David Barton - historical scholar or fraud?

Clinton Rossiter (1917–1970) was a historian and political scientist who taught at Cornell University from 1946 until his suicide in 1970. ... (Wikipedia). Historian AND political scientist? He was a man on a mission writing polemically to try to influence and change America and advocating the invocation of a "constitutional dictatorship" when "crises" made it necessary. Sound familiar? Why let any crisis go to waste? Rossiter is a very biased source. And he's writing during that period of the 20th Century that Henry May describes as the one where is was popular to omit (from lack of interest on the historian's part) the religious roots of America.

 

Barton has some good points. However...
1. He has been known to use questionable quotes.
2. He has been known to take the implications of quotes to far
3. He tends to draw unwarranted conclusions from his data (even the sound data).
4. He tends to emphasize one side to the exclusion of the other (ie. he has the same error as those who ignore our religious roots, just in the opposite direction)
5. He tends to use equivocations and anachronisms to make his arguments (ie. "Providence" as used by the FFs as being an indication of their belief in a Christian God.)

In short, he seems to take some valid points (our roots were more religious than is generally acknowledged) and jumps to the opposite extreme (we were/are a Christian nation). A classic example of this is arguments and quotes he marshals (or ignores) to prove Washington was a Christian.

So, in the end, by overplaying our religious heritage and virtually ignoring our secular roots, he is no better than those who would downplay our religious heritage.

 

Left wing right wing doesn't really matter. What he is interested in is convincing folks for purposes related to a certain political outcomes under the guise of Christianity. That is WAY different then being a Christian witness.

 

Wow, this takes me back to my homeschooling days as a child. I and many, many children, along with our parents, were nearly brainwashed by this guy and others like him.

Barton is with the camp that is so anxious to prove the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation (which we know it wasn't, since earthly kingdoms are Satan's domain, and since it hasn't ever really looked like a Christian nation) that he will do anything possible to prove his case, including taking quotes out of context, fabricating ideas, and bending nuance. He and his cronies, like Marshall and Manuel are the laughingstock of all legitimate academic historians, regardless of political affiliation or religious belief.

Stay away from him. He's a complete fraud.

 

I've went and heard him a few times and saw two debates. He was great in my book, yes. Could he be wrong on a somethings, yes.

I was taught history out of books written from the late 1800's to the 1920's for the most part. So what I was taught is much different from what is being taught today.

Here is description of a book about George Washington, it is a good read and goes along with what I was taught.

Written by Peter Lillback president of Westminster Theological Seminary, and requiring more than 15 years to research and write, Lillback in George Washington's Sacred Fire directly challenges the claims of revisionist historians that George Washington was a dedicated deist.

Since the 1930's the belief that Washington was a dedicated Christian has been largely out of vogue among colonial era and presidential scholars.... Lillback shows that much of what has been used to justify the argument of Washington as deist is rooted in a poor understanding of his historical context, and what Washington himself did and wrote.

The argument is by no means simple, as Lillback often chides modern Christians who seem to want to make Washington a 21st Century Evangelical. But most of what Lillback has to say goes against secular scholars who want to make Washington in their own image. Lillback's book should shift the status quo, and allow Washington to be presented---accurately--as an 18th Century Anglican gentleman who tended often to his duties as a church going man---and in Lillback's view as an orthodox, Trinitarian Christian.

Keep in mind most history books is one writer quoting another, and if you study history you will see the so called legitimate academic historians view keeps changing.

This is a rather larger book, but a great read if one enjoys history.

 

This the error the Barton falls into.

 

I believe error falls both ways, any revisionist is wrong.

My son wanted to take US history one year in public school. The crux of the text book was how bad most of the southern leaders were, and how it was all about slavery. They went on to point out that most of the southern generals own slaves and Lee and Jackson were the worse.

My son went through some books I had and pointed out that Grant (had one or a few) Sherman were the only generals who owned slaves at the time of the war. He got a zero because he was wrong and his attitude wasn't correct. Yes the book the teacher was teaching out of went along with the teachers point of view, all other was wrong.

He also had problems on Washington's Christian belief and the lack of a true Christian belief of Jefferson. So much of what is being taught today is revisionist.

 

I agree with David Barton and find his work to be very well documented.

 

I agree. I just point out that Barton sees the problem of revisionism (a valid point) but then goes to the opposite extreme (an invalid response). Just as it would be false to claim that Washington was a secular deist (as meant typically today), it would be equally false to portray him as a Christian (as evangelicals typically mean it today).

Which is a good thing since
a. Sherman never owned slaves. At best he had use of some slaves as personal servants provided while superintendent of LMI.
b. The one slave Grant ever owned (given to him by his father-in-law) was freed in 1859. So, Grant owned a slave, but not at the time of the war.
c. And its certainly not true that no other general owned slaves at the time of the war. Jackson certainly did - although he apparently sold or hired them out (maybe freed but the evidence for that is sketchy at best) shortly after the war began. I am quite certain that I would find plenty of other generals (probably on both sides, though mostly on the South) who owned slaves at the time of the war.

In short, if thats what he put, then he deserved a zero. Thats not to say that the teacher wasn't in error on the opposite side, but your son had incorrect information. Revisionism on both sides is equally bad.

I have a problem with both because ...
1. The first is not supportable by evidence and the second is pure revisionism. Could Washington have been a Christian (as we understand it)? Its possible because we don't know the heart and Washington was silent on the subject of faith in Christ. So, while there is clear evidence that he had a belief in God, there is no good evidence that he was a Christian.
2. As far as Jefferson goes, there is solid and abundant evidence he was not a Christian as any evangelical would understand the label. He was a moral man, and had some belief in a God, but to Him Jesus was just an good moral teacher.

 

Thanks for your reply. My wife ans son are have a laugh at my expense over this post.

The text said it was questionable if Sherman owned slaves, but it was questionable that he had use of them at the school in La. before the war. And it wasn't questionable that he admitted he had racial problems.

And on Grant it said his wife Julia Dent Grant had slaves through out the war. On her trips to his encampment she would have slaves with her. Also it said at the start of the war Grant wasn't opposed to slavery.

Again you are correct Jackson had slaves, but the unusual thing is he was loved by the slaves in Lexington, for time spent teaching them Scripture.

The problem was the teacher wouldn't take that Grant's wife had slaves and that he wasn't against slavery at the start of the war.

On Sherman the problem was his use of slaves and admitted problems with race.

On Washington and Jefferson, we can agree to differ. I believe Washington was a Christian as I was taught and Jefferson wasn't, at best from his writings he was an agnostic.

 

The above was a quote in part from my old text book, but I left out, that it said at best it was questionable and at worst sour grapes.

 

I suspect I am just not following what you are trying to say so I will refrain from saying more.

Ok, I will say just one thing. As much as I would like for Washington to be a Christian (like my favorite founding father, Patrick Henry), the evidence for it just isn't there. Invariably the arguments for Washington being a Christian have to rely on two very shaky pillars - one statement written as a boy in a journal, and the testimony of a person
- who had a vested interest in believing him to be a Christian and
- who never once gives evidence that would pass the two questions in Evangelism Explosion.
- who observed him from the eyes of a youngster only
- who's testimony is given 40 years after the fact
- who's claims are contradicted by at least one clergy man who was in a better position to know

Now, on the other hand, the evidence for him being a dedicated deist is just as, if not more, shaky. Best guess is that he was largely indifferent in either direction. A good man who believed in God, but for whom there is no decent evidence was a follower of Christ.

But regardless of the real answer, my main point is that Barton's argument for Washington being a Christian relies not on contemporary and (relatively) unbiased testimony, but on personal testimony made by an obviously biased person 40 years after his death. Making this the centerpiece of a historical argument is laughable from a scholarship point of view.

 

What is ironic about the question of Washington's Christianity is the evangelical's reaction to it. Sure, if one were a liberal Episcopalian, then from that perspective, calling Washington a Christian makes sense. Or from the point of view of a Unitarian - certainly Washington qualifies as a Christian. But when Barton and other's give evidence of Washington's Christianity, it always revolves around things like
- he was a good person
- he prayed
- he went to church
- he believed in God
- his family believed he was a Christian
- he had good things to say about the Bible.

The irony comes into play when evangelicals accept these sorts of things as evidence of him being a Christian. Why? Because if they were out witnessing and someone claimed to a Christian on the basis of things like this, they would shake their heads (mentally at least) and launch into how none of these things can get us to heaven, etc. etc. etc. So, with contemporaries, these sorts of answers to the question "Are you a Christian?" are considered evidence that they aren't, yet with Washington they suddenly become evidence that he is. Very ironic.

By these standards, Obama should be considered a Christian

 

I assume you refer to Washington's adopted daughter Nelly Custis. In fact she lived with the Washingtons for 20 years. And she did not "observe him with the eyes of a youngster only". Her recollections carry as much weight as anyone's

 

You seem to be enjoying some irony very much

But you're also assuming an awful lot. If Christians were out witnessing and came upon a man:

- who prayed
- who went to a (Christian) church
- who believed in God
- whose family believed he was a Christian
- who read the Bible

They would likely have every reason to believe that this man was a Christian. Not absolute knowledge, but good reason to think so.

 

I respectfully, but strongly, disagree. Too many sermons and teachers which make it abundantly clear that none of these things make one a Christian for me to accept this. I can see it with non-evangelical denoms, but evangelicals harp on this so much that it is inconsistent to hold these up at any sort of proof of Christianity. Just go check out any thread on Obama and see how many think he is a Christian even though he does the above things.

But sure, if those things stand as sufficient proof (in as much as one can reasonably know) of Christianity, then support would sufficient for you to make the same claim about GW. I really don't think that such an approach would be consistent with the typical evangelical though.

 

Well I tend to take people at their word concerning matters of faith, since we can't really know anyone's heart. Maybe that's just me.

 

Washington died when she was only twenty. Anyone under 20 is a youngster in my book. That is, she was too young to have well-formed, objective opinions about things like the faith of one's step-grandfather.

Plus, its only one of several problems with holding her testimony at the central piece in any argument. It certainly needs to be taken into account, but its way too shaky to base the core of one's arguments on. Not when there are contemporary accounts of adults who had no obvious vested interest one way or the other.

And even if we take her testimony as perfectly accurate, it still runs into the problem that her own testimony tends to center around "he was a good moral man" statements. Its not even clear what she uses to identify one as being a Christian.

 

Me too. However, such a statement of faith is lacking from Washington. If he had ever made one, then I would hold that to be the default. Lacking it though, his being a Christian cannot be the default assumption.

 

I don't have a problem with him being a Christian from my reading, just like what he told the Delaware Indian chiefs, seems to me to put him in the Christian camp.

Also if I can still remember correctly( I hope I can) in Louis Berkholf book "History of Christine Doctrine" he pointed out that Calvin may have differed from Luther as to the order of salvation. But in their common opposition to the RCC they both described it is an act of free grace and as a forensic act which does not change the inner life of a man, but only the judicial relationship in which he stands to God.

So this would leave a lot of latitude as for as man can see. My friend we will have to just disagree for now and on the other side we will know.

But you were correct on the other and if I'm wrong I like it when people correct me, so I thank you on that. To many years and I got the crux of the problem out of line.