I started fact checking David Barton’s historical claims in April of 2011. I had been writing about Bryan Fischer’s odd claim (seemed odd to me) that the First Amendment only covered Christians. Examining Fischer’s claims, I found that Barton was a big influence on Fischer.
My first post on Barton related to the Jefferson Bible (see also this follow up post). Others on Jefferson followed which eventually formed the basis for Getting Jefferson Right, my book with Michael Coulter.
For all posts fact checking David Barton’s historical claims, click here.
Category: david barton
Daily Jefferson: Jefferson on Blackstone and British Common Law
According to David Barton, Thomas Jefferson thought Sir William Blackstone was foundational to legal practice. However, Jefferson felt a reliance on Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England by American law students had led to what he called the “degeneracy of legal science.” In fact, Jefferson told Judge John Tyler in this June 17, 1812 letter that he preferred to rely on no British authorities for legal interpretations after the time of the Declaration of Independence. Following his recommendations would “uncanonize” Blackstone. Jefferson said:
But the state of the English law at the date of our emigration, constituted the system adopted here. We may doubt, therefore, the propriety of quoting in our courts English authorities subsequent to that adoption; still more, the admission of authorities posterior to the Declaration of Independence, or rather to the accession of that King, whose reign, ab initio, was the very tissue of wrongs which rendered the Declaration at length necessary. The reason or it had inception at least as far back as the commencement of his reign. This relation to the beginning of his reign, would add the advantage of getting us rid of all Mansfield’s innovations, or civilizations of the common law. For however I admit the superiority of the civil over the common law code, as a system of perfect justice, yet an incorporation of the two would be like Nebuchadnezzar’s image of metals and clay, a thing without cohesion of parts. The only natural improvement of the common law, is through its homogeneous ally, the chancery, in which new principles are to be examined, concocted and digested. But when, by repeated decisions and modifications, they are rendered pure and certain, they should be transferred by statute to the courts of common law, and placed within the pale of juries. The exclusion from the courts of the malign influence of all authorities after the Georgium sidus became ascendant, would uncanonize Blackstone, whose book, although the most elegant and best digested of our law catalogue, has been perverted more than all others, to the degeneracy of legal science. A student finds there a smattering of everything, and his indolence easily persuades him that if he understands that book, he is master of the whole body of the law. The distinction between these, and those who have drawn their stores from the deep and rich mines of Coke and Littleton, seems well understood even by the unlettered common people, who apply the appellation of Blackstone lawyers to these ephemeral insects of the law.
Although his Commentaries were popular, Blackstone opposed American independence. Jefferson, instead of seeing Blackstone as an influence, saw him as a barrier to a distinctly American law profession.
For more on Getting Jefferson Right, click the link.
Why Don't Christian History Professors Matter When it Comes to David Barton?
Of late, I have gone from trying to change the problem to trying to understand it.
Numerous Christian academic historians have weighed in on the historical misadventures of David Barton, often with unclear results in the church world. A recent example is the decision of the Missouri Baptist Convention to sponsor a talk by David Barton in MO near the end of the month. Despite clear evidence from academic Christian historians that Mr. Barton’s talks are laced with significant historical problems, the executive director of the MBC told me:
We are grateful for the opportunity to help a leading Missouri Baptist church serve as host of the conference. Whatever your views on David Barton, we support the event and encourage Missouri Baptists to hear him out and decide for themselves. In my many years in Baptist life, I have found my fellow Baptists to be fair-minded and discerning people who love the truth. Certainly, we agree with the stated mission of WallBuilders: to educate the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country; to provide information to federal, state, and local officials as they develop public policies that reflect Biblical values; and to encourage Christians to be involved in the civic arena.
Gregg Frazer, historian at The Master’s College said in response:
Baptists may well be “fair-minded and discerning people who love the truth” and it is good that the president wants Missouri Baptists to “decide for themselves.” The problem is that in order to properly discern and to properly decide on truth, people must have access to proper information and actual truth. Missouri Baptists, for example, would never come to the truth of the Gospel if all that was presented to them was Buddhism or Islam. In order to come to a proper conclusion, one must have access to the truth. How can they learn truth if Missouri Baptists hear only manufactured “history” – history as some wish it had been; history as constructed from partial quotes, quotes out of context, misleading half-truths, and complete falsehoods? The vast majority of Missourians/Americans do not have the time or resources to study primary historical documents – so they put their faith in people who claim to have done that study. When that trust is misplaced, Missouri Baptists will inevitably draw false conclusions – through no fault of their own.
If Missouri Baptists are going to hear the eccentric views of self-proclaimed historians and still have a chance to know the truth and to discern it, they must also hear from someone who can point out misleading tactics and errors and show them the actual texts that are distorted and manipulated. I’m from Missouri; I trust that Missourians could discern properly between two alternatives. But IF THEY ONLY HEAR ONE SIDE, HOW CAN THEY MAKE A PROPER DETERMINATION?
Of course, Frazer is correct.
Here is what I don’t understand. In the face of evidence that you are may be responsible for disseminating error, shouldn’t you check into it? This almost never happens. There is clear evidence that a problem exists and the person in charge does nothing but defend the decision.
Shouldn’t Dr. Yeats have a conversation with Hankins and Frazer?
I can supply him and his board with names of over 50 Christian academics who can provide relevant evidence regarding the matter at hand.
I wrote and asked the MBC why Christian academic historians don’t matter. No answer.
Southern Baptists send their children to Christian colleges to get an education from academics who have dedicated their lives to getting things right. Of course, we don’t always get it right but the values of the academy push us to correct where we are wrong and own up to it. However, when it comes to church work, respect for Christian colleges often goes out the window, at least in the area of historical scholarship. Wallbuilders has the right slogan so it doesn’t matter what the organization’s founder teaches or how many key facts he gets wrong.
Barton’s claims don’t just relate to America’s founding era. He has falsely claimed that violent crime has risen almost 700% since the early 1960s (crime did rise until the mid-1990s but has been falling since then). He has misled audiences about HIV vaccines, PTSD, and numerous other more current issues. He even claimed to play college basketball for Oral Roberts University. He didn’t. This was debunked by ORU. He claimed to be a translator for the Russian national gymnastics team (they brought their own). His book on Thomas Jefferson was pulled from publication by a Christian publisher after they fact checked it. Much more could be said.
Shouldn’t the people responsible for these meetings check into these things?
I realize that the MBC may be at odds with the parent convention over religion and politics. Recently, the SBC pulled an invitation for Ben Carson to speak at an event due to concerns about those entanglements. Perhaps the MBC leadership disagrees with that approach and wants a more political approach to religion. However, if so, that is no reason to mislead the people you are responsible for.
Think about that for a minute. The SBC pulled Ben Carson’s invitation but the MBC is rock solid on sponsoring David Barton.
Something is wrong with this picture.
Missouri Baptists Help Sponsor Conference Featuring David Barton and George Barna
June 26 and 27, David Barton and George Barna will take their tour to Springfield MO for the Turning America Conference. To the chagrin of most Southern Baptist academic historians, the conference is sponsored by the Missouri Baptist Convention which is the state affiliate of the Southern Baptist Convention.
The meetings will be held at the Second Baptist Church in Springfield, MO.
Contact information for anyone in that neck of woods who might want it is 417-239-4216 and [email protected].
David Barton's Unreal Appearance on Family Research Council's Washington Watch
David Barton was on Family Research Council’s Washington Watch Live yesterday to talk about his version of America’s founding. The host sitting in for Tony Perkins was Craig James.
As I was listening to Barton rattle off some of his usual distortions, it occurred to me again how far apart Barton and the Family Research Council are from Christian academia and the real world of scholarship. For instance, James introduced Barton as “one of the most respected historians in America.”
In what universe does Craig James’ America exist? James works for the same Family Research Council that once entered the real world and removed one of David Barton’s Capitol Tour videos from view because they acknowledged numerous historical errors. Now FRC hires Barton to give the tour again and James lauded the tour.
Respected historians don’t have their books removed from publication by their Christian publisher; nor do they have the same book voted least credible by other historians.
Barton again botches the Donald Lutz study of quotes from the Founding era. Barton made it seem as though Lutz studied the founders’ quotes when that was not the case (see this post for what the study actually did). Barton never tells his listeners that the Federalists didn’t cite the Bible in their defense of the Constitution.
Even fellow Christian Reconstructionist Joel McDurmon begs Christian nation advocates to stop citing the Lutz study because they are getting it wrong. McDurmon wrote in 2013:
To all my friends and fellow-laborers in Restoring America, Christian America, Monumental America, Christianity and the Constitution, followers of Verna Hall, Rosalie Slater, Vision Forum, Wall Builders, and anyone else, anywhere even remotely associated with such a project: Please, quit citing Lutz and Hyneman as proof the Framers of the Constitution quoted the Bible more than any other source. They did not, and misreading studies like this, and thereby perpetuating myths like this, is one reason liberal scholars so often laugh at you. It’s not always merely because they hate God. Sometimes, it’s because we give them reason.
Even though I disagree with McDurmon on many things, we disagree in the real world where scholars are respected when they get the facts right and are scorned when they perpetuate obvious falsehoods.
Barton then says in 1636 governments were instituted by Christians to give rights of conscience. He fails to mention that Roger Williams was tried by the General Court of Massachusetts and found guilty of heresy and sedition in 1635 and then fled Massachusetts Christian government to establish his own Christian colony.
Barton winds up by again saying Thomas Jefferson agreed with the House speaker to have church in the chambers. However, there is no record that Jefferson had any role in it. The chaplains asked the House if anyone objected to the idea and since no one did, the chaplains officiated.
As I have said before, I think Christian academics have a role in offsetting this misinformation and promoting accuracy.