Donald Trump made the same argument that many defenders of Confederate symbols make. If we take down statues of Lee and Stonewall Jackson, what’s next Washington and Jefferson? Watch:
Trump knocks it out of the park by asking the media about whether George Washington statue is next to be removed. pic.twitter.com/g4lqy6SFYq
In this clip, Trump also defends participation in the Unite the Right rally if the participants weren’t white supremacists. He said there were many people who weren’t in that group at Charlottesville in the rally. This line of thought is hard to fathom.
By now, no one should be surprised. Trump’s slow and confusing initial response is consistent with his attitudes.
Trump does not have the ability to think through these things for himself. He doesn’t have the ability to reason through the differences between Robert E. Lee who was committed to slavery as a moral good for African slaves, and George Washington who freed his slaves at his death and didn’t fight a war to maintain slavery.
In at least seven speeches I have found online, Glenn Beck misled Ted Cruz rally audiences about his copy of Don Quixote once given by George Washington as a gift. Beck told audiences that he owned the copy of Don Quixote purchased by George Washington on the day the Consitution was signed. He didn’t. He has a later one which Washington gave as a gift to Tobias Lear. While Beck has yet to admit to his readers or listeners, he did admit it to HuffPo yesterday (see this link for the speeches and background).
Now I can report a discrepancy between Beck’s story about George Washington’s diary and the diary entry for September 17, 1787 found in the published collection of his entries online.
Here is just one instance where Beck tells audiences that Washington’s September 17, 1787 entry consisted of two lines. Watch:
(Transcript)
The last day of the Constitution…the last day of the Convention, in George Washington’s diary he only wrote two lines. The first one was ‘signed the Constitution today.’ Next line, ‘I picked up my copy of Don Quixote.’ Now I’ve never understood that. ‘Hey, I just saved the world today and I’m going to Barnes and Noble in about an hour.’ This is George Washington’s copy of Don Quixote. This is the copy he picked up the day they signed the Constitution.
However, according to the online Diary of George Washington, Washington didn’t mention Don Quixote or buying any books in his September 17, 1787 entry. He did mention the Constitution and provided more than one line about it. For photos of the original entries see the Diaries of George Washington (page one, page two).
Monday 17th. Met in Convention when the Constitution received the Unanimous assent of 11 States and Colo. Hamilton’s from New York (the only delegate from thence in Convention) and was subscribed to by every Member present except Govr. Randolph and Colo. Mason from Virginia & Mr. Gerry from Massachusetts. The business being thus closed, the Members adjourned to the City Tavern, dined together and took a cordial leave of each other—after which I returned to my lodgings—did some business with, and received the papers from the secretary of the Convention, and retired to meditate on the momentous wk. which had been executed, after not less than five, for a large part of the time Six, and sometimes 7 hours sitting every day, sundays & the ten days adjournment to give a Comee. opportunity & time to arrange the business for more than four Months.
The members partied at the City Tavern and then Washington recorded that he went to his lodging. He did pay for the copy of Don Quixote on that day but we don’t get that information from his diary. Thanks for the good folks at Mount Vernon, I can show you that we know the book was paid for on that day because Washington recorded the purchase in his cash account book.
In Washington’s Philadelphia Cash Accounts, he recorded the purchase of Don Quixote on September 17, 1787.
On the 17th of September, Washington recorded the purchase of the 4 volume set of Don Quixote.
The story behind the purchase more likely relates to Washington’s meeting earlier that month with the Spanish ambassador who engaged Washington in a discussion of the book. For more on that, see this entry on the Mount Vernon website.
If Beck has a source for his claim, I would certainly like to see it.
However, I feel sure he doesn’t. If Rick Tyler gets fired for relating a false story he thought was true, then how can Cruz make Glenn Beck the front door of his campaign?
No wonder Glenn Beck likes David Barton so much.
At recent Ted Cruz rallies, Glenn Beck told audiences he owns the copy of Don Quixote originally owned by George Washington and which was picked up by Washington the day he signed the Constitution. As it turns out, Beck’s copy of Don Quixote was given as a gift by Washington to Tobias Lear. That is not what he told audiences, and to HuffPo, Beck admitted the error. However, on his website, he chides Calderone and HuffPo as if they made the error. Let me unpack this.
First, in a January 30 HuffPo article, Calderone reported that Beck told a Cruz rally he owned the copy of Don Quixote purchased by George Washington the day he signed the Constitution.
Beck also described how Washington picked up a copy of Don Quixote on the day he signed the Constitution, before holding up what he claimed was Washington’s own copy. Beck joked that today, the action would be as extraordinary as signing the Constitution before taking a trip to Barnes & Noble.
He wrote two lines [in his diary] on the day of the signing of the Constitution,” Beck said of Washington during a Jan. 30 stop in Ames, Iowa.”First line: ‘Signed the Constitution today.’ Second line: ‘I pick up my copy of Don Quixote.’ This is his copy of Don Quixote that he picked up that day.
Watch Beck tell the same story at Morningstar Church in South Carolina (see below for another time when Beck related the same story):
[youtube]https://youtu.be/jjlYclfDqpI[/youtube]
Contradicting Beck, Calderone yesterday published a report demonstrating that the copy of Don Quixote Beck displayed was not the copy he said it was. The copy of Don Quixote secured by Washington the day he signed the Constitution is owned by Mount Vernon’s Washington library. The library also owns a Spanish language copy of Don Quixote.
In his speeches, Beck clearly identified his book as Washington’s copy which he picked up the day he signed the constitution. In a statement to HuffPo today, Beck acknowledged his false statement:
“The lesson that I take from Washington’s diary where he says ‘Signed the constitution. Bought Don Quixote’ is that we are never done in our service to God and Country,” Beck said. “I have incorrectly stated that my copy is the copy that Washington purchased the day he signed the Constitution. That version is one of the copies owned and housed in Mount Vernon. I take full responsibility for connecting my book (which is dated 1796) to the book Washington purchased that fateful day of September 17th, 1787. But make no mistake the copy in my possession is from the private library of George Washington.”
I don’t think Beck and I view taking “full responsibility” in the same manner. On Beck’s website, here is what his readers see:
Unlike Glenn, the Huffington Post is evidently not a student of history — nor fond of research, for that matter.
Rather than publish with journalistic integrity, HuffPo decided to throw caution to the wind and publish an unsubstantiated hit piece questioning the authenticity of a book Glenn owns and has taken along on the campaign trail. The book in question is George Washington’s volume of Don Quixote. The hit piece, titled “Mount Vernon Says It Owns George Washington’s Copy Of Don Quixote, Not Glenn Beck,” was published yesterday.
Beck’s article doesn’t provide the statement given to HuffPo. Beck tries to change the subject. Calderone questioned exactly what Beck claimed. Beck told audiences repeatedly that he had a book he didn’t have. Either Beck intentionally deceived the audiences or he is not the history buff he claims to be.
On his website and on his show, he doesn’t admit what he did to HuffPo and doesn’t take any responsibility for connecting his copy to the book picked up by Washington on the day he signed the Constitution.
When Ted Cruz’s former campaign communications director Rick Tyler falsely reported a story about Marco Rubio’s statements about the Bible, Tyler was fired by Cruz. Will Cruz now demote Beck or remove him from the rallies? More Instances Where Beck Connected His Copy to the Copy Held by Mount Vernon
It appears that Beck told Richard Dreyfuss the same or a similar story. Watch at the beginning of this clip.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IFB8TfLVHc[/youtube]
In the description of the video with Dreyfuss, the story appears:
Published on Jan 31, 2016
Glenn Beck ran into actor Richard Dreyfuss by surprise backstage at a Ted Cruz rally over the weekend and had a chance to show the actor two of George Washington’s personal artifacts he was carrying with him in a briefcase. (Video: Josiah Ryan http://bit.ly/1Kj0iWo)
One was George Washington’s compass, which he received at age fourteen and carried with him for his entire life. The other was the first president’s copy of Don Quixote,
“A compass is used for exactness,” said Beck, later from the stage. “I’m here to support Ted Cruz because he is exact in everything he does. His word is his bond. He believes, as George Washington did that deeds not words.”
Beck said Washington went and purchased the copy of Don Quixote just hours after signing Constitution signaling that the responsibility of keeping the Constitution was now in the hands of the voters.
He joked it was the modern day equivalent of running to Barnes & Nobles.
“The response is always the same, especially for his compass — reverence and awe,” Beck said later on his Facebook, referring to his encounter with Dreyfuss.
Beck said yesterday that he sometimes said the copy of Don Quixote was the one Washington picked up the day he signed the Constitution and other times he didn’t say that.
GLENN: Jeez. If I need to drag around the documentation for everything — so when I was on the road and said, “This is George Washington’s.” And we went back and checked the tape. There were times that I said, this is the one that he got on that day, and that wasn’t the one he got on that day. He had three copies. So that wasn’t the one that he got on that day. But usually I said, “This was George Washington’s copy of Don Quixote.” And they’re questioning that this was George washington’s copy. And the only reason why they said that it wasn’t was because they went on record because people were calling Mount Vernon saying, “Glenn Beck is lying, isn’t he?” And they said, “No, we have George Washington’s copy of Don Quixote.” Yes, you have two of two them. He had three of them. I have the other one. But nobody cares to listen to that. And so it’s just sloppy journalism, at best.
If Beck has a video of a speech at a Cruz rally where he didn’t claim to have Washington’s Constitution Day copy of Don Quixote, he should post it.
In Aitken, South Carolina on February 15, Beck told the same story. Watch:
Here’s the same story at Ames, IA (at 7:00), a rally in SC (at 16:07) and then again in Nevada (start at 3:39)
[youtube]https://youtu.be/M4z4qNFRmRA?t=3m39s[/youtube]
As recently as February 21, Beck told a Nevada crowd that he had Washington’s Constitution signing day copy. Watch:
In addition to faulty theology, there are several glaring historical errors in Glenn Beck’s talk to Fellowship Church on July 5. Sadly, the audience is less knowledgeable now than before he spoke. Here is one example.
Glenn Beck told Fellowship Church that the first thing Congress did after the United States won the Revolutionary War was to print a Bible in English. Watch:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/cBgkSUILZEw[/youtube]
Transcript:
Don’t let anybody tell you we are not a Christian nation because we absolutely are a Christian nation. This is one of seven Bibles, three or four of them are held by the Smithsonian. Three are in private hands; extraordinarily rare. It’s called the Aitken Bible. This was the first thing Congress did when they started. We couldn’t print the Bible. So when we first established ourselves and we won the war, the first act was to print the Aitken Bible. When it was given to George Washington, he wept, and he said, ‘finally, a gift that is meaningful enough to give to the men that served by my side.’ We are a Christian nation. And we need to start behaving like a Christian nation, with love and respect, and take the beam out of our own eye before looking at the speck in someone’s else’s. We’re losing memberships in our churches because, stop talking about the things that the Bible tells us to do. Let’s start doing them!
It is ironic that Beck tells the audience to start doing what the Bible says just after he consistently bore false witness about the Aitken Bible.
Let me take Beck’s claims bit by bit.
It’s called the Aitken Bible. This was the first thing Congress did when they started. We couldn’t print the Bible. So when we first established ourselves and we won the war, the first act was to print the Aitken Bible.
Beck was holding up a copy of what appeared to be the Aitken Bible. It is rare and valuable. It is also true that the British prohibited Bibles printed in America. However, nothing he said after that is true. Congress did not print the Bible and the involvement with Aitken’s project was not initiated by Congress. Furthermore, the timing of Aitken’s request and Congressional response do not match Beck’s passionate claim. It most certainly is not the first thing Congress did after the United States won the war for independence.
Robert Aitken petitioned Congress in a letter dated January 21, 1781. He wanted the approval of Congress for a Bible he was printing and he wanted to be the official Bible printer of the United States. You can read his petition here and here. I have it below as well.
To the Honourable The Congress of the United States of America
The Memorial of Robert Aitken of the City of Philadelphia Printer
Humbly Sheweth
That in every well regulated Government in Christendom The Sacred Books of the Old and New Testament, commonly called the Holy Bible, are printed and published under the Authority of the Sovereign Powers, in order to prevent the fatal confusion that would arise, and the alarming Injuries the Christian Faith might suffer from the spurious and erroneous Editions of Divine Revelation. That your Memorialist has no doubt but this work is an Object worthy the attention of the Congress of the United States of America, who will not neglect spiritual security, while they are virtuously contending for temporal blessings.
Under this persuasion, your Memorialist begs leave to inform your Honours That he hath begun and made considerable progress in a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools, But being cautious of suffering his copy of the Bible to Issue forth without the sanction of Congress, Humbly prays that your Honors would take this important matter into serious consideration & would be pleased to appoint one Member or Members of your Honourable Body to inspect his work so that the same may be published under the Authority of Congress. And further, your Memorialist prays, that he may be commissioned or otherwise appointed & Authorized to print and vend Editions of the Sacred Scriptures, in such manner and form as may best suit the wants and demands of the good people of these States, provided the same be in all things perfectly consonant to the Scriptures as heretofore Established and received amongst us, And as in Duty bound your Memorialist shall ever pray
Robt. Aitken Philadelphia. 21, Jany. 1781.
Aitken appeared to be under the impression that the United States might operate like Britain and regulate the authorized version of the Bible. He wanted his Bible to be the one approved by the government. In addition, he wanted Congressional awareness and approval because it had been illegal to do what he was doing under British rule. In fact, the war had not yet been won when Aitken began his work. He had already printed the New Testament but wanted to finish the job. “Being cautious of suffering his copy of the Bible to Issue forth without the sanction of Congress,” Aitken didn’t want to do anything which Congress might oppose.
Cornwallis surrendered to the American forces on October 19, 1781 so Aitken’s petition came prior to the end of the war, not first thing after we won. Congress appointed a committee to interact with Aitken as he progressed on his project. Aitken sent a copy of his Bible to Congress on September 9, 1782. The Congressional proclamation about the Bible was dated September 12, 1782. . The treaty of Paris formally ending the war did not come until September 3, 1783. The proclamation from Congress is below in the first paragraph:
There is nothing in this proclamation about Congress as Bible printer. Congress clearly recognized Aitken as the author and recommended his work for religious and artistic achievement. It was Aitken’s idea, his work, his investment, and eventually his loss. He didn’t make money on the project, and because Congress didn’t fund the project, he offered the Bibles to George Washington with the suggestion, made by a friend, that Washington ask Congress to purchase Bibles for the troops who had fought in the war.
Beck embellished the story more by involving Washington. Beck claimed:
When it was given to George Washington, he wept, and he said, ‘finally, a gift that is meaningful enough to give to the men that served by my side.’
There is no record that Washington wept when Aitken’s friend, John Rodgers, requested that Washington asked Congress to buy copies of the Bible for his troops. Washington declined politely saying that most of the troops had gone home and so he couldn’t make such a request. Washington’s return letter on the subject indicated that he would liked to have given the troops a Bible but not in the manner claimed by Beck. Here is what Washington replied to Aitken’s friend, Rev. Rodgers.
Your proposition concerning Mr. Aikin’s Bibles would have been particularly noted by me, had it been suggested in season, but the late Resolution of Congress for discharging part of the Army, taking off near two thirds of our numbers, it is now too late to make the attempt. It would have pleased me well, if Congress had been pleased to make such an important present to the brave fellows, who have done so much for the security of their Country’s rights and establishment.
Beck’s quote from Washington is quite a dramatic embellishment as is most of what he had to say to Fellowship Church. Beck’s story about Congress and the Aitken Bible is false; his citation about Washington is highly inflated and misleading. Most people listening would go away thinking that the first thing Congress did after winning the war for independence was to use public funds to print a Bible and give it to the American troops with the heartfelt approval of George Washington.
Beck’s key story used to support the claim that the U.S. is a Christian nation turns out to be a fabrication.
Beck has to know this. It has been pointed out publicly by numerous writers. Even if somehow he has avoided reading the many debunkings of this story, the alternative isn’t much better. He is either knows the story is a fiction or he is a very, very bad historian. Fellowship Church’s spokesman told Christian Post that Beck was “unmatched” in his knowledge of history. If that is so, then Beck misled Fellowship Church on July 5 with knowledge aforethought.
If Glenn Beck and Ed Young want to honor the passionate plea Beck made to Fellowship Church to stop talking about the things the Bible says to do and to start doing them, then they need to come clean to the congregation and set the facts straight. For more on the Aitken Bible lie and the involvement of Washington, see this Huffington Post article by Chris Rodda.
The third video in Jack Hibb’s mini-series (see a previous post on a prior episode) with David Barton features Hibbs trying his hand at historical interpretation. Watch Hibbs talking about Washington and Jefferson as slave owners (for context, here is the complete segment).
In this clip, Hibbs makes some Bartonesque statements about Washington and Jefferson. Below I give the claim and then after that what I believe to be the truth. Hibbs said:
1. George Washington was one of the ten wealthiest men in American at the time.
This may be true. Washington was certainly wealthy and may have been in the top ten, although I cannot find a source to that effect.
2. George Washington was a good horseman.
I believe we can all agree to that.
3. Washington’s personal slave William (Billy) Lee was the second best horsemen after Washington.
By all accounts, until he injured his knees, Lee was able to keep up with Washington on horseback.
4. Washington would not allow his attendant (William Lee) to be called a slave.
I searched Washington’s papers for evidence relating to this claim and found nothing to support it. In his will, Washington called Lee, his “mulatto man William.” Elsewhere he called him “my mulatto servant Billy” (see the letter to the Connecticut Journal below). It is true that Washington provided good care for William Lee, but there was no confusion about Lee’s status as a servant.
5. A quarter or half of Washington’s estate went to William (Billy) Lee.
This is a fabrication. In Washington’s will, Lee was given his freedom, a monthly stipend, and a place to live at Mt. Vernon if he wanted it. The following excerpt is from Washington’s will:
And to my Mulatto man William (calling himself William Lee) I give immediate freedom; or if he should prefer it (on account of the accidents which ha<v>e befallen him, and which have rendered him incapable of walking or of any active employment) to remain in the situation he now is, it shall be optional in him to do so: In either case however, I allow him an annuity of thirty dollars during his natural life, whic<h> shall be independent of the victuals and cloaths he has been accustomed to receive, if he chuses the last alternative; but in full, with his freedom, if he prefers the first; & this I give him as a test<im>ony of my sense of his attachment to me, and for his faithful services during the Revolutionary War.
Commendably, Washington recognized his “mulatto man William’s” faithful service and provided him with monthly living expenses and a place to stay. Lee did not own any part of the estate.
6. When Jefferson went to Europe (France), he took slaves with him.
That is true. Among the slaves, he took James Hemings, the older brother of Sally Hemings. Sally later accompanied Jefferson’s youngest child Polly to France to live with Jefferson.
7. It was illegal to educate slaves (according to the crown of England).
I don’t know why Hibbs mentioned the crown of England, but it was not illegal to educate slaves in Virginia for most of the period of time Jefferson owned slaves. Schools for Black children existed in Virginia and offered classes for slave and free children. For instance, Ann Wager was a teacher at a school in Williamsburg, VA from 1760 until 1774. Samuel Davies, a Presbyterian minister, educated slaves as a means of converting them to Christianity. By 1819, however, Virginia greatly restricted slave gatherings so that classes were viewed as possible meetings to plan rebellion. With most statements about the founders, it is important to specify a time period as a part of a claim. In the case of the founders, they lived and owned slaves when slaves could be educated and freed but also during times when such freedoms were restricted.
8. Jefferson had his slaves educated.
According to the Monticello website, there is no record of it. Jefferson’s family members taught some of the slaves to read but there is no record Jefferson did anything systematically to educate his slaves. In an aside to a friend, he proposed that his system of public education might include slave children but this never was implemented. Jefferson also believed that freed slaves should be educated before being removed to a colony outside of America. He favored somewhere in the West Indies.
9. Jefferson demanded that his slaves be well versed in the Scriptures.
I can’t find anything that supports this. If anything, Jefferson took a hands off attitude toward slave religious observances (again, see the Monticello website). Hibbs indicated that this claim is based on a visit to Monticello. I have also visited Monticello and I don’t recall anything I saw or heard there which indicated Jefferson demanded that his slaves be well versed in the Scriptures. As the Monticello website indicates, slaves were allowed to practice Christianity but they also included some of the religious beliefs learned prior to conversion.
There is something unseemly watching two privileged white males stretch the truth to make the white founding fathers seem like they were benevolent and good slave owners. While Washington and Jefferson appear to be better than some other slave owners, and Washington perhaps better than Jefferson, neither of them compare to Robert Carter who freed all of his slaves beginning in 1791. But no matter how good Washington and Jefferson were, I cannot understand why it is important for Hibbs and Barton to stretch the truth to make the situation seem better than it was. In the process, Hibbs’ audience is less educated and less equipped to speak intelligently than before the program began. How does this help the church achieve anything?
