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?

TurningAmericaLogoOf 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.
 

Daily Jefferson: Letter to James Maury, June 16, 1815 on Health Benefits of Cold Baths

In a letter to James Maury on June 16, 1815, Jefferson discussed his views of relations with England and other nations. Then he reflected on Maury’s bathing habits and the relationship to his own and his generally good health:

Your practice of the cold bath thrice a week during the winter, and at the age of 70.2 is a bold one, which I should not, a priori, have pronounced salutary. but all theory must yield to experience, and every constitution has it’s own laws. I have for 50. years bathed my feet in cold water every morning (as you mention) and having been remarkably exempted from colds (not having had one in every 7. years of my life on an average) I have supposed it might be ascribed to that practice. when we see two facts accompanying one another for a long time, we are apt to suppose them related as cause and effect.

Even Jefferson was subject to illusory correlations. Maury was a former teacher of the young Jefferson and an Anglican minister.

Thomas Jefferson Every Day Until July 4

For fun, and to promote Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President, I am going to post a quote or event from Thomas Jefferson’s life each day until July 4, the day Jefferson died in 1826.
To kick this off today, June 15, I have taken a brief section of a letter from Jefferson to John Adams written on June 15, 1813:

One of the questions you know on which our parties took different sides, was on the improvability of the human mind, in science, in ethics, in government etc. Those who advocated reformation of institutions, pari passu, with the progress of science, maintained that no definite limits could be assigned to that progress. The enemies of reform, on the other hand, denied improvement, and advocated steady adherence to the principles, practices and institutions of our fathers, which they represented as the consummation of wisdom, and akme of excellence, beyond which the human mind could never advance.

Jefferson and Adams were political opponents on several matters after Adams became president. Here Jefferson described to Adams one of the matters of difference. In general, Jefferson’s party saw human nature as malleable for the better and sought to enhance education as a means of human improvement. Adams aligned with interests which were viewed by Jefferson as more traditional.
The series of letters between Jefferson and Adams give an insight into the political differences but also shows how time and mutual respect helped to blur those differences.

Missouri Baptists Help Sponsor Conference Featuring David Barton and George Barna

TurningAmericaLogoJune 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].