Posted by sbh on Friday, 4 July 2014
Occasionally I am favored by comments on old posts from this or that corner of the blogosphere. Here are some from the past year or so.
This page [Jefferson and the Sacred Volume] did nothing to cast doubt upon the credibility of Daniel Webster’s account. As for the direct quote by Jefferson about the “sacred volume,” it’s consistent with what he might say about religion and Christianity. He had very high regard for the words of Jesus Christ. It’s logical to believe, therefore, that he would think others would hold them in high regard, also, and be helped by them.
In your attempt to show religious bias towards Webster’s claims, you have been bitten by your own bias from the other side. It sure is hard to find anyone today who is really honest with history.
I am at a loss to account for your misapprehension that I was attempting “to cast doubt upon the credibility of Daniel Webster’s account.” I reread my piece, and find to the contrary, I strongly indicated my belief in the likely authenticity of his recollection—that is, I believe that Webster was retelling what he considered the highlights of an event as he remembered it after the lapse of a quarter century. That belief does nothing, however, to alter the fact that these are not Jefferson’s words directly, but somebody else’s recollection after a passage of time.
You owe me for the number of seconds I wasted on this site. When you are not even willing to identify yourself you destroyed any lack of credibility you have. The most damning part for me is that you in fact are doing exactly what you claim repeatedly “religionists” are doing. That is attempting to revise history and doing so anonymously.
Logic is clearly not your strong suit. If my use of initials instead of a full name “destroy[s] any lack of credibility” I have it ought to make me all the more credible. I assume you meant to say that it destroys any credibility I may have, but with a comment this incoherent—who knows? Your reading comprehension is also apparently limited, in that I have never claimed “religionists” are doing anything at all, let alone “attempting to revise history”.
Actually, the varied accounts [in “No King but Jesus” and the American Revolution] with slight differences seem to confirm the fact that something like this happened. Anybody who studies history knows that there may be several versions of the same event that are passed down and some may use direct quotations and some may write down the gist of the matter. It is also true that several people may have said virtually the same thing, especially in the circumstances—but the battle cry of rebellion against the king of England and Allegiance to God has too many sources for feeble attempts like this to discredit it—imo.
This might be plausible if it weren’t for the fact that all the accounts in question were written more than two centuries after the alleged event by people who were not there and who give no source for their claim. There is in fact no contemporary evidence whatsoever to support the idea that “No King but Jesus” (or some variation of that phrase) was a “battle cry of rebellion against the king of England”. If you have one, it’s your business to give it. (As I noted in my piece there is some evidence for its use during the anti-Stamp movement in Philadelphia a decade before the beginning of the war.) In any case, the only issue here is whether somebody said it at the opening of the battle of Lexington—and there is no evidence to support this claim at all. For more information see J. L. Bell, The “No King but Jesus” Myth.
God is real. It doesn’t matter what anyone says or claims another said…..
If you are that indifferent to history why on earth did you come to a history site?