Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution and Religion

Barton not only uses a non-primary source for the phrases in his Ingersoll misquote, but pulls the pieces from quotes on three different pages, one from page 49, one from page 52, and one from page 54. This explains why his misquote contains sentences from two completely different writings. Apparently, Barton, whose footnote for his misquote does say "pp. 49-54," doesn’t think his audience will wonder how his short single quote could possibly span five pages in the book Ingersollia.

After the Ingersoll misquote, Barton continues with his next example of The Use of Patent Untruths:

W.E. Woodward, a revisionist active in the 1920s, also employed the use of patent untruths, asserting:

The name of Jesus Christ is not mentioned even once in the vast collection of Washington’s published letters.

And yet, on June 12, 1779, to the Delaware Indian Chiefs, Washington declared:

You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention.

W.E. Woodward was not lying when he wrote that Jesus Christ was not mentioned even once in the vast collection of Washington’s published letters. This was absolutely true in 1926 when Woodward wrote it. The address that Barton quotes had not been published as of 1926. The first collection of Washington’s writings to include this address wasn’t published until 1936, ten years after Woodward made his statement.

The collections of Washington’s writings published before 1926 were The Writings of George Washington, edited by Jared Sparks (12 volumes, 1833-37), and The Writings of George Washington, edited by Worthington C. Ford (14 volumes, 1889-93). Neither of these collections contained Washington’s May 12, 1779 address to the Delaware chiefs. Washington’s May 14, 1779 letter to Congress, with which a copy of the speech was enclosed, was added in the Ford edition, but the address itself was not. The first collection to contain the address was The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, edited by John C. Fitzpatrick (39 volumes, 1931-44). It appears in Volume 15 of this collection, released in 1936.

Apparently, Barton, who promotes himself as an expert on the writings of the founders, either doesn’t know that the first edition of Washington’s writings to contain this address wasn’t published until 1936, didn’t bother to check the earlier editions for this address before accusing Woodward of lying, or did know that the address hadn’t been published as of 1926 and decided to make his accusation anyway.

The reason for Washington’s mention of Jesus Christ in the address to the Delaware, the only such mention to appear in any of Washington’s writings, brings us to Barton’s next use of one of the methods on his list -- "The Use of Omission." Barton omits the fact that Washington’s address was a point by point response to the petition he was given by the Delaware chiefs, in which they used the name Jesus Christ in their request for Congress to provide aid for the work of David Ziesberger, a Moravian missionary at one of their settlements.

The entire story of the relationship between the Moravians and this group of Delaware Indians is too complicated to explain here, but what is necessary to understand is that the Delaware chiefs who were trying to keep their people from joining the war on the side of the British knew that the influence of the Moravians and the conversion of the Delawares at their settlements to Christianity was what had kept them out of the war.

By the end of 1778, the relationship between the United States and the Delaware was deteriorating. In September of that year, the Delaware had signed a treaty with the United States. Congress, however, had not fulfilled the promises made in this treaty. The United States was to make sure the Delaware were able to obtain clothing, tools, and weapons. These were items that the Delaware usually got by trading with the British -- trade which would end if they signed the treaty with the United States. Then, in November 1778, Captain White Eyes, the Delaware chief who was largely responsible for keeping the Delaware nation from siding with the British, was killed while serving as a guide in the American army. The absence of this influential chief made the already shaky relationship with the Delaware even shakier.

Congress had also failed to carry out the following 1776 resolution.

APRIL 10, 1776

The committee to whom the report on Indian Affairs in the middle department, and the petition of Captain White Eyes, were referred, brought in their report, which being taken into consideration:

Resolved, That the commissioners for Indian affairs in the middle department, or any one of them, be desired to employ, for reasonable salaries, a minister of the gospel, to reside among the Delaware Indians, and instruct them in the Christian religion; a school master to teach their youth reading, writing, and arithmetic; and also, a blacksmith to do the work of the Indians in the middle department.(5)

As a last ditch effort to maintain peace, Indian commissioner George Morgan invited a delegation of Delaware chiefs to a meeting at his Princeton home, which took place on January 5, 1779. Morgan helped the chiefs write the memorial that they would present to George Washington and Congress in May. He also suggested that the son of Captain White Eyes and the son and younger brother of Killbuck, another chief who was then serving in the American army, be brought to Princeton to be educated.

Washington was taken by surprise when these Delaware chiefs, on their way to present their memorial to Congress and deliver the three boys who were to be educated in Princeton, decided to stop at the camp first. As Washington put it, he was "a little at a loss" as to what to do when this memorial, which was addressed to both himself and Congress, was presented to him. He had to give some kind of answer, but had no authority to promise anything. Playing it safe, he had his aide, Robert Hanson Harrison, write a speech for him that simply reiterated and expressed general approval of the points made by the chiefs, two of which repeated the requests made by Captain White Eyes in 1776. The fourth was a request for school teachers, and the fifth was the following.

5th. That the said Delaware Nation have established a Town where numbers of them have embraced Christianity under the Instruction of the Reverend and worthy Mr David Ziesberger whose honest zealous Labours & good Examples have Induced many of them to listen to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which has been a means of introducing considerable order, Regularity and love of Peace into the Minds of the whole Nation -- the[y] therefore hope Congress will countenance & promote the Mission of this Gentleman, so far away as they may deem expedient; and they may rely that the Delaware Nation will afford every encouragement thereto in their power.(6)

This is the paragraph from Washington’s address containing the quote used by Barton: 

Brothers: I am glad you have brought three of the Children of your principal Chiefs to be educated with us. I am sure Congress will open the Arms of love to them, and will look upon them as their own Children, and will have them educated accordingly. This is a great mark of your confidence and of your desire to preserve the friendship between the Two Nations to the end of time, and to become One people with your Brethren of the United States. My ears hear with pleasure the other matters you mention. Congress will be glad to hear them too. You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it.(7)

After delivering the address, Washington quickly sent a copy of it to Congress, accompanied by the following letter.

The deputies from the Delaware Nation arrived at Head Quarters two days ago. They presented me with a long memorial on various points, which they intend to present also to Congress. I was a little at a loss what answer to give and could have wished they had made their first application there. But as an answer could not be avoided, I thought it safest to couch it in general but friendly terms and refer them to Congress for a more particular one. Though there is reason to believe, they have not adhered very scrupulously to their pretended friendship, it appeared to me to be our present policy at least to conciliate; and in this spirit my answer was conceived. I hope I may not have deviated from the views of Congress.(8)

In order to give the impression that this address to the Delaware chiefs was just one of many documents in which Washington mentioned Jesus Christ, Barton, employing "The Use of Patent Untruths," follows that quote with what he claims to be another example.

Furthermore, in one single document (a well-worn, handwritten prayer book found among Washington’s personal writings after his death), the name ’Jesus Christ’ was used directly sixteen times; it also appeared numerous additional times in varied forms (e.g., ’Jesus,’ ’Lord Jesus,’ etc.).

The prayer book referred to by Barton is mentioned or quoted from in a number of other religious right American history books, and appears on countless websites. Tim LaHaye, in his book Faith of Our Founding Fathers, includes several pages of prayers from it, introduced by this statement.

That President George Washington was a devout believer in Jesus Christ and had accepted Him as His Lord and Savior is easily demonstrated by a reading of his personal prayer book (written in his own handwriting), which was discovered in 1891 among a collection of his papers. To date no historian has questioned its authenticity. It consists of twenty-four pages of his morning and evening prayers, revealing many of his theological beliefs about God, Jesus Christ, sin, salvation, eternal life, and himself as a humble servant of Christ.

Barton, like LaHaye, simply ignores the fact that the Washington prayer book was long ago determined to be a fake. LaHaye’s claim that no historian to date has questioned its authenticity is ridiculous. Historians began questioning its authenticity as soon as its discovery was reported.

The prayer book, first published in 1891, was found by Stan V. Henkel in a trunk owned at that time by Lawrence Washington. Henkel, a Philadelphia auctioneer, while preparing for a sale of Washington artifacts passed down to Lawrence Washington and three other Washington family descendants. In spite of the fact that Lawrence Washington told Henkel that the contents of the trunk had already been rejected by the Smithsonian Institution, Henkel claimed that it was in the handwriting of George Washington at twenty years old. A facsimile of the book was published by Henkel under the title Fac-Simile of Manuscript Prayer-Book by George Washington, and the original manuscript was sold to a New York collector for $1,250.

Among the historians to question the prayer book’s authenticity was Rupert Hughes. In his 1926 book George Washington: The Human Being and the Hero, Hughes presented side by side images of the handwriting from the prayer book and examples from authentic Washington documents from the period in which the prayer book was allegedly written. It doesn’t take a handwriting expert to see that they weren’t written by the same person. But, the handwriting samples used by Hughes for his comparison were from 1748 (age sixteen) and 1757 (age twenty-five), allowing his critics to assert that there was a possibility that Washington’s handwriting at age twenty differed from these samples, and might still match the prayer book. A number of other historians, however, including Worthington C. Ford, the editor of the second major collection of Washington’s writings, also determined that the book was not in Washington’s handwriting. A more recent handwriting comparison can be found in the 2005 book The Ways of Providence: Religion & George Washington, by Frank E. Grizzard, Jr. of the University of Virginia. Grizzard uses a sample of Washington’s handwriting at exactly age twenty, which, of course, is no closer to that in the prayer book than the slightly earlier and later samples used by Hughes.

5. Worthington C. Ford, ed., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, vol. 4, (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1906), 266-267.
6. Speech of Delawares to Washington and Congress, May 10th, 1779, Collections of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, vol. 23, (Madison, WI: The Society, 1915), 319-320.
7. Speech to the Delaware Chiefs, May 12, 1779, John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, vol. 15, (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1936), 55.
8. George Washington to Congress, May 14, 1779, ibid., 78-79.

3. The Use of Omission

Omission (the deletion of certain sections of text) is another effective tool of revisionists and can also completely transform the tone of a work.

and

The ellipses (". . .") indicate that a portion of the text was omitted. When used correctly, such deletions shorten the text but do not change its context...

Barton, of course, uses this omission tactic throughout his book to alter historical quotations, but what’s interesting in this chapter on revisionism is his use of it to alter the words of those who he accuses of being revisionists.

In his examples of secularists using method #2, "The Use of Overly Broad Generalizations," Barton presents the following from W.E. Woodward’s 1926 book, George Washington: The Image and the Man:

George Washington....seemed, according to the evidence, to have had no instinct or feeling for religion....He refers to Providence in numerous letters, but he used the term as a synonym for Destiny or Fate. W.E. WOODWARD

This is what Barton plucks these phrases from:

George Washington, surveyor, wealthy planter, fox hunting sportsman, officer of the Virginia Militia, General of the Continental Army during the War of Independence, President of the Constitutional Convention, and First President of the United States was without a trace of "Christianism." He was so completely indifferent to its pious irascibilities that he never appears to have made any comment on them. Indeed, he seemed, according to the evidence, to have had no instinct or feeling for religion, although he attended church twelve or fifteen times a year.

The name of Jesus Christ is not mentioned even once in the vast collection of Washington’s published letters. He refers to Providence in numerous letters, but he used the term as a synonym for Destiny or Fate. Bishop White, who knew him well for many years, wrote after Washington’s death that he had never heard him express an opinion on any religious subject. He added that although Washington was "serious and attentive" in church, he never saw him kneel in prayer.(1)

Barton next quotes the following from Steven Morris’s article, "America’s Unchristian Beginnings," which appeared in the Los Angeles Times on August 3, 1995:

George Washington....seems to have had the characteristic unconcern of the 18th century Deist for the forms and creeds of institutional religions.... [H]e referred to Providence as an impersonal force, remote and abstract. STEVEN MORRIS

Here are the entire two sentences from Morris’s article:

George Washington, first president: He seems to have had the characteristic unconcern of the 18th century Deist for the forms and creeds of institutional religion. Although he often referred to Providence as an impersonal force, remote and abstract, he never declared himself to be a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence.

Why does Barton employ "The Use of Omission" to alter these quotes? Because Woodward’s and Morris’s statements indicate that Washington’s contemporaries didn’t seem to think he was a Christian, and that he was not a regular church attendant. This would make what Barton presents next -- his evidence that Washington was a devout Christian -- seem a bit questionable, and weaken his accusation that these secular revisionists, who do refer in their statements to historical eyewitness testimonies, "artfully omit the historical eyewitness testimonies."

What Barton does is to "artfully omit the historical eyewitness testimonies" of anyone who didn’t think Washington was a Christian. He presents carefully selected quotes from "contemporaries," most of whom wouldn’t have known Washington well enough to speak with any authority about his religious beliefs, something that even his closest friends, as well as a number of clergymen who knew him well, were admittedly unsure of.

The first comes from Gunning Bedford, Jr., who was asked by his masonic lodge in Wilmington, Delaware to deliver an oration on Washington.

To the character of hero and patriot, this good man added that of Christian… Although the greatest man upon Earth, he disdained not to humble himself before God and to trust in the mercies of Christ. GUNNING BEDFORD, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION

Here is a longer excerpt from Bedford’s oration:

To the character of hero and patriot, this good man added that of christian. All his public communications breathe a pure spirit of piety, a resignation to the will of heaven, and a firm reliance upon the providence of God. In those achievements which redounded most to his reputation, we hear him exclaiming with King David, "Not unto us, not unto us, O! Lord, but to thy name be the honor and praise." Although the greatest man upon Earth, he disdained not to humble himself before God, and to trust in the mercies of Christ. He regularly attended in the temples of the most high, and joined with his fellow mortals, in paying adoration to the Supreme Governor of the Universe, and in supplicating blessings for his country, and pardon and forgiveness for himself....(2)

The problem here, which sheds doubt on Bedford’s opinion being from personal observation, is his assertion that Washington "regularly attended in the temples of the most high." According to Washington’s diaries, he only attended houses of worship four times during the entire Constitutional Convention -- the only time when Bedford would have been an eyewitness to his church going habits.

Washington’s church attendance during the Constitutional Convention consisted of one visit to a "Romish Church", presumably with John Adams, whose letters indicate a visit to a Catholic church on the same date; the Fourth of July celebration at the Race Street Church, at which he appears to have stayed only long enough to hear an oration by a law student, leaving before the religious service; a visit to a Quaker meeting house, which occurred the same week he was meeting with Quaker leaders in Philadelphia; and a service at which Bishop William White, who had just returned from his trip to England to be consecrated a Bishop, was to ordain deacons for the first time. Bishop White, referred to by W.E. Woodward in the part of his statement omitted by Barton, was the brother-in-law of Robert Morris, Washington’s host in Philadelphia during the Convention. White was one of a number of clergymen who, knowing Washington well enough to make such an assessment, doubted his belief in the Christian religion.

The second comes from an oration delivered by Abiel Holmes:

[I]f we cannot aspire at his talents as a General, a President, or a Statesman, we may imitate his virtues as a man, a citizen, and a Christian. ABIEL HOLMES, REVOLUTIONARY SURGEON; HISTORIAN

First of all, Abiel Holmes was not a Revolutionary War surgeon, an erroneous description that would give the impression that he might have known Washington. Abiel Holmes was a Congregationalist minister in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He had been about twelve years old when the Revolutionary War began, and a student at Yale when it ended. It was his father, Captain David Holmes, who was the surgeon. Interestingly, with the exception of saying he was Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.’s father when he was actually his grandfather, Barton gets Abiel Holmes’s biography right in his biographical sketches appendix in Original Intent, even listing him as Rev. Abiel Holmes.

The third comes from the eulogy delivered by Jonathan Mitchell Sewall:

He was a firm believer in the Christian religion....For my own part, I trust I shall never lose the impression made on my own mind in beholding, in this house of prayer, the venerable hero, the victorious leader of our hosts, bending in humble adoration to the God of armies, and great Captain of our salvation! JONATHAN SEWELL, ATTORNEY

Just to clarify who this quote actually comes from, the attorney Jonathan Sewell (spelled the way Barton does) was a close friend of John Adams when they were young men, but was a loyalist who moved to England when the Revolutionary War began. What Barton quotes comes from Jonathan Mitchell Sewall, who was also an attorney, but is better known as a poet. Sewall did not know Washington personally. What he was referring to in the quote used by Barton was Washington’s visit to St. John’s Church, in Portsmouth in New Hampshire during his presidential tour of the New England states in 1789.

Jonathan Mitchell Sewall made many dramatic claims about Washington’s religious beliefs in his oration, but what is more revealing about this one is its partisan nature, including references to political events that led to the emergence of parties in the early 1790s. Remember, Washington’s death occurred at same time that the Federalist clergy were launching their attack on Jefferson, writing pamphlets and delivering sermons on why Christians should not elect this deist in the election of 1800. Even the paragraph from which Barton gets most of his quote is immediately followed by a dig at deists, making it impossible to consider Sewall’s testimony an objective one.

For my own part, I trust, I shall never lose the impression made on my own mind in beholding, in this House of Prayer, the venerable Hero, the victorious leader of our Hosts, bending in humble adoration to the GOD of ARMIES, and GREAT CAPTAIN OF OUR SALVATION. Hard and unfeeling indeed must that heart be, that could sustain the sight unmoved, or its owner depart unsoftened and unedified.

LET the Deist reflect on this, and remember that Washington the Saviour of his Country, did not disdain to acknowledge and adore a GREATER SAVIOUR, whom Deists and Infidels affect to slight and despise!(3)

The fourth comes from Jeremiah Smith:

Christianity is the highest ornament of human nature. Washington practiced upon this belief...He was neither ostentatious nor ashamed of his Christian profession. JEREMIAH SMITH, REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIER; U.S. CONGRESSMAN; GOVERNOR OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Smith’s oration is unremarkable. As a congressman during Washington’s administration, he would have observed him at the only time in his life during which he did attend church on a consistent basis, so statements like"he publicly professed the religion in which he was educated" do reflect what Smith actually would have seen. The following are the paragraphs from which Barton gets the phases for his quote.

In our country there are few, who will hesitate to acknowledge the obligations, we are under, to make the concerns of another world, the governing principle of our lives in this; and that christianity is the highest ornament of human nature. WASHINGTON practiced upon this belief -- He publicly professed the religion in which he was educated; and his life affords the best evidence of the purity of his principles, and the sincerity of his faith.

He had all the genuine mildness of christianity with all its force. He was neither ostentatious, nor ashamed of his christian profession. He pursued in this, as in every thing else, the happy mean between the extremes of levity and gloominess, indifference and austerity. His religion became him....(4)

Statements that Washington was a Christian, but not an "ostentatious" one, are very common. Barton includes this one among his examples, although chopping off the beginning of it.

[H]e was a sincere believer in the Christian faith and a truly devout man. JOHN MARSHALL, REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL; SECRETARY OF STATE; CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

This is the entire sentence from Marshall’s biography of Washington:

"Without making ostentatious professions of religion, he was a sincere believer in the Christian faith, and a truly devout man."(5)

John Marshall, whose father, Thomas Marshall, was a close friend of Washington, would, of course, have known Washington better than any of the authors of the eulogies and orations quoted above. He was not, however a revolutionary general, as Barton claims in yet another biographical error that would conveniently imply a closer association with Washington. John Marshall did serve in the Revolutionary War, but his highest rank was captain.

What seems to be a recurring assumption in the quotes used by Barton and others that I’ve looked at is that many Christians of the time just couldn’t fathom, or didn’t want to admit, that a man as virtuous as Washington could have been so virtuous without sharing their religious beliefs. For example, Nelly Parke Custis, Martha Washington’s granddaughter, who was also adopted by Washington as his daughter, considered Washington’s long and happy marriage proof that he must have been a Christian.

She [Martha] never omitted her private devotions, or her public duties; and she and her husband were so perfectly united and happy, that he must have been a Christian.(6)

The above sentence appears in a letter written by Nelly Parke Custis to Jared Sparks in 1833 in response to Sparks’s request for information about Washington’s religious beliefs. Sparks was then writing what eventually became his twelve volume edition of Washington’s writings. Barton quotes the following from the same letter.

I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian.

Here is the paragraph that sentence comes from:

It was his custom to retire to his library at nine or ten o’clock, where he remained an hour before he went to his chamber. He always rose before the sun, and remained in his library until called to breakfast. I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them. I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, "that they may be seen of men." He communed with his God in secret.(7)

In her letter, Custis also stated the following:

No one in church attended to the services with more reverential respect. My grandmother, who was eminently pious, never deviated from her early habits. She always knelt. The General, as was then the custom, stood during the devotional parts of the service. On communion Sundays, he left the church with me, after the blessing, and returned home, and we sent the carriage back for my grandmother.(8)

But wait...Jonathan Mitchell Sewall’s eyewitness testimony conflicts with Nelly Custis’s eyewitness testimony. Sewall emphatically stated that Washington was a communicant.

He constantly attended the public worship of god on the LORD’s day; was a communicant at HIS table...(9)

Nobody can honestly claim to know for sure what George Washington’s religious beliefs were. He deliberately and successfully managed to keep his beliefs a secret, as Thomas Jefferson noted in the following journal entry, dated February 1, 1800.

Doctor Rush tells me that he had it from Asa Green, that when the clergy addressed General Washington on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation, that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address, as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly except that, which he passed over without notice. Rush observes, he never did say a word on the subject in any of his public papers, except in his valedictory letter to the Governors of the States, when he resigned his commission in the army, wherein he speaks of "the benign influence of the Christian religion."

I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets & believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system than he himself did.(10)

The other three founders named in Jefferson’s journal entry, frequently appear in the religious right American history books -- Dr. Benjamin Rush, because he was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and also the founder of the Philadelphia Bible Society; Asa Green (Rev. Ashbel Green) because he served in the Revolutionary War, and was also a chaplain to Congress during the Washington administration; Gouverneur Morris, because he was the most frequent speaker at the Constitutional Convention, and because the religious right have found a few quotes that, without an explanation, can be used to make Morris, one of the most irreligious of all the founders, appear to have been very religious.

The first collection of Jefferson’s papers, published in 1829, included this journal entry. One minister who was present at Washington’s address to the clergy denied that there had been a plan to trick him into revealing his religious beliefs, saying that Dr. Rush must have misunderstood Ashbel Green, that Green had denied the story, and that there were two separate address. Green, on the other hand, appears to have stuck to the story, retelling it years later in almost exactly the same words used by Jefferson. The reason I bring this up, however, is not the discrepancy in the story. It’s because the minister who brought it up was Bishop William White, the same Bishop White mentioned earlier.

Remember that part of W.E. Woodward’s statement that was omitted by Barton so he could make his accusation that secularists "artfully omit the historical eyewitness testimonies?" Woodward wrote:

Bishop White, who knew him well for many years, wrote after Washington’s death that he had never heard him express an opinion on any religious subject. He added that although Washington was "serious and attentive" in church, he never saw him kneel in prayer.

Where did Woodward get this information? From the letter Bishop White wrote to Jared Sparks in 1832 in response to a request similar to the one that Sparks sent to Nelly Custis. In fact, Bishop White’s letter is the very next letter in Sparks’s book -- the same book that Barton cites as his source for the Custis letter. Before offering his take on how the story in Jefferson’s journal entry might have come about, Bishop White made the following statements about Washington.

His behaviour was always serious and attentive; but, as your letter seems to intend an inquiry on the point of kneeling during the service, I owe it to the truth to declare, that I never saw him in the said attitude.

[and]

Although I was often in company with this great man, and had the honor of dining often at his table, I never heard any thing from him, which could manifest his opinions on the subject of religion.(11)

So, Barton not only employs the "Use of Omission" to eliminate Bishop White from Woodward’s statement, but quotes Custis’s letter while conveniently overlooking the letter on the very next page of Sparks’s book that supports Woodward’s statement.

I’m going to end here with a question raised by Nelly Custis in her letter to Jared Sparks:

Is it necessary that any one should certify, "General Washington avowed himself to be a believer in Christianity?"(12)

Good question. If, as the authors of the religious right history books would have us believe, the questioning of Washington’s religious beliefs is a product of recent historical revisionism, why did Jared Sparks and the authors of the orations quoted earlier feel the need to go to such lengths to convince the people of their time that he was a Christian?

1. W.E. Woodward, George Washington: The Image and the Man, (New York: Boni & Liveright, 1926), 142.
2. Gunning Bedford, Funeral Oration Upon the Death of George Washington, (Wilmington: Franklin Press, 1800), 15-16.
3. Jonathan Mitchell Sewall, Eulogy on the late General Washington, Pronounced at St. John’s Church, Portsmouth Newhampshire, (Portsmouth, NH: William Treadwell, 1800), 17-18.
4. Jeremiah Smith, An Oration on the Death of George Washington; Delivered at Exeter, February 22, 1800, (Exeter, NH: Henry Ranlet, 1800), 24.
5. John Marshall, The Life of George Washington, vol. 2, (Philadelphia: James Crissy, 1832), 445.
6. Jared Sparks, ed., The Writings of George Washington: Being His Correspondence, Addresses, Messages, and Other Papers, Official and Private, vol. 12, (Boston: American Stationers’ Company, John B. Russell, 1837), 407.
7. ibid., 406.
8. ibid.
9. Sewall, 17.
10. Saul K. Padover, ed., The Complete Jefferson, (New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce, Inc., 1943), 1279.
11. Sparks, 408.
12. ibid., 407.

PART 3

In "Revisionism: A Willing Accomplice," Barton begins his definition of "The Use of Omission" with the following:

3. The Use of Omission

Omission (the deletion of certain sections of text) is another effective tool of revisionists and can also completely transform the tone of a work.

Barton then goes on to present a number of examples, attempting to support his claim that religion is being systematically and deliberately removed from history reference and text books.

One of the books on Barton’s hit list is an abridged edition of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, first published in 1956. Barton introduces this "example of the secularizing of history through omission" by pointing out that this edition "contains less than half the content of the original." Ironically, Barton, who was a math teacher until God spoke to him and turned him into a history revisionist, can’t figure out why a one-volume abridgement of a two-volume work might contain less than half the content. Apparently, Barton still has a problem with this, bringing it up again on The American Heritage Series, a new program currently airing on Christian television networks. On the first episode of this series, Barton first shows the bulky, original two-volume set, then waves around a paperback copy of the abridged edition, making the accusation, as he does in his book, that what was specifically targeted for omission by the editor of this edition was all the moral and religious content. And, how does Barton create his examples of the omission of this religious content? Well, for one of them, he takes two sentences out of context, omitting the part of the paragraph in which Tocqueville explicitly attributed the ability of religion and freedom to coexist to the "separation of church and state."

These are the two sentences quoted by Barton:

Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country.

This is the rest of the paragraph, omitted by Barton (emphasis in this and the quotes that follow is mine):

My desire to discover the causes of this phenomenon increased from day to day. In order to satisfy it I questioned the members of all the different sects; and I more especially sought the society of the clergy, who are the depositaries of the different persuasions, and who are more especially interested in their duration. As a member of the Roman Catholic Church I was more particularly brought into contact with several of its priests, with whom I became intimately acquainted. To each of these men I expressed my astonishment and I explained my doubts; I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone; and that they mainly attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country to the separation of Church and State. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet with a single individual, of the clergy or of the laity, who was not of the same opinion upon this point.(1)

Tocqueville misquotes are found in almost all religious right American history books, including Barton’s earlier book, The Myth of Separation. In that one, Barton included these other quotes from Democracy in America, omitting similar statements about the separation between religion and government.

Barton’s version:

Religion in America...must nevertheless be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country.

The complete sentence:

Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must nevertheless be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of free institutions.(2)

Barton’s version:

Christianity, therefore, reigns without any obstacle, by universal consent.

The complete sentence, along with the sentence immediately preceding it:

Amongst the Anglo-Americans, there are some who profess the doctrines of Christianity from a sincere belief in them, and others who do the same because they are afraid to be suspected of unbelief. Christianity, therefore, reigns without any obstacle, by universal consent; the consequence is, as I have before observed, that every principle of the moral world is fixed and determinate, although the political world is abandoned to the debates and the experiments of men.(3)

Most of Barton’s examples in his section on "The Use of Omission," come from various reference books that quote a variety historical documents. Many compilations of this type, of course, present only select sections of documents, and omit portions of text for various reasons, so Barton had no trouble finding examples in which it happened to be religious text that was omitted.

This is one of Barton’s examples, which also appears in some form in many other religious right history books (emphasis is Barton’s):

Notice also the manner in which a popular library reference book presents the 1783 peace treaty which ended the American Revolution:

...ART. I. -- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz. New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, sovereign and independent States, &c.

What was omitted by the editors at the beginning of the treaty? The section in which John Adams, John Jay, and Benjamin Franklin officially declared:

In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts...

This reference to the trinity was not an acknowledgement by the government of the United States that America was a Christian nation. It was an acknowledgement by the government of Great Britain that England was a Christian nation. "In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity" was the customary way that England, like most of the Christian nations of Europe, began their treaties and other documents. The agents of the United States had no control over this wording. Barton also presents the trinity acknowledgement and the beginning of the first sentence of the preamble as if they were both part of the body of the document. In reality, the trinity reference is a proclamation at the top of the page, separated from the body of the document, as was typical of official British documents of the time.

The actual preamble starts several inches below this, and begins:

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire, &ca., and of the United States of America...(4)

Lengthy strings of titles, like acknowledgements of the trinity, only appear in the treaties that were drafted by the agents of other governments, and then signed by the United States. When it was the other way around, and treaties with these same nations were drafted by the agents of the United States government, they did not contain unnecessary titles, religious or otherwise, and they did not acknowledge Christianity. The United States apparently just didn’t care if an agent of Great Britain happened to be a Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, or who was the most Serene or Illustrious.

This simple opening statement from an 1818 convention with Great Britain is typical of the manner in which the conventions and treaties written by the government of the United States began:

The United States of America, and his Majesty the King of Great Britain and Ireland, desirous to cement the good understanding which happily subsists between them...(5)

This was followed by the names of the agents of both parties, which were followed by nothing more than their position in their government and who they were appointed by.

As already mentioned, some of the reference books examined by Barton are compilations of documents, in which it is the rule rather than the exception to present only portions or highlights of documents. These books were sometimes compiled by gathering passages from other secondary sources, so the same book might contain some passages in which religious text was omitted, and others in which it wasn’t. Because of this, Barton has to chose his examples carefully in order to make his accusation that there is some sort of conspiracy among the editors of such compilations to remove religious references. In fact, Barton actually cites the same reference book twice, but for opposing reasons -- in one case to accuse this book’s editors of deleting the religious language from one document, and in another to quote the religious language omitted from another document by the editor of an different book. In both cases, the book quoted is the 1909 edition of the Documentary Source Book of American History 1606-1898, edited by William MacDonald.

Citing the Documentary Source Book, Barton makes the following accusation:

In another library reference book, the Charter of Pennsylvania is presented in these words:

Charles the Second [&c.]...Know ye...that we, favoring the petition and good purpose of the said William Penn...

What is omitted from the charter? The section describing William Penn’s religious motivation for forming Pennsylvania...

This accusation comes just a few paragraphs after Barton quotes, from the very same book, a passage from the Mayflower Compact, which includes its religious language, to show which phrases were omitted in another book. Obviously, there was no deliberate effort by William MacDonald to erase religion from American history, and by using the Documentary Source Book of American History to show both an omission of religious language in one case, and an inclusion of it in another, Barton proves his own accusation to be unfounded.