User
Walt Starr's excellent Sunday diary
debunking common quotes attributed to the founding fathers got a much-deserved recommendation and a long list of constructive comments. We need to be more vigilant not only about sourcing, but also about making other people aware of fabrications.
But here's the kicker: the culprit in question, David Barton, has already admitted that the quotes aren't real. He's written about it, too.
This has to be seen to be believed. You thought the people we were up against were wacko? It just keeps getting better:
In a
long article on the suspect quotes, Barton admits that the quotes are all source-less, but he also denies that he himself did any of the fabricating. Apparently these were already in circulation. Furthermore, the controversy only exists because you people demand things like "standards" (bold mine):
The following quotations have been seen and heard in numerous books, periodicals, editorials, speeches, etc. In our research, we have not previously used a quote that was not documented to a source in a manner that would be acceptable in a scholarly work or a university text. However, we strongly believe that the debates surrounding the Founders are too important to apply solely an academic standard. Therefore, we unilaterally initiated within our own works a standard of documentation that would exceed the academic standard and instead would conform to the superior legal standard (i.e., relying solely on primary or original sources, using best evidence, rather than relying on the writings of attorneys, professors, or historians).
Because this debate is Big, the usual formalities like "accuracy" don't really matter. But Barton doesn't mind taking us quote by quote to explain how these quotes may have come about, and why it really doesn't matter.
How ditching this standard somehow brings us to a "superior legal standard" absolutely boggles my mind.
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!" -- Patrick Henry (unconfirmed)
Few could dispute that this quotation is consistent with Henry's life and character. (Interestingly, those who advocate a secular society today view Henry as an arch enemy.)
There you have it: the quotation is consistent, therefore its accuracy is not that important. So long as the quote maintains the spirit of the speaker, the actual words don't matter so much.
Incidentally, Mr. Barton, I think the spirit of Benjamin Franklin is telling you where to shove those quotes.
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." -- George Washington (unconfirmed)
There is a very real possibility that the quotation has its origin in an 1835 biography by James K. Paulding. In a description of Washington's character, with supporting quotations, Paulding declares Washington to have said: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.
The similarities are obvious; a paraphrase of these quotes could have easily generated the words in question.
How's that for scholarly standards? The quote's not Washington - and it's not even his biographer - it's a garbling of an unattributed line by someone who wrote about Washington.
And "Supreme Being" is sorta like "God and the Bible." They're one-in-the-same for most Americans, right? No harm, no foul!
"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian." --Holy Trinity v. U. S. (Supreme Court) (inaccurate)
This appears to be a classic example of a cut-and-paste typographical error. These words are not found in the Holy Trinity case. However, these same thoughts are found throughout the case and in other state and federal court rulings, primarily in the early years.
Typographical errors are easily understood. I can see how someone typing too quickly might mistakenly hit a wrong key or two and fabricate an entire three sentences of text to give a particular ideology a Supreme Court defense.
I'll leave it for you all to read the full article, if you want. It's a doozy. Barton has some parting shots for all his followers, telling them to keep their chins up:
To those who have used the above quotations, do not be discouraged. They have a source. We are simply unable to take them to an original, primary document, which is the standard for which we must all strive. In this regard, we have traversed the learning curve.
There you go, boys and girls! The quotes may be unattributed - hell, some of them are even wrong - but that shouldn't keep you from using them! "Sources" are for ivory-tower intellectuals, not the man on the street.
Hoorah!
(Note: at the end of the article there is a disclaimer of sorts that says Barton not only did not fabricate these quotes, but more importantly has vowed not to use these quotes anymore, and discourages others from doing so. The latter may be true, but his note at the end of the article seems to contradict that by encouraging people who do use these quotes. Methinks Mr. Barton wants to have it both ways.)