the 1804 abridgement might actually refer to Jefferson&#039;s &quot;political opponents.&quot;[cviii] Really? Thomas Jefferson abridged the Bible for the use of John Adams, John Marshall, and other Federalists? This paragraph alone should raise red flags for anyone who thinks that Throckmorton is engaged in dispassionate historical analysis.&lt;/i&gt;
Actually, I agree with you &#038; Prof. Coulter on this completely, that Jefferson&#039;s reference to &quot;Indians&quot; was more smoke screen than sincerity.  But Barton taking Jefferson literally about a &quot;gospel to the Indians&quot; is at least arguable.
I can&#039;t believe you&#039;re losing to this guy.  You dragged him into the tall weeds but it&#039;s he who&#039;s beating the crap out of you.
&lt;i&gt;&quot;Jefferson wanted a greater separation between church and state than many Founders, but even he did not advocate the complete and utter separation favored by contemporary organizations such as the ACLU....it is a shame that Throckmorton misses this larger argument and instead strains at gnats.&quot;&lt;/i&gt;
See, David Barton is right about that.  And me, that&#039;s my interest in this whole mess.  I have no doubt that David Barton has argued Jefferson and religion not only to the point of straining, but of breaking.  But in the end, even if the hedgehog knows one thing and one thing only, Barton is not wrong about the one thing he knows.
https://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.916/article_detail.asp]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can&#8217;t believe you&#8217;re losing to this guy.<br />
Jefferson saw the <i>social utility</i> of religion, and that&#8217;s just the truth.  The &#8220;Christian Indians&#8221; were given special if not unique consideration and reparations because they were Christian and not troublesome savages,<br />
<i>1. That the said Indians, unoffensive and friendly to the White People and having many Years since been a Barrier and the means of averting the Indian Hatchet from the Neck of the Frontier Inhabitants, are in good Policy intitled (sic) to the Protection of the United States of America.</i><br />
and<br />
<i>an Honour to the Confession of the Christian Religion and the Public Weal.</i><br />
The early American republic seldom did what was &#8220;right,&#8221; only that which was useful.<br />
This whole discussion is a mess&#8212;the original pre-constitution 1783-85 Indian treaties and laws passed under the Articles of Confederation government are sloughed in with the Jefferson government&#8217;s re-authorization of them in the 1800s, two different time periods, officially, two different US governments, the Articles gov&#8217;t and the US Constitution gov&#8217;t that elected GWash its first president and TJeff its 3rd.<br />
Your debate with Barton here&#8212;again my taking no side in the substance&#8212;is reduced to your quotes and his:<br />
<i>We actually do acknowledge that U.S. policy toward the Indians used religion as a misguided means of civilizing the Indians.</i><br />
David Barton would be happy&#8212;or at least wise&#8212;to accept this statement by you as a win, a surrender on your part, to his greater thesis.  The US gov&#8217;t gospelled the Indians.  Even though Jefferson wasn&#8217;t a supporter, neither did e go to the mat against it.  Your war with barton has been about backing the other into the most absurd or indefensible claim, but bartom write at <i>World</i> in reply, and in an ultimate victory for his greater thesis:<br />
<i>Jefferson wanted a greater separation between church and state than many Founders, but even he did not advocate the complete and utter separation favored by contemporary organizations such as the ACLU. Given the many jurists, academics, and popular authors who claim that he did, it is a shame that Throckmorton misses this larger argument and instead strains at gnats.</i><br />
The rest is indeed the battle of the meaning and interpretation of this factoid or that, straining at gnats.<br />
<i>&#8220;Let me close this section by pointing to one of the most strained arguments in Throckmorton&#8217;s book. He suggests that the &#8220;Indians&#8221; mentioned in the title of the 1804 abridgement might actually refer to Jefferson&#8217;s &#8220;political opponents.&#8221;[cviii] Really? Thomas Jefferson abridged the Bible for the use of John Adams, John Marshall, and other Federalists? This paragraph alone should raise red flags for anyone who thinks that Throckmorton is engaged in dispassionate historical analysis.</i><br />
Actually, I agree with you &#038; Prof. Coulter on this completely, that Jefferson&#8217;s reference to &#8220;Indians&#8221; was more smoke screen than sincerity.  But Barton taking Jefferson literally about a &#8220;gospel to the Indians&#8221; is at least arguable.<br />
I can&#8217;t believe you&#8217;re losing to this guy.  You dragged him into the tall weeds but it&#8217;s he who&#8217;s beating the crap out of you.<br />
<i>&#8220;Jefferson wanted a greater separation between church and state than many Founders, but even he did not advocate the complete and utter separation favored by contemporary organizations such as the ACLU&#8230;.it is a shame that Throckmorton misses this larger argument and instead strains at gnats.&#8221;</i><br />
See, David Barton is right about that.  And me, that&#8217;s my interest in this whole mess.  I have no doubt that David Barton has argued Jefferson and religion not only to the point of straining, but of breaking.  But in the end, even if the hedgehog knows one thing and one thing only, Barton is not wrong about the one thing he knows.<br />
<a href="https://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.916/article_detail.asp" rel="nofollow ugc">https://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.916/article_detail.asp</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
