For the third installment of my little series debunking the American history lies being told on Glenn Beck's show, I'm going to take on another of pseudo-historian David Barton's favorite lies: that Thomas Jefferson dated his presidential documents not just "in the year of our Lord," but that he went even further than any of our other early presidents, dating his documents "in the year of our Lord Christ.' Barton told this lie twice on Glenn Beck's show, first when he was on in March with the other speakers who were going to be appearing with Beck on his American Revival Tour, and then again when Beck had him back on for a whole show.
(Part one of this series can be found here, and part two here.)
(When I posted my last installment, which was mainly just a video, I got some comments from people who were unable to watch videos at work, or didn't have fast enough connections, asking me to post text versions along with the videos. So, in this installment, I'm including a transcript of what I said in the video.)
Barton has been using this lie for a very long time. In a 10-year-old article on his WallBuilders website, he wrote: "While President, Jefferson closed his presidential documents with the phrase, 'In the year of our Lord Christ; by the President; Thomas Jefferson.'" In that article, Barton's footnote for this claim is: "For example, his presidential act of October 18, 1804, from an original document in our possession." A typical revisionist tactic, which Barton used in this footnote, is to take their claim, which isn't even true in the first place, and word it in a way that makes it sound like something happened multiple times or was the regular practice of whoever they're lying about. In his footnote, Barton does this by beginning with the words "for example." On Beck's show, he kept referring to Jefferson's documents (plural), as if the document he was showing was just one example of many.
A few years later after Barton started using this lie about Jefferson, the late D. James Kennedy, in his 2003 book What If America Were a Christian Nation Again?, repeated the lie, writing: "I have a photocopy of the conclusion of one of the many documents that he signed as president, and it says, 'In the year of our Lord Christ 1804.' He was the first president, and to my knowledge, the only president who did that. Jefferson, the anti-Christian, the irreligious infidel, said that it is Christ who is our Lord, and no one else."
At the time that I was working on my book, which I started writing around the same time that D. James Kennedy's book came out, I had no idea what this mystery document that Barton claimed to possess might be. I knew it had to be some kind of document that already had the date on it, and was simply signed by Jefferson, because the claim that Jefferson personally dated any of his documents "In the year of our Lord," let alone "In the year of our Lord Christ," was just too ridiculous. In fact, Jefferson sometimes went out of his way to make it clear to everybody that he wasn't just overlooking using the phrase "In the year of our Lord," but was deliberately omitting it, particularly in documents that he was writing to abolish something religious, using phrases like "in the Christian computation," and "of the Christian epoch." Anyway, my best guess at the time as to what Barton's mystery document might be was a pardon, since there was, in fact, a pardon signed by Jefferson that would have coincided with the date cited by Barton in his footnote. It didn't occur to me at the time that it might just be a routine preprinted form, which, as I'll explain in a minute, is exactly what this document is. So, I might have been off when I took a stab at guessing what Barton's mystery document might be, but, as I had suspected, it is not a document that Jefferson personally wrote and dated, but an already written document that he merely signed.
When I made my first YouTube videos in March of last year (in response to Barton bashing me on his radio show), I still didn't know what the document was, even though he had showed a corner of it on the video screen during his presentation that I had attended a few months earlier. But, about a week after I put my videos up on YouTube, Barton suddenly posted the document on his website -- well, sort of. The document that Barton posted was not dated October 18, 1804, as the footnote in his earlier website article stated, but September 24, 1807. But, this doesn't really matter. Both documents, the 1804 one that Barton shows a corner of in his presentation, and the 1807 one now posted on his website are the same thing. They're ship's papers. These documents, carried by all American ships leaving the United States, were a fill-in-the-blanks form with columns translated into several languages. Each president signed hundreds of these forms, leaving all the other information blank, and then the blank signed forms were sent in bulk to the customs officials at all the ports, where they were filled out as needed for departing ships.
Not to digress from the story too much, but I did wonder why Barton didn't just post an image of the 1804 ship's papers that he had been claiming for a decade to have in his possession. The only reason I could think of is that he never did actually have the original 1804 document that he claimed to have. The image of it that he showed on video screen could be a photocopy and nobody would know the difference since he never pulls out and waves around the original document like he does with other documents he's showing on the screen. He probably just looked for an original after the fact, and bought the 1807 one. If this is the case, Mr. Barton should know that there is currently one up for auction that's only one day off from the date of that 1804 one he claims to own. He could buy that one and easily get away with claiming that he just had a typo in the date in his old article. But, like I said, it really doesn't matter whether it was an 1804 or 1807 ship's papers. They're exactly the same because they were a preprinted form. So, let's get back to the story.
The primary purpose of a ship's papers, sometimes called sea letters or passports, was to provide proof of the nationality of the ship's owner if the ship was stopped by a foreign power. This became enormously important in 1793 when George Washington proclaimed the neutrality of the United States in the war between France and England, as I'll explain in a minute when I get to who really chose the language of this form.
Now, Barton claims in his description of the form on his website that "this is the explicitly Christian language that President Thomas Jefferson chose to use in official public presidential documents," and said on Glenn Beck that "Jefferson added in the year of our lord Christ." This is a flat out lie. Actually, it's two lies. Jefferson absolutely did not choose the language on this form, and he was not the only president who signed these forms that were dated that way. So did Washington and Adams before him, and Madison and Monroe after him. While the ship's papers form remained virtually the same from 1793 until well into the late 1800s, the name Christ was eventually dropped from the date on it, but that didn't happen until somewhere in the 1820s or 1830s.
The reason Barton lies about Jefferson being the only president to sign these documents is pretty obvious. As he claims in his presentations, other early presidents only dated things "in the year of our Lord," but Jefferson -- the least religious of them all -- the man who coined the phrase "separation between church and state" -- well, he went even further and added the name Christ! And his audience, of course, believes him.
So, if it wasn't Jefferson, who actually did choose the language of these ship's papers? Well, that would be the High and Mighty Lords of the States-General of the United Netherlands. The language to be used on ships' papers was annexed to the 1782 Treaty of Amity and Commerce with the Netherlands, and the twenty-fifth article of the treaty itself stipulated that this was the wording that would be used. At the time this treaty was made, the Netherlands was still the Republic of the United Netherlands, which was a Christian republic where every public official had to be a member of the Dutch Reformed Church, and their official documents were full of religious language. Now, John Adams did sign this treaty and agree to this wording, but as the foreign minister of a country that hadn't even officially gained its independence yet, who was having a hell of a time even getting the powers of Europe to recognize the United States and make treaties with this brand new country, he would hardly have been in a position to argue with the eight High and Mighty Lords negotiating the treaty over the way they dated their ships' papers, and an inconsequential detail like this would obviously have been the furthest thing from his mind anyway.
Now, between 1782 and 1793, the United States wasn't really all that diligent about keeping to the precise ship's papers wording from the 1782 Netherlands treaty, or even making sure that all ships were carrying papers. In fact, some of the ships' papers from George Washington's first term were even dated A.D. instead of "in the year of our Lord Christ." But this changed when Washington proclaimed the neutrality of the United States in the war between France and England. Now the identification of ships was a high priority matter of national security. American merchants needed to be able to prove to the ships and officials of the "belligerent powers," as they were called, that they were from a neutral country, and the United States government needed to prevent foreign ships from fraudulently obtaining American papers. So, in a May 1793 Treasury Department circular to all the customs officials, Alexander Hamilton made it clear that everything was immediately going to start being done by the book.
Enclosed with each of Hamilton's circulars were copies of latest version of the Dutch and English translations, with instructions on exactly how they were to be filled out, specifying that "the following instruction to fill the Dutch copy is to be precisely followed." The language of this new version was word for word from the 1782 treaty with the Netherlands, which was suddenly important because Holland was one of the belligerent powers. The new ships' papers being printed had translations of the Netherlands treaty wording in three languages -- Dutch, French, and English. Treaties with France and England also required that ships carry papers, but only the Netherlands treaty stipulated that the specific wording had to be used. A few years later, there was a treaty with Spain that also required American ships to carry papers, so a fourth column with the Spanish translation was added. What Barton has is a piece of one of these four language ship's papers, showing two of the columns.
But here's the most interesting part of the story. Every president and secretary of state, whose signature was also required on these forms, was falsely swearing an oath when they signed them! Why? Because the "in the year of our Lord Christ" line was actually part of the oath section of the form. What the presidents and secretaries of state were actually signing was an oath that they were witness to the administering of the oath taken by the captain of the ship, where the captain was swearing that the ship was American owned. They were also swearing that they had signed the document and affixed the Seal of the United States to it on the date that that was filled in on it by the customs official. Now, since the president and secretary of state were just signing hundreds of these forms ahead of time to be sent to all the ports, they never witnessed the ship captains taking their oaths, and obviously weren't signing the forms on the date that they were swearing they had signed them on. I even found one dated in July 1794 that was signed by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. What's wrong with that? Well, Jefferson had resigned as secretary of state seven months earlier in 1793. And there's another by James Madison that's actually signed the day before his inauguration, so Madison signed them before he was sworn in and sent them ahead of time to the ports and they started using them before Madison was actually inaugurated. So, apparently, none of our early presidents or secretaries of state had any problem whatsoever falsely swearing they had witnessed something they didn't witness and swearing they had signed a document on a date that they didn't really sign it on, even when that document was dated "in the year of our lord Christ."
Parvez Ahmed: What Would Our Founding Fathers Say About the 'Ground Zero Mosque'?
http://www.greatseal.com/committees/firstcomm/
As for the documents - David Barton is in the possession of several of them. When recently asked about this very topic if there is only one "In the year of our Lord Christ" signed by Jefferson he said "Yes, that single one and more that a thousand additional documents signed by him as well."
I'm also hearing the phrase, "In God we Trust, it was good enough for the founding fathers and it's good enough for me."
Of course they are disconcerted when I point out that the phrase has nothing to do with the founding fathers and everything to do with the Cold War in the 1950's.
I thoroughly enjoyed watching your video.
It is clear that the phrase "Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven" is an unstated presupposition referrring to Christ, since no other important event dates back 1797 years which the European world, and by extension America, would honor in such a way. Typically, kingdoms were dated from the beginning of the king's reign, just as we see America dated from "Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth". America, from 1776 on, has no human king.
But in the late 18th century, both Europe and America also considered themselves part of 'Christendom". And the dating which we still use, hence 2010, which originally means Anno Domini (A.D. Year of our Lord).
No matter what sophistry one tries to use, the Constitution is clearly dated 1787 from the advent of Christ.
As for the Declaration, ..."appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world" and "the protection of Divine Providence" eminating from Jefferson's hand are decidedly NOT Deistic, (they believe any Creator does not intervene in the Creation) but clearly theological, and for those who held the positions at the Continental Congress and Constitutional Convention all higher education then was based in Biblical theology.
You are evidently unfamiliar with the Treaty of Tripoli:
"The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
-- Article 11 of The Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli, signed on November 4, 1796, ratified by unanimous U.S. Senate vote on June 7, 1797, and signed into law by President John Adams on June 10, 1797.
Tusculum: "As for the Declaration, ...'appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world' and 'the protection of Divine Providence' eminating from Jefferson's hand are decidedly NOT Deistic, (they believe any Creator does not intervene in the Creation)"
Semantics - Jefferson was decidedly a Deist in the sense that he believed in God but not a God of any organized religion based on "revealed word of God" - explicitly including the "revealed word of God" in the Bible, which Jefferson repeatedly and categorically rejected.
"The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a Virgin Mary, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
-- Thomas Jefferson
T.'.
And trying to use Jefferson, who deliberately edited the bible to remove the miraculous, as their poster child for Christian Founding Fathers is Orwellian in its historical revisionism.
T.'.
One thing came to my mind. At the time that Adams was negotiating treaties in the Netherlands, he was also getting Dutch bankers to float loans for the new country (James Grant in "John Adams, Party of One" titles on chapter "Peacemaker, Junk Bond Promoter." Given that the cash of the Netherlands was keeping his country's economy afloat, how much leverage did he have over their sea treaties?
BIBLE BELT STATISTICS
The divorce rate, the murder rate and the obesity rate are all higher in the Bible Belt than in the rest of the United States.
SOMEHOW THE BIBLE BELT EXAMPLE ISN'T IMPROVING SOCIETY.
The Bible Belt has a higher murder rate than other regions of the United States
The Bible Belt's teen pregnancy rates are some of the highest in the country.
There is more poverty in the Bible Belt than elsewhere.
Health overall is poor.
Sexually transmitted disease rates are also high.
hate and intolerance is well represented.
Those who can't or won't take the Christian values where they live secretly subscribe to porn.
The level of agreement in a state with the statement that “Even today miracles are performed by the power of God” predicted higher pornography consumption. States claiming to have old-fashioned values about family and marriage purchased substantially more adult-content subscriptions.
From a logical standpoint, the Bible Belt's strict Christian morals (often forced) are causing controversy amongst the local population. This evidence is quite useful in a debate against a Christian when the overused "Christianity makes people moral" point is brought up. It also brings up the point that shoving Christianity down kid's throats does not work, and causes them to have contempt for Christianity.
It's logical to assume that similar harm is probably happening in Christian fundamentalist Bible Belt type communities in other parts of America and the world.
http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Bible_Belt
The problem always remains with these folks the facts don't matter a whole bunch. In their eyes, believing makes it true. What they believe becomes true to them simply because they believe it. To them experts don't have facts, they have opinions and the "opinion" they accept as "fact" is the opinion they like.
Whether it is evolution, global warming, the rights of gays to be treated as any other citizen or the meaning of the 1st Amendment and "separation of church and state" they believe as they like regardless of the facts.
Facts is what we have and facts is what we'll use; but the truth often seems to be impotent in combating the anti-intellectual hysteria created in the echo chamber of lies.
Thanks for a great response! Yes, facts seem to have a "liberal bias" to the low-information folks, like Beck, Palin, Tea Partiers and their followers.
{{fanned}} for a thoughtful response as well!
Of all of the Framers, Jefferson is the last one that anyone should attempt to portray as an orthodox Christian - unless orthodox Christians routinely rip the Bible to shreds, removing all the miracles, and then reassemble it to fit their own philosophical ends. In practice, most Christians do this their head, in an attempt to avoid having to carry out Jesus' actual philosophy. But Jefferson takes this process a bit further.
"My aim in that was, to justify the character of Jesus against the fictions of his pseudo-followers, which have exposed him to the inference of being an impostor. For if we could believe that he really countenanced the follies, the falsehoods and the charlatanisms which his biographers father on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations and theorizations of the fathers of the early, and fanatics of the latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind, that he was an impostor. I give no credit to their falsifications of his actions and doctrines, and to rescue his character, the postulate in my letter asked only what is granted in reading every other historian."
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl261.htm
Let David Barton put that one in his pipe, and smoke it - because he has to be smoking some really good stuff.