Fake Quotations: Madison and Government’s Basis

Did James Madison write:

Religion is the basis and foundation of government

in his Memorial and Remonstrance?

No.  It’s a fake made by taking “the basis and foundation of government” from a title Madison was citing, the word religion from a few lines before it, and inserting the word is from a section in between.

Here is the passage as it appeared originally (the quoted words are in bold):

SECTION 15, Because finally, “the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his religion according to the dictates of conscience” is held by the same tenure with all his other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consider the “Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basis and foundation of government,” it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis.

Although it would have been technically correct to quote it in this form: “… religion … is … the basis and foundation of government …” in that all these words are actually found in the source, that still would have been a fake quotation, as it does not in any way reflect the sense of the original. It’s particularly worth noting that the word religion comes from one quoted passage, while the words the basis and foundation of government are from a title.  The words in the title refer to various individual rights of which the free exercise of religion is one.  The document in question is usually referred to as The Virginia Bill of Rights.  Madison is indeed arguing that freedom of religion is a basic right; he is by no means asserting that “religion is the basis and foundation of government,” which would be quite a different thing.

The quotation turns up in David Barton’s Myth of Separation and in Federer’s America’s God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations. As both authors are familiar with Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance it is hard to how their use of it in this form could be an honest mistake.

Links

Did Madison ever say that religion is the foundation of government? (Jim Allison)

Memorial and Remonstrance on the Religious Rights of Man (James Madison, 1824 edition at Google Books)

Fake Quotations: Franklin and Primitive Christianity

Did Benjamin Franklin say:

He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.

to his disciples in Paris?

No.

This is a translation of a summary of views attributed to Franklin by a political opponent. It does not pretend to be a direct quotation.  Here’s the passage from a 1793 English translation:

Franklin often told his disciples in Paris, that whoever would introduce the principles of primitive Christianity, into the political state, would change the whole order of society. An absolute equality of condition; a community of goods; a Republic of the poor and of brethren; associations without a Government; enthusiasm for dogmas, and submission to chiefs to be elected from their equals,—this is the state to which the Presbyterian of Philadelphia reduced the Christian Religion.

The author of the passage is Jacques Mallet du Pan, royalist propagandist, journalist, and pamphleteer. Here is the same passage in the original French:

Francklin repéta plus d’une fois à ses éleves de Paris, que celui qui transporterait dans l’état politique les principes du christianismê primitif, changerait la face de la société. Egalité absolue des conditions, communauté des biens, République de pauvres et de frères, association sans Gouvernement, enthousiasme pour les dogmes et soumission à des chefs électifs, choisis entre des Pairs; voilà sans doute à quoi le presbytérien de Philadelphie réduisait la religion chrétienne…

Please note, neither in the original French nor in the English translation is this presented as a quotation of Franklin’s. It is rather a hostile paraphrase of his (alleged) views.  In 1866 historian Henri Martin, however, turned it (perhaps inadvertently) into a direct quotation:

La présence de Franklin à Paris, personnifiant la République sous une forme si respectable, exerça une grande influence morale. Nos philosophes, en discutant avec lui dans Paris la constitution américaine, se préparaient à discuter les lois futures de la Révolution française. Un publiciste royaliste, Mallet-Dupan, nous a conservé un grand mot que Franklin, dit-il, répéta plus d’une fois à ses élèves de Paris: “Celui qui transporterait dans l’état politique les principes du christianisme primitif changerait la face du monde.” [Henri Martin, Histoire de France depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu'en 1789 (4th edition, 1862), volume 16, p. 489]

[The presence of Franklin at Paris, personifying the republic under a form so worthy of respect, exercised a great moral influence. Our philosophers, in discussing with him at Paris the American Constitution, prepared themselves to discuss the future laws of the French Revolution. A royalist publicist, Mallet-Dupan, has preserved for us a great saying, which Franklin, he says, repeated more than once to his pupils at Paris: "He who shall carry into politics the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world."] [Henri Martin, Martin's history of France: The decline of the French monarchy.  Trans. Mary Louise Booth.  Boston: Walker, Fuller, and Co., 1866, vol. 2, p. 442]

Martin’s wording here is ambiguous; the quotation marks correctly show the material is quoted, but Martin’s words imply that he is quoting Franklin rather than Mallet du Pan.

The next stage in the transmission of this item comes when historian George Bancroft, in volume 3 of The American Revolution (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1866, volume 3, p. 492), observed of Franklin:

He remarked to those in Paris who learned of him the secret of statesmanship: “He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world;”…

The translation is different. Bancroft doesn’t give any sources, but he certainly was aware of Henri Martin’s work. (The publisher of the English translation went so far as to note that “The eminent historian, Hon. George Bancroft, has generously volunteered his highly prized aid to the translator, and will enrich the edition by valuable annotations”, though no such annotations actually appeared.) The simplest explanation is that Bancroft got the quotation from Martin’s work directly and translated it himself. The wording is identical to that of the commonly-circulated version, making George Bancroft the most likely source for it. Certainly it is obvious that Samuel Arthur Bent had Bancroft in mind when he quoted Franklin as saying this in Short Sayings of Great Men (p. 227); the very next saying of Franklin he quotes likewise followed immediately in Bancroft. Of course such a collection of sayings is the ideal medium to allow a fake quotation to propagate.

As this is a paraphrase, and quite distant from the alleged source (third-hand at least), there is relatively little point in trying to go any further with it. Do equality of conditions, community of goods, or enthusiasm for dogmas sound like doctrines of Benjamin Franklin? This material really stands or falls with how these elements are evaluated. If these ideals are in fact those of Franklin, then perhaps Mallet du Pan’s paraphrase is accurate. Otherwise—and I’m definitely on the otherwise side myself—this sounds like the kind of misrepresentation often spread by a man’s opponents.  And Jacques Mallet du Pan was beyond doubt an opponent of Benjamin Franklin.

Franklin and God’s Gift

Did Benjamin Franklin write

Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God.

in his Maxims and Morals in 1789?

No.  Not in the least.

First of all, Maxims and Morals of Benjamin Franklin is a 1927 book by one William S. Pfaff (not a 1789 book by Benjamin Franklin). Not having seen a copy yet, I can’t say whether this quotation actually appears there or not, but it isn’t relevant. What we have here is a slight misquotation from an essay by John Webbe, a publisher contemporary with Benjamin Franklin, that originally appeared in Franklin’s paper, the Pennsylvania Gazette, on 1 April 1736. It probably became attributed to Franklin through confusion of author and publisher.  The original quotation ran:

Thank God! we are in the full enjoyment of all these privileges. But can we be taught to prize them too much? or how can we prize them equal to their value, if we do not know their intrinsic worth, and that they are not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature?

(There is no clear antecedent in the text for “these privileges,” but the privileges enjoyed under the constitution of Great Britain are clearly meant—in effect, the privileges of a representative government where the powers are held by the people, rather than by an aristocracy.)

Webbe’s essay was anonymous, though the paper later named him as author. Perhaps overlooking this, William Duane included it in his 1834 Memoirs of Benjamin Franklin (vol. 2, pp. 439-440), as did Jared Sparks in his 1882 Works of Benjamin Franklin (vol. 2, pp. 278-282). Sparks, however, included the following note with his essay:

What proof there is, that the two essays on Government were written by Franklin, except that they appeared in his Gazette, I have no means of determining. The internal evidence does not appear very strong. They are included in Duane’s edition. — Editor.

And by 1905, when Albert Henry Smyth’s The Writings of Benjamin Franklin started emerging from the press, the confusion had been cleared up.  Smyth wrote the following in the first volume (pp. 171-172):

“The Essays on Government” which were published by Sparks and Bigelow, are acknowledged in a later issue of the Gazette to have been written by John Webbe.

So the basic facts are: this is (1) a slight misquotation from (2) a 1736 essay (3) written not by Benjamin Franklin, but by John Webbe. There is nothing wrong with citing it correctly if attributing it to John Webbe; as a Benjamin Franklin quotation it is totally bogus.

Links

Freedom is a Gift Bestowed by God (sbh)

Fake Quotations: Harvard Student Handbook

Did the original Harvard Student Handbook have

Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation for our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.

as its first rule?

No. This is a misquotation (and a bad one) of rule 2, not rule 1.

This rule is taken from “Rules, and Precepts that are observed in the Colledge,” as printed in New England’s First Fruits, a 1643 booklet printed in England.  Rule 2 (again, not rule 1) reads:

2. Let every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the maine end of his life and studies is, to know God and lesus Christ which is eternall life, Joh. 17. 3. and therefore to lay Christ in the bottome, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and Learning.

And seeing the Lord only giveth wisedome, Let every one seriously set himselfe by prayer in secret to seeke it of him Prov 2, 3.

Where did this garbage at the end of the pseudo-quotation come from?

Well, a document sometimes entitled “Forsaken Roots” started making its way around the internet by 2002.  In its original form it contained this:

In the original Harvard Student Handbook, rule number 1 was that students seeking entrance must know Latin and Greek so that they could study the scriptures: “Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let every one seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of him (Proverbs 2:3).”

Up to a point this is a reasonably accurate modern-spelling version of the original with two strange lapses: the insertion of the word “Jesus” in front of the word “Christ” and the silent omission of the words “in the bottome” immediately after “Christ”.  Okay, that explains a bit, but where on earth did that gibberish about the ten commandments come from?

Well, later in the document we have the rhetorical question:

Is it not a permissible objective to allow our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments?

Now early in the transmission of “Forsaken Roots” the document was violently (and seemingly mindlessly) shortened by the omission of two sections.  One of these omissions included every word between “foundation” (in the Harvard rules quotation) and “our children” (in this rhetorical question).  Apparently the word “for” was inserted in the gap to produce:

…and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation for our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments?

A number of copies actually have it end with a question mark and no closing quotation mark, as rendered above, though most have smoothed it out a bit by replacing the question mark with a period and closing quotation mark.  The short form of “Forsaken Roots,” by the way, has circulated most widely under the title “History Forgotten.”

In its original form “Forsaken Roots” referred to the first rule as requiring students to know Latin and Greek.  This is correct.  The first rule ran:

1. WHen any Schollar is able to understand Tully, or such like classicall Latine Author extempore, and make and speake true Latine in Verse and Prose, suo ut aiunt Marte; And decline perfectly the Paradigim’s of Nounes and Verbes in the Greek tongue: Let him then and not before be capable of admission into the Colledge.

Where “Forsaken Roots” went wrong was in quoting part of the second rule without citing it as the second rule, thus making it seem as though the first rule was being quoted.  Not a major sin, but still very sloppy work.  The silent alterations to the text are likewise extremely sloppy, though as they don’t distort the meaning, they fall short of criminal.

Since “History Forgotten” has circulated, the fake form of the second rule from “Rules and Precepts” has been pulled out and circulated separately, without anybody seeming to notice that it’s absolute gibberish.

(In the above transcriptions I have replaced the long s (ſ) with an ordinary s.  Thus “Verſe and Proſe” become “Verse and Prose” as above.)

Links

America’s Christian Roots (sbh; this version has the lacunae of the abbreviated text in blue)

New England’s First Fruits (Anonymous, 1865 reprint at Google Books)

On the Authorship of “New Englands First Fruits” (Worthington C. Ford, Massachusetts Historical Society, 1909)

Fake Quotations: Patrick Henry and the Worth of the Bible

Did Patrick Henry say

The Bible is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed.

toward the end of his life?

No.  Probably not, anyway.  It’s another quotation based on a second-hand story, though better than some.

Ultimately the account appears to go back to George Dabney, one of Patrick Henry’s neighbors.  (I say appears because there is an element of inference still, as we’ll see.)  Captain George Dabney fought in the Revolutionary War, and afterwards was an associate of Declaration-signer and Virginia governor Thomas Nelson.  According to a newspaper clipping reprinted in a Dabney family history,

Patrick Henry was his intimate friend and neighbor, and from him Mr. Wirt obtained much of the information which he has embodied in his life of Patrick Henry.

William Wirt (1772-1834) was the prosecutor in Aaron Burr’s treason trial, Attorney-General under James Monroe and John Quincy Adams, and the author of Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry (1817). From its introduction we learn that George Dabney was Patrick Henry’s friend during his childhood and youth, and that William Wirt got his information from him through Nathaniel Pope, as he himself was not acquainted with George Dabney.

In this book the story first appears.  Wirt tells it like this:

Mr. Henry’s conversation was remarkably pure and chaste. He never swore. He was never heard to take the name of his Maker in vain. He was a sincere Christian, though after a form of his own; for he was never attached to any particular religious society, and never it is believed, communed with any church. A friend who visited him, not long before his death, found him engaged in reading the bible: “here,” said he, holding it up, “is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed: yet it is my misfortune never to have found time to read it, with the proper attention and feeling, till lately. I trust in the mercy of heaven, that it is not yet too late.” He was much pleased with Soame Jenyns’ View of the internal evidences of the christian religion; so much so, that about the year 1790, he had an impression of it struck at his own expense, and distributed among the people. His other favourite works on the subject were Doddridge’s “Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul,” and Butler’s “Analogy of Religion Natural and Revealed.” This latter work, he used at one period of his life, to style by way of pre-eminence, his bible. The selection proves not only the piety of his temper, but the correctness of his taste, and his relish for profound and vigorous disquisition. [pp. 401-2, links added]

William Wirt gives no source, but when William Wirt Henry (Patrick Henry’s grandson) wrote his 1891 Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence, and Speeches he retold the same incident:

One of his neighbors going to see him found him reading the Bible. Holding it up in his hand, he said: “This book is worth all the books that ever were printed, and it has been my misfortune that I have never found time to read it with the proper attention and feeling till lately. I trust in the mercy of Heaven that it is not yet too late.“

His source for this is “Statement of George Dabney, MS. Letter to Mr. Wirt, Wirt’s Henry.”  And as he notes in his introduction that he had “access to nearly all of the material used by Mr. Wirt, including most of the communications received from the contemporaries of Mr. Henry,” it seems a reasonable assumption that both versions came from the same source.

So on the plus side, assuming that the George Dabney connection to be correct, the story emanates from a person close to the alleged source.  On the minus side we still don’t know whether Dabney was the “friend” or “neighbor” who supposedly heard this, or whether he was only reporting what somebody else had told him.  And, distinctly on the minus side, this is a familiar sort of legendary embellishment, the story about the man near death who seeks comfort from the Bible.  If it never happened, somebody probably would have invented it.

Also, and I may be a little hyper-critical here, Henry seems to have been well-acquainted with the Bible.  Certainly his reading matter (as described above) is extremely heavy-going without familiarity with the Christian scriptures, and I personally find it difficult to believe that Henry had “never found time to read it with the proper attention and feeling till” shortly before his death. To me that has a strong flavor of legendary embellishment.

Links

Should a Class Focusing on the Bible be Taught in Public School? (sbh)

A View of the Internal Evidence of the Christian Religion (Soames Jenyns, 4th edition, page images at Google Books)

Alleged Quotations: Washington and the Duty of Nations

Did Washington say:

It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits and humbly implore his protection and favor.

in 1789?

Yes, almost.  This was part of his Thanksgiving proclamation, the first in the nation’s history under the Constitution.  The text ran as follows:

City of New York, October 3, 1789.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th. day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

The proclamation is in the handwriting of William Jackson and signed by Washington.

As noted the proclamation was issued in response to a request from Congress.  The resolution was introduced in the House on 25 September by Elias Boudinot (P, NJ), the one-time president of the Continental Congress who would later write The Age of Revelation in reply to Paine’s The Age of Reason and serve as first president of the American Bible Society.  “Mr. Boudinot said,” according to the Annals of Congress, that “he could not think of letting the session pass over without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the Untied States of joining, with one voice, in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings he had poured down upon them.”  The resolution he proposed:

Resolved, That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States, to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness.

There were rumblings of discontent at the proposal.  Aedanus Burke (A, SC) objected to “this mimicking of European customs, where they made a mere mockery of thanksgivings.  Two parties at war frequently sung Te Deum for the same event, though to one it was a victory, and to the other a defeat.”

Boudinot rejoined that he “was sorry to hear arguments drawn from the abuse of a good thing against the use of it.  He hoped no gentleman would make a serious opposition to a measure both prudent and just.”

Thomas Tudor Tucker (A, SC) made some pointed objections: he “thought the House had no business to interfere in a matter whcih did not concern them.  Why should the President direct the people to do what, perhaps, they have no mind to do?  They may not be inclined to return thanks for a Constitution until they have experienced that it promotes their safety and happiness.  We do not yet know but they may have reason to be dissatisfied with the effects it has already produced; but whether this be so or not, it is a business with which Congress have nothing to do; it is a religious matter, and, as such, is proscribed to us.”

Roger Sherman (P, CT) “justified the practice of thanksgiving, on any signal event, not only as a laudable one in itself, but as warranted by a number of precedents in holy writ: for instance, the solemn thanksgivings and rejoicings which took place in the time of Solomon, after the building of the temple, was a case in point.  This example, he thought, worthy of Christian imitation on the present occasion; and he would agree with the gentleman who moved the resolution.”

Elias Boudinot additionally justified the proclamation by citing the practice of the Continental Congress, and the matter was voted on and passed.  A joint committee consisting of Boudinot, Sherman, and Peter Silvester (P, NY) from the House, and William Samuel Johnson (P, CT) and Ralph Izard (P, SC) from the Senate, laid the resolution before President Washington.  And as we saw above Washington proclaimed 26 November a day of prayer and thanksgiving on 3 October 1789.

Links

Thanksgiving Proclamation (Text at University of Virginia)

The Thanksgiving Proclamation (Papers of George Washington)

The Constitution and Separation of Church and State part 1 (Jim Allison)

Questionable Quotes: Jefferson and the Sacred Volume

Did Thomas Jefferson say

I have always said, and will always say, that studious perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens.

?

Maybe.  The words are not Thomas Jefferson’s directly; they are words recalled by someone else many years later.

It’s always chancy to rely on the recollection of a witness for the words of another person, and it’s even chancier to rely on them after the passage of some time.  This saying falls into both these categories.  On the other hand, as such things go, this one is better than most.  It’s not the recollection of some anonymous person at an unknown time; in this instance we know the path this recollection traveled, and can form some estimate of its reliability.

On 15 June 1852 Daniel Webster—statesman, former Senator, and then Secretary of State under Millard Fillmore—wrote a letter to “Professor Pease” (possibly Professor Calvin Pease, D.D. (1813-1863), who was active in the sabbath-school movement and later became a New York minister), to thank him for a report on the condition of New York sabbath schools.  In the course of his letter he recalled a sabbath spent with Thomas Jefferson more than a quarter of a century earlier and reported some of Jefferson’s views as he remembered them (paragraphing mine):

Many years ago I spent a Sabbath with Thomas Jefferson, at his residence in Virginia. It was in the month of June, and the weather was delightful. While engaged in discussing the beauties of the Bible, the sound of the bell broke upon our ears, when, turning to the sage of Monticello, I remarked, “How sweetly, how very sweetly sounds that Sabbath bell!”

The distinguished statesman for a moment seemed lost in thought, and then replied: “Yes, my dear Webster; yes, it melts the heart, it calms the passions, and makes us boys again.“

Here I observed that man was only an animal formed for a religious worship, and that notwithstanding all the sophistry of Epicurus, Lucretius and Voltaire, the Scriptures stood upon a rock as firm, as unmovable as truth itself; that man, in his purer, loftier breathings, turned the mental eyes towards immortality, and that the poet only echoed the general sentiment of our nature in saying that,—

The soul secure in her existence, smiles
At the drawn dagger, and defies its point.

Mr. Jefferson fully concurred in this opinion, and observed that the tendency of the American mind was in a different direction; and that Sunday Schools—(he did not use our more correct term, Sabbath)—presented the only legitimate means, under the constitution, of avoiding the rock on which the French republic was wrecked. “Burke,” said he, “never uttered a more important truth than when he exclaimed that a ‘religious education was the cheap defence of nations.’ Raikes,” said Mr. Jefferson, “has done more for our country than the present generation will acknowledge; perhaps when I am cold he will obtain his reward; I hope so, earnestly hope so; I am considered by many, Mr. Webster, to have little religion, but now is not the time to correct errors of this sort. I have always said, and always will say, that the studious perusal of the sacred volume will make better citizens, better fathers, and better husbands. Of the distinguished Raikes, he was clarum et venerabile nomen.“

I took the liberty of saying that I found more pleasure in Hebrew poetry than in the best productions of Greece and Rome. That the “harp upon the willows by Babylon” had charms for me beyond anything in the numbers of the blind man of Smyrna. I then turned to Jeremiah (there was a fine folio of the Scriptures before me of 1458) and read aloud some of those sublime passages that used to delight me on my father’s knee.

First, a couple of notes.  Edmund Burke said that “chivalry,” not “religious education” was the cheap defense of nations (Reflections on the Revolution in France). Robert Raikes (1735-1811) was the founder of the Sunday School Movement. With these minor clarifications out of the way, let us continue.

As I noted above there are at least two strikes against the authenticity of this statement—the passage of time, and the fact that we are at one remove from the original. On the other hand Daniel Webster may be considered a credible witness, and the circumstances are such as to fix events in his memory. Spending an afternoon with one of the most revered figures of your time is the sort of thing that is not easy to forget, and certainly Daniel Webster is likely to have recalled and treasured the memory.

The statement that “the studious perusal of the sacred volume will make better citizens” is often cited in present-day controversial literature by those who wish to insert government-mandated Bible-reading in public schools.  As Chris Rodda points out, “…Webster’s recollection of Jefferson saying that Sunday schools were “the only legitimate means, under the constitution” for teaching religion, and Webster’s failure to disagree with this opinion, mak[e] this letter, whether the other quotes in it were accurately recalled by Webster or not, a much better argument against the public school Bible curriculum than for it.”

This letter had appeared in print by 1858 (see The National Magazine for August 1858), and was circulated originally to counteract emerging evidence of Jefferson’s “infidel” opinions. The National Magazine’s editorial comment read:

Some there have been who have labored hard to prove that the sage of Monticello was an infidel, and that he ignored all religion but that of nature, and lived in the atmosphere of a blank and cheerless atheism. The testimony above given by so eminent a witness must be received as conclusive on this point.

Of course Jefferson’s own writings easily trump anything written by anybody else, no matter how eminent. And his work does show that he was far from being an orthodox Christian by the standards of his time.

Links

Historical Revisionism from the National Council On Bible Curriculum In Public Schools (Chris Rodda)

The Bible is the Source of Liberty (Jefferson Encyclopedia)

Fake Quotations: Washington and Governing without God

Did George Washington say

It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible.

in his farewell speech of 1796?

No. Not then or any other known time.

This particular version is relatively modern. The statement appears to go back (through several permutations) to a claim made by an 1835 biographer on unknown authority. Supposedly George Washington said to a gentleman skeptical of the existence of a Supreme Being:

It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe without the agency of a Supreme Being.

It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being.

It is impossible to reason without arriving at a Supreme Being. Religion is as necessary to reason, as reason is to religion. The one cannot exist without the other. A reasoning being would lose his reason in attempting to account for the great phenomena of nature, had he not a Supreme Being to refer to; and well has it been said, that if there had been no God, mankind would have been obliged to imagine one.

You will note of course that the sense here is quite different from the sense of the derivative version. When the version quoted above is dragged out, it is with the intention of showing that Washington believed that God and the Bible were an essential part of governing a nation.  In the 1835 version Washington is explaining that it is impossible for the universe to run without God keeping it going, so to speak.  But the thing is, if there is a genuine version, this one is it.

Is this version likely to be authentic?  Not particularly.  These are not Washington’s words, but somebody’s recollection of Washington’s words written down after an unknown period of time.  No authority is given, and the words are at least second hand, and maybe even further down the transmission chain.  But this is as good as it gets.

A quick check of Google books shows that this particular version continued to be quoted independently of the mutation that we’re now going to follow.  In 1867 the American Tract Society put out Testimonies of American Statesmen and Jurists to the Truths of Christianity.  This contained the following piece, attributed to George Washington:

It is impossible to govern the world without God. It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits and humbly implore his protection and favor. I am sure there never was a people who had more reason to acknowledge a divine interposition in their affairs, than those of the United States; and I should be pained to believe that they have forgotten that agency which was so often manifested during the revolution; or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of Him, who is alone able to protect them. He must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.

Okay, this is an interesting little florigelium. After the first sentence, the only part of this that is really under consideration, we have a bit from the 1789 Thanksgiving proclamation, another bit from a private letter of 11 March 1782 to John Armstrong, and a final bit from a letter to Brigadier-General Nelson of 20 August 1778.

You will notice that the sentence here has undergone a notable shift.  The “universe” has become the “world” and “the aid of a Supreme Being” has become “God”.  And in this version, followed as it is by the stuff about it being the duty of nations to acknowledge God, makes it easy to think that he’s talking about national politics rather than celestial mechanics.  This version survived independently (though truncated to just this statement and the Nelson letter fragment) also as this 1922 example shows.

Let me put the next mutation after the first two versions so that the reader gets a picture of the gradual changes so far:

It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being.

It is impossible to govern the world without God.

It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.

This new permutation goes back at least to 1893, when it turns up in A Lawyer’s Examination of the Bible by Howard H. Russell.  The meaning in this version has completely shifted from the cosmic to the ephemeral, from the universe to the affairs of men.

These two derivative versions are clearly bogus.  The only version with any claim to authenticity is the first, and its claim is not high.  No authority is given, nor is there any way to tell how close we are to the (alleged) auditor of this argument.  On the other hand the paraphrase of Voltaire at the end makes it unlikely to be a pious fiction.  That’s not enough to redeem it as source material, but it gives it an interest it might otherwise not reflect.

Fake Quotations: Adams and the Indissoluble Bond

Did John Quincy Adams say

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: It connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.

on 14 July 1821?

No.

The words were written by John Wingate Thornton, and were part of his introduction to a collection of American revolutionary-era sermons published in 1860.  He ends a longish paragraph in the following fashion:

It is an interesting fact, in this connection, that the very able and learned defence of the ecclesiastical polity of New England, written by the Rev. John Wise, of Ipswich, one of the victims of the despotism of the infamous Andros, in 1687, was republished in the year 1772, as a sound political document for the times, teaching that “Democracy is Christ’s government in Church and in State.” Thus the church polity of New England begat like principles in the state. The pew and the pulpit had been educated to self-government. They were accustomed “to Consider.” The highest glory of the American Revolution, said John Quincy Adams, was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.

Please note, this is not presented as a quotation; it is Thornton’s summary of a concept he attributed to John Quincy Adams.  It’s easy to see how the mistake came about; somebody reading the passage without paying attention took the paraphrase as a direct quotation, and the story was born.  Whether the words represent Adams’ views accurately or not they are Thornton’s, not Adams’.

Fake Quotations: Congress on School Bibles

Did the United States Congress pass this resolution

The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.

in 1782?

No.  Not in 1782 or any other year.

On this one there’s no real story behind it all, no misunderstanding to clear up—it’s a fake pure and simple.  And it’s the sort of fake that shouldn”t deceive anybody who has the slightest understanding of American history.

First, of course, the United States Congress didn’t exist in 1782.  Even assuming that its predecessor, the Continental Congress, is meant, it’s still nonsensical (and of course the Continental Congress never passed such a fatuous resolution).  What the forger seems to have done in this case is to use a genuine resolution recommending a Bible published by a Philadelphia printer, Robert Aitkin, for its care and accuracy in printing (colonial printers were notoriously careless and inaccurate) as the basis for this forgery:

Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled, highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied of the care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorise him to publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.

The words in bold are the ones lifted by the forger.  The phrase “for use in all schools” is apparently the forger’s own, though it may have been suggested by these words in Robert Aitkin’s petition: “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.”

Links

Debunking an Email (Ken Ashford)

Barton Revises History to Promote the National Council On Bible Curriculum In Public Schools (Chris Rodda)

Dubious Documents: The Case of the Bible of the Revolution (sbh)