by David Barton
Similarly, Zephaniah Swift explained that homosexuality was “punished with death…. [because of] the disgust and horror with which we treat of this abominable crime.”119
In fact, at the insistence of the Founding Fathers, the penalties for homosexuality were very severe. In States like New York, Connecticut, South Carolina, and Vermont, the penalty for homosexuality was death;120 the laws of other States showed similarly harsh penalties.121 In Virginia, according to Thomas Jefferson, “dismemberment” of the offensive organ was the penalty,122 and Jefferson himself authored a bill to penalize sodomy by castration.123
Based on all evidence of that day, it is clear that any idea of homosexuals serving in the military was considered with repugnance; this is incontrovertible, with no room for differing interpretations. Shilts’ conclusion is not only inconsistent with the source he claims to cite, but it is also repudiated by American military policy before, during, and after von Steuben.
Shilts, in a manner consistent with other revisionists, was attempting to concoct historical approval for a generally unacceptable social policy. Impugning morality remains an effective tool of revisionists in attempting to redirect and redefine the political morés of a society.
6. The Use of “Faction”
Another tactic commonly employed by revisionists is “faction” (presenting fiction as if it were fact) – an approach especially evident in many historical novels, plays, and dramas. While works of “faction” usually claim historical accuracy, they are typically characterized by a notable lack of references to primary sources.
An excellent example of faction is “1776,” which first appeared as a Broadway play (1969), as a book (1970), and later as a movie (1972). Notice the author’s and publisher’s claim:
The first question we are asked by those who have seen – or read – 1776 is invariably: “Is it true? Did it really happen that way?” The answer is: Yes.124
Recalling this claim of historical truth, observe the following conversations between Martha Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and John Adams:
JOHN: Franklin, look! He’s [Jefferson] written something – he’s done it! [He dashes after them, snatches the paper off the bow, and comes back to Franklin, delighted, and reads it.] “Dear Mr. Adams: I am taking my wife back to bed. Kindly go away. Y’r ob’d’t, T. Jefferson.”
FRANKLIN: What, again?
JOHN: Incredible!125
MARTHA: I am not an idle flatterer, Dr. Franklin. My husband admires you both greatly.
FRANKLIN: Then we are doubly flattered, for we admire very much that which your husband admires. [A pause as they regard each other warmly. They have hit it off].
JOHN: Did you sleep well, Madame? [Franklin nudges him with his elbow.] I mean, did you lie comfortably? Oh, d____! Y’know what I mean!126
Notice also the exchanges concerning John Hancock and Stephen Hopkins (the Governor of Rhode Island and a devout Quaker):
HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Thomson. [He swats a fly.] Mr. McNair, the stores of rum and other drinking spirits are hereby closed to the colony of Rhode Island for a period of three days.
MCNAIR: Yes, sir.
HOPKINS: John, y’can’t do that!
HANCOCK: Sit down, Mr. Hopkins. You’ve abused the privilege.127
HOPKINS [joining Franklin and Hall, a mug of rum in his hand]: Ben, I want y’to see some cards I’ve gone ’n’ had printed up that ought t’save everybody here a whole lot of time ’n’ effort, considering the epidemic of bad disposition that’s been going around lately. [He reads:] “Dear sir: You are without any doubt a rogue, a rascal, a villain, a thief, a scoundrel, and a mean, dirty, stinking, sniveling, sneaking, pimping, pocket-picking, thrice double-d____, no good son-of-a-b____” – and y’sign y’r name. What do y’think? [words deleted]
FRANKLIN [delighted]: Stephen, I’ll take a dozen right now!128
Despite the author’s and publisher’s claim of an historical basis, there is absolutely no evidence to support any of these exchanges. In fact, concerning Stephen Hopkins’ alleged drunkenness and gross profanity, all historical evidence points to an exactly opposite conclusion. Notice:
He went to his grave honored as a skillful legislator, a righteous judge, and able representative, a dignified and upright Governor.129
An affectionate husband, and a tender parent, he was greatly attached to the regular habits of domestic life. Exemplary, quiet, and serene in his family, he governed his children and domestics in an easy and affectionate manner…. As in life he had despised the follies, so in death he rose superior to the fears of an ignorant and licentious world; and he expected with patience and met with pious and philosophic intrepidity the stroke of death.130
Through life he had been a constant attendant of the religious meetings of Friends, or Quakers, and was ever distinguished among men as a sincere Christian.131
Another example of faction is the previously mentioned novel, Sally Hemings, by Barbara Chase-Riboud, detailing the supposedly lurid relationship between Thomas Jefferson and the slave girl, Sally Hemings. Of that work, the publisher claims:
In this moving novel, which spans two continents, sixty years, and seven presidencies, Barbara Chase-Riboud re-creates a love story, based on the documents and evidence of the day.132
Notice some of the story line allegedly “based on the documents and evidence of the day”:
“My dear … you mustn’t worry if I seem … strange sometimes.” Thomas Jefferson’s voice had the familiar hesitancy of his public speaking. “This is so unexpected and for me, so unbidden. And you are … so young and yet so sure”…. Thomas Jefferson fondled the delicate skin at the back of his slave’s neck under the coiled hair…. The pallor, the soft eyes, the ribbon undone, the mouth softened by their kisses … He was smiling lazily at her. Even now after their moment of passion, there was a violence and a constraint about him that made her tremble.133
This is quite obviously a work of faction since there is absolutely no evidence to support any of these alleged exchanges (except the general charge made by the convicted libeler, James T. Callender). The lack of substance being no hindrance to the pursuit of scandal, the publisher nevertheless claims that this exchange was grounded in “the documents and evidence of the day.”
Mary Higgins Clark, in her work Aspire to the Heavens: A Portrait of George Washington, writes in a similarly reckless manner about George Washington and Sally Fairfax:
The telltale blush had made him reckless. “Do you really think it necessary to teach me how to love,” he demanded, “or don’t you think you’ve taught me too well? Sally, oh Sally …”134
Through the use of faction, revisionists go beyond the indirect method of impugning morality and instead directly portray immorality as indisputable fact. The intended result is for the public’s perception of its leaders’ integrity and morality to be altered, thus destroying their credibility.
7. The Use of “Psychohistory” and “Psychobabble”
“Psychohistory” results when a psychological analysis is applied to the actions of persons long dead in an attempt to establish their “true” motives; “psychobabble” is the result of such an analysis. An example of this is Richard Rollins’ psychoanalysis of why Noah Webster became a Christian in his book, The Long Journey of Noah Webster:
[H]is emotional conversion in the spring of that year [1808] was motivated by factors that were very much products of his own time. He had experienced intense anxiety over past and contemporary national events; the failure of Federalism as a viable means of controlling social trends and providing public leadership was quite evident. The negative view of human nature and need for strong authority he had affirmed since the 1790s had readied him for acceptance of evangelical Protestantism. A crisis in his personal relationships with his own family added to his preparation and brought home to him in personal terms the erosion of patriarchal influence throughout America. Altogether those factors provided an emotional matrix that made his conversion possible. The re
sult was a psychological and intellectual acceptance of and the submission to authority that stemmed from a deep need within him and led to profound alterations of his views on every subject.135
Rollins portrayed the conversion of Noah Webster as a political expedient; contrast that psychobabble with Noah Webster’s own simple explanation of the motives and circumstances surrounding his conversion:
Being educated in a religious family under pious parents, I had in early life some religious impressions, but being too young to understand fully the doctrines of the Christian religion, and falling into vicious company at college, I lost those impressions…. [I] fell into the common mistake of attending to the duties which man owes to man before I had learned the duties which we all owe to our Creator and Redeemer…. I sheltered myself as well as I could from the attacks of conscience for neglect of duty under a species of scepticism, and endeavored to satisfy my mind that a profession of religion is not absolutely necessary to salvation. In this state of mind I placed great reliance on good works or the performance of moral duties as the means of salvation…. About a year ago, an unusual revival of religion took place in New Haven…. and [I] was led by a spontaneous impulse to repentance, prayer, and entire submission and surrender of myself to my Maker and Redeemer…. I now began to understand and relish many parts of the Scriptures which before appeared mysterious and unintelligible, or repugnant to my natural pride…. In short, my view of the Scriptures, of religion, of the whole Christian scheme of salvation, and of God’s moral government are very much changed, and my heart yields with delight and confidence to whatever appears to be the Divine will…. In the month of April last I made a profession of faith.136
Not being a professional psychologist, Noah Webster evidently didn’t understand what had happened to him. Yet now, thanks to Richard Rollins, we “know” that Webster’s conversion was due to “a psychological and intellectual acceptance of and the submission to authority” related both to his “intense anxiety over past and contemporary national events” and “the failure of Federalism as a viable means of controlling social trends and providing public leadership.”
In Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History, Fawn Brodie’s psychobabble “proved” that Thomas Jefferson was enamored with Sally Hemings:
The first evidence that Sally Hemings had become for Jefferson a special preoccupation may be seen in one of the most subtly illuminating of all his writings, the daily journal he kept on a seven-week trip through eastern France, Germany, and Holland in March and April of 1788…. Anyone who reads with care these twenty-five pages must find it singular that in describing the countryside between these cities he used the word “mulatto” eight times.137
Since Sally Hemings was a mulatto, Brodie concludes that Jefferson’s use of that word proves that he had a relationship with her. Yet “mulatto” is used by Jefferson to describe the color of the soil. Notice:
“The road goes thro’ the plains of the Maine, which are mulatto and very fine…. ”; “It has a good Southern aspect, the soil a barren mulatto clay…. ”; “It is of South Western aspect, very poor, sometimes gray, sometimes mulatto…. ”; “These plains are sometimes black, sometimes mulatto, always rich…. ”; “ … the plains are generally mulatto…. ”; “ … the valley of the Rhine … varies in quality, sometimes a rich mulatto loam, sometimes a poor sand…. ”; “ … the hills are mulatto but also whitish…. ”; “Meagre mulatto clay mixt with small broken stones…. ”138
Through psychoanalysis, Brodie is able to project Jefferson’s farming observation of soil in Europe as “proof ” of an affair with Sally Hemings!
This same approach was used against John Witherspoon (a signer of the Declaration and a chief among the patriots) in Mark Noll’s, Nathan Hatch’s, and George Marsden’s In Search of Christian America. Despite the Rev. Dr. Witherspoon’s firmly established reputation as one of America’s leading evangelical Christian theologians, those authors concluded that Witherspoon lacked a Christian approach to public policy. They explained:
The most serious difficulty in Witherspoon’s political thought, however, was…. its frankly naturalistic basis. Witherspoon … was required to lecture on politics, and so we possess written statements of his thought. They present a disturbing picture inasmuch as they lack essential elements of a genuinely Christian approach to public life. That is, Witherspoon’s lectures on politics and his public statements at the Congress nowhere expressed the conviction that all humans, even those fighting against British tyranny, were crippled by sin and needed redemption.139
Very simply, since Witherspoon did not behave or preach in the political arena as the three authors would have had him do, he therefore lacked a “genuinely Christian approach to public life.” Certainly, a reading of Witherspoon’s extensive theological and political writings140 emphatically confirms his Christian approach to public life, even though the authors may not agree with every point of his Presbyterian theology.
“Psychohistory” and “psychobabble” are effective revisionist tools to create motives that cannot be proven on the basis of evidence. These tools enable an author not only to project but also to “prove” their personal opinions – regardless of what the facts or documents of the day might establish to the contrary.
8. A Failure to Account For Etymology
“Etymology” (the study of word derivations) deals with the manner in which the meanings of words change over the years. Even though word definitions and usage may change dramatically in only a few years, revisionists regularly ignore these changes, thus making completely inaccurate portrayals and assertions.
Noah Webster, a master of the meanings of words (having learned over twenty languages and having defined some 70,000 words in compiling America’s first dictionary) explained why etymology is important:
[I]n the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken place which, in particular passages, … obscure the sense of the original languages…. The effect of these changes is that some words are not understood … [and] being now used in a sense different from that which they had … present wrong signification or false ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced…. mistakes may be very injurious.141
Very simply, using today’s definitions to define yesterday’s words may lead to ridiculous historical conclusions.
For example, contemporary judicial leaders often rely on today’s definition of religion when seeking to interpret that word in the First Amendment. For example, current dictionaries offer this definition:
Religion: A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.142
Because this definition can allow almost any identifiable group to be considered religious, the Court, in U. S. v. Seeger,143 extended the First Amendment’s religious protection to virtually every group in America which has a “set of beliefs” on the “purpose of the universe.” Consequently, many nonreligious groups (e.g., atheists, secular humanists, ethical culturalists, and numerous others) now receive “religious” protection. Yet notice the definition of “religion” at the time of the Founders (given in Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary):
Religion: Includes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of His will to man, in man’s obligation to obey His commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man’s accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life, with the practice of all moral duties.144
At a minimum, their definition of religion included the belief in a Supreme Being – a vital component conspicuously absent from today’s definition (as previously demonstrated in Chapter 2). Consequently, because the Court failed to account for this etymology, today many nonreligious groups – groups which also existed at the time of the Founders – are accorded a protection under the religion clauses of the Constitution which the Founders did not intend.
Another case where a failure to account for etymology significantly alters a conclusion is illustrated i
n the claim by Charles and Mary Beard that:
Out of England Deism was borne to France by Voltaire, where…. the doctrine came into America, spreading widely among the intellectual leaders of the American Revolution…. It was not Cotton Mather’s [a Puritan clergyman’s] God to whom the authors of the Declaration of Independence appealed; it was to “Nature’s God.”145
Since the French usage of “Nature’s God” was deistic, then the Beards claim that the Founders’ use of that phrase was also deistic. Yet recall from Chapter 11 that the Founders were explicit that “Nature’s God” was the God of the Bible, therefore refuting any French deistic definition.
Just as the failure to account for the variable meaning of words has resulted in inaccurate conclusions, so, too, has the related failure to account for historical changes in organizations. For example, many of the social teachings of today’s Methodists, Quakers, Congregationalists, and others bear little resemblance to the teachings of those denominations two hundred years ago; is it thus to be assumed that the Founders who were then members of those denominations countenanced the social views which may be widespread in those denominations today?
For instance, John Adams, Daniel Webster, John Marshall, John Quincy Adams, Joseph Story, James Kent and others were associated with the Unitarians. Yet, because Unitarianism today is often non- and sometimes anti-Christian, and because it now embraces transcendentalist views and practices, are those Founders to be deprecated as cultists? Certainly not – that is, if one understands the doctrinal changes which have occurred in that group since its inception.
