Federalist No 02

To the People of the State of New York:

The Certainty of the Importance of Government, and the ceding of some of the natural rights of the people to government for necessary powers. It should be considered whether a national government or division of confederacies each with the powers that would otherwise be vested in one national government is in the interest of the people.

WHEN the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, will be evident.
Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would be more conducive to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government.

Until recently it was universally understood that prosperity depends on unity, and the intent, prayers, and efforts of our wisest citizens have held that aim. Dissenting politicians have appeared, for division, some who were against it before. Whatever their motivation it is not wise to adopt new tenets without full conviction of the truth and soundness of policy.

It has until lately been a received and uncontradicted opinion that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united, and the wishes, prayers, and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have been constantly directed to that object. But politicians now appear, who insist that this opinion is erroneous, and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties. However extraordinary this new doctrine may appear, it nevertheless has its advocates; and certain characters who were much opposed to it formerly, are at present of the number. Whatever may be the arguments or inducements which have wrought this change in the sentiments and declarations of these gentlemen, it certainly would not be wise in the people at large to adopt these new political tenets without being fully convinced that they are founded in truth and sound policy.

I love our united independent America. Providence has blessed the land with fertility and usefulness, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. Navigatible waterways bind it together by the borders and rivers are highways for communication, aid, transportation and trade.

It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, widespreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various commodities.

Providence provided Unity; in ancestry, language, religion, principles of govt., customs, and by fighting together as a united people, we establish liberty and independence. This country and people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a people united by the strongest ties, should never be split into jealous, and alien enemies.

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.

Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us. To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.

A strong sense of the value and blessings of union induced the people, at a very early period, to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it. They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence; nay, at a time when their habitations were in flames, when many of their citizens were bleeding, and when the progress of hostility and desolation left little room for those calm and mature inquiries and reflections which must ever precede the formation of a wise and wellbalanced government for a free people. It is not to be wondered at, that a government instituted in times so inauspicious, should on experiment be found greatly deficient and inadequate to the purpose it was intended to answer.

This intelligent people perceived and regretted these defects. Still continuing no less attached to union than enamored of liberty, they observed the danger which immediately threatened the former and more remotely the latter; and being pursuaded that ample security for both could only be found in a national government more wisely framed, they as with one voice, convened the late convention at Philadelphia, to take that important subject under consideration.

This convention composed of men who possessed the confidence of the people, and many of whom had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men, undertook the arduous task. In the mild season of peace, with minds unoccupied by other subjects, they passed many months in cool, uninterrupted, and daily consultation; and finally, without having been awed by power, or influenced by any passions except love for their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their joint and very unanimous councils.

Admit, for so is the fact, that this plan is only RECOMMENDED, not imposed, yet let it be remembered that it is neither recommended to BLIND approbation, nor to BLIND reprobation; but to that sedate and candid consideration which the magnitude and importance of the subject demand, and which it certainly ought to receive. But this (as was remarked in the foregoing number of this paper) is more to be wished than expected, that it may be so considered and examined. Experience on a former occasion teaches us not to be too sanguine in such hopes. It is not yet forgotten that well-grounded apprehensions of imminent danger induced the people of America to form the memorable Congress of 1774. That body recommended certain measures to their constituents, and the event proved their wisdom; yet it is fresh in our memories how soon the press began to teem with pamphlets and weekly papers against those very measures. Not only many of the officers of government, who obeyed the dictates of personal interest, but others, from a mistaken estimate of consequences, or the undue influence of former attachments, or whose ambition aimed at objects which did not correspond with the public good, were indefatigable in their efforts to pursuade the people to reject the advice of that patriotic Congress. Many, indeed, were deceived and deluded, but the great majority of the people reasoned and decided judiciously; and happy they are in reflecting that they did so.

They considered that the Congress was composed of many wise and experienced men. That, being convened from different parts of the country, they brought with them and communicated to each other a variety of useful information. That, in the course of the time they passed together in inquiring into and discussing the true interests of their country, they must have acquired very accurate knowledge on that head. That they were individually interested in the public liberty and prosperity, and therefore that it was not less their inclination than their duty to recommend only such measures as, after the most mature deliberation, they really thought prudent and advisable.

These and similar considerations then induced the people to rely greatly on the judgment and integrity of the Congress; and they took their advice, notwithstanding the various arts and endeavors used to deter them from it. But if the people at large had reason to confide in the men of that Congress, few of whom had been fully tried or generally known, still greater reason have they now to respect the judgment and advice of the convention, for it is well known that some of the most distinguished members of that Congress, who have been since tried and justly approved for patriotism and abilities, and who have grown old in acquiring political information, were also members of this convention, and carried into it their accumulated knowledge and experience.

It is worthy of remark that not only the first, but every succeeding Congress, as well as the late convention, have invariably joined with the people in thinking that the prosperity of America depended on its Union. To preserve and perpetuate it was the great object of the people in forming that convention, and it is also the great object of the plan which the convention has advised them to adopt. With what propriety, therefore, or for what good purposes, are attempts at this particular period made by some men to depreciate the importance of the Union? Or why is it suggested that three or four confederacies would be better than one? I am persuaded in my own mind that the people have always thought right on this subject, and that their universal and uniform attachment to the cause of the Union rests on great and weighty reasons, which I shall endeavor to develop and explain in some ensuing papers. They who promote the idea of substituting a number of distinct confederacies in the room of the plan of the convention, seem clearly to foresee that the rejection of it would put the continuance of the Union in the utmost jeopardy. That certainly would be the case, and I sincerely wish that it may be as clearly foreseen by every good citizen, that whenever the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet: "FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS."

PUBLIUS.

Federalist No 62

Black The Original Federalist
Violet A Word switched out for better understanding, typically a synonym used today.
Yellow My rewritten summary
Bold something I find significantly valuable
---
To the People of the State of New York:

HAVING examined the constitution of the House of Representatives, and answered such objections against it as seemed to merit notice, I enter next on the examination of the Senate.
The heads into which this member of the government may be considered are:

I. The qualification of senators;
II. The appointment of them by the State legislatures;
III. The equality of representation in the Senate;
IV. The number of senators, and the term for which they are to be elected;
V. The powers vested in the Senate.

Structure and Purpose of the Senate

Congressmen must be 25 years old and citizen for 7 years, Senators 30 years old and citizen for 9 years. Senators require more knowledge and need to be more reliable; these qualities are more likely a trait after a certain age. The 9 years of citizenry are required to wean from prepossessions and habits incidental to foreign birth and education. The number of 9 years was chosen so as to balance the inclusion of adopted citizens, with the danger of foreign influence.
I. The qualifications proposed for senators, as distinguished from those of representatives, consist in a more advanced age and a longer period of citizenship. A senator must be thirty years of age at least; as a representative must be twenty-five. And the former must have been a citizen nine years; as seven years are required for the latter. The propriety of these distinctions is explained by the nature of the senatorial trust, which, requiring greater extent of information and stability of character, requires at the same time that the senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages; and which, participating immediately in transactions with foreign nations, ought to be exercised by none who are not thoroughly weaned from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education. The term of nine years appears to be a prudent mediocrity between a total exclusion of adopted citizens, whose merits and talents may claim a share in the public confidence, and an indiscriminate and hasty admission of them, which might create a channel for foreign influence on the national councils.


Equal representation among the states in the senate and senatorial appointment by the state legislature, as selected by the convention, was the most popular method, which provides a link between the two, in securing the authority of the state.
II. It is equally unnecessary to expand on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

If a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation ought to have a proportional representation from among districts, and independent sovereign states bound together by a simple league, the same, it is still only reasonable that a 'compound republican' nation be founded on a mixture of National and Federalist principles by proportional and equal representation, in the house and the senate respectively.
III. The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a PROPORTIONAL share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an EQUAL share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation.

It is useless to attempt individual perfection from theory when the method requires by necessity agreement.  Any solution called upon besides this would be more objectionable to either party.

The lesser evil must be emraced, but it may qualify the sacrifice.
But it is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but "of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable." A common government, with powers equal to its objects, is called for by the voice, and still more loudly by the political situation, of America. A government founded on principles more consonant to the wishes of the larger States, is not likely to be obtained from the smaller States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between the proposed government and a government still more objectionable. Under this alternative, the advice of prudence must be to embrace the lesser evil; and, instead of indulging a fruitless anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue, to contemplate rather the advantageous consequences which may qualify the sacrifice

The equal vote for each state is a constitutional recognition of the sovereignty kept by individual states and an instrument for its retention. It should be no less acceptable to the large than to the small, as neither is more anxious than the other, to guard by any means, against an improper consolidation of the states into one simple republic.
In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.
 
Another advantage is the impediment to improper acts of legislation.
Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation.
No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.

The Purposes of a Senate, and why a Republic is in need of one.
IV. The number of senators, and the duration of their appointment, come next to be considered. In order to form an accurate judgment on both of these points, it will be proper to inquire into the purposes which are to be answered by a senate; and in order to ascertain these, it will be necessary to review the inconveniences which a republic must suffer from the want of such an institution.

It is incidental to government itself, if less so to the republican form,  that administers are prone to forget their obligation to their constituents.
First. It is a misfortune incidental to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust.


A division of the Legislative Branch is a check & double security to the people.
In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient. This is a precaution founded on such clear principles, and now so well understood in the United States, that it would be more than superfluous to enlarge on it. I will barely remark, that as the improbability of sinister combinations will be in proportion to the dissimilarity in the originality of the two bodies, it must be prudent to distinguish them from each other by every circumstance which will consist with a due harmony in all proper measures, and with the genuine principles of republican government.

A single congress has in innumerable examples yielded to passion and been seduced by factions and their leaders. The Senate, made separate to avoid this, [initially selected by state legislatures btw as part of that plan], as a second step in legislation, may be intrusted with greater tenure.
Secondly. The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from proceedings within the United States, as well as from the history of other nations. But a position that will not be contradicted, need not be proved. All that need be remarked is, that a body which is to correct this infirmity ought itself to be free from it, and consequently ought to be less numerous. It ought, moreover, to possess great firmness, and consequently ought to hold its authority by a tenure of considerable duration.

Temporary representatives of short tenure bare no impetus to strict diligence in the law nor bare the comprehensive interests of the country.
Thirdly. Another defect to be supplied by a senate lies in a want of due acquaintance with the objects and principles of legislation. It is not possible that an assembly of men called for the most part from pursuits of a private nature, continued in appointment for a short time, and led by no permanent motive to devote the intervals of public occupation to a study of the laws, the affairs, and the comprehensive interests of their country, should, if left wholly to themselves, escape a variety of important errors in the exercise of their legislative trust. It may be affirmed, on the best grounds, that no small share of the present embarrassments of America is to be charged on the blunders of our governments; and that these have proceeded from the heads rather than the hearts of most of the authors of them. What indeed are all the repealing, explaining, and amending laws, which fill and disgrace our voluminous codes, but so many monuments of deficient wisdom; so many impeachments exhibited by each succeeding against each preceding session; so many admonitions to the people, of the value of those aids which may be expected from a well-constituted senate?

Govt. for the people, by knowledge of means.
A good government implies two things: first, fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained. Some governments are deficient in both these qualities; most governments are deficient in the first. I scruple not to assert, that in American governments too little attention has been paid to the last. The federal Constitution avoids this error; and what merits particular notice, it provides for the last in a mode which increases the security for the first.

The changing nature of a short tenured congress, points out the necessity of stability and prudence in govt.
Fourthly. The mutability in the public councils arising from a rapid succession of new members, however qualified they may be, points out, in the strongest manner, the necessity of some stable institution in the government. Every new election in the States is found to change one half of the representatives. From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures. But a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect of success. The remark is verified in private life, and becomes more just, as well as more important, in national transactions.
To trace the mischievous effects of a mutable government would fill a volume. I will hint a few only, each of which will be perceived to be a source of innumerable others.

Govt. like an individual, if to inconsistent, must fail in its endeavors.
In the first place, it forfeits the respect and confidence of other nations, and all the advantages connected with national character. An individual who is observed to be inconstant to his plans, or perhaps to carry on his affairs without any plan at all, is marked at once, by all prudent people, as a speedy victim to his own unsteadiness and folly. His more friendly neighbors may pity him, but all will decline to connect their fortunes with his; and not a few will seize the opportunity of making their fortunes out of his. One nation is to another what one individual is to another; with this melancholy distinction perhaps, that the former, with fewer of the benevolent emotions than the latter, are under fewer restraints also from taking undue advantage from the indiscretions of each other. Every nation, consequently, whose affairs betray a want of wisdom and stability, may calculate on every loss which can be sustained from the more systematic policy of their wiser neighbors. But the best instruction on this subject is unhappily conveyed to America by the example of her own situation. She finds that she is held in no respect by her friends; that she is the derision of her enemies; and that she is a prey to every nation which has an interest in speculating on her fluctuating councils and embarrassed affairs.

Ahem, Cass Sunstein, Ahem, Charlie Rangel, READ THE BILL?  
A law Incomprehensible to the common man, is an unjust law.
The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

Govt. Instability Favors The Enterprising And Moneyed Few!
Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the FEW, not for the MANY.

Stable Government an Economic Necessity 
In another point of view, great injury results from an unstable government. The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government? In a word, no great improvement or laudable enterprise can go forward which requires the auspices of a steady system of national policy.

An Unstable System Retains No Loyalty
But the most deplorable effect of all is that diminution of attachment and reverence which steals into the hearts of the people, towards a political system which betrays so many marks of infirmity, and disappoints so many of their flattering hopes. No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability.

PUBLIUS.

Adams' Letter to Jefferson 6-28-1813 General Principles of Christianity

Without wishing to damp the Ardor of curiosity, or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will hazard a prediction, that after the most industrious and impartial Researches, the longest liver of you all, will find no Principles, Institutions, or Systems of Education, more fit, IN GENERAL to be transmitted to your Posterity, than those you have received from you[r] Ancestors.

Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and "Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who believe nothing"]." Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.

Could my Answer be understood, by any candid Reader or Hearer, to recommend, to all the others, the general Principles, Institutions or Systems of Education of the Roman Catholicks? Or those of the Quakers? Or those of the Presbyterians? Or those of the Menonists? Or those of the Methodists? or those of the Moravians? Or those of the Universalists? or those of the Philosophers? No.

The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were united: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.

Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame.

Source: John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28th, 1813, from Quincy. The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The
Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams, edited by Lester J. Cappon,
1988, the University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, pp. 338-340.



http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/adamsprinciples.html 

More On John Adams [InBlog]

Glenn Beck Interviews David Barton on Founders' Faith 4-9-10

 Friday, April 09, 2010

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,590642,00.html


This is a rush transcript from "Glenn Beck," April 8, 2010.
 __________________________________________________________________________________

GLENN BECK, HOST: Tonight, we're going to spend an hour talking about faith, because this has been so grossly distorted by progressives. Most people will tell you now: Oh, we're not a Christian nation. We're a Judeo-Christian. What? These people were deists, they were atheists.
Really?
America, if you want to restore our country, we have to look at the foundations, find out how we were built, and repeat the process. We also need to find the things that unite us. I don't care if you're a Republican, Democrat or independent: Faith, hope and charity — we can unite on. Politics will divide us. And I think it was Abraham Lincoln that said, "United we stand, divided we fall."

We are on the verge of collapse. Let's rebuild it.
David Barton, founder and president of WallBuilders, author of "Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution and Religion."
David, man, I have to tell you, I read this, how many years ago did the "Original Intent" come out?

DAVID BARTON, PRESIDENT, WALLBUILDERS: Oh, gracious. It's been a few years.

BECK: Yes, it's been 10 at least.

BARTON: Probably. Probably.

BECK: I read that years ago and it is an honor to know you. It is.

BARTON: Thanks, brother.

BECK: And you are part of our "American Revival," which we're going to be out in Phoenix this weekend doing. You do the first part on faith. And we were out last week in Orlando. And I said to you, we have got to do this on television.

BARTON: Yes.

BECK: Because most people — we had 8,000 people in the venue last or two weeks ago in Orlando.

BARTON: Packed house.

BECK: Packed house. And you could hear people going: Oh, my gosh, I didn't know that.

BARTON: Yes.

BECK: So, why don't you take me through these two paintings?

BARTON: OK.

BECK: This is American history. Here you go, gang. This is the stuff you're never ever going to be taught in school.
This is the Constitution. This is the Declaration of Independence. Which do you want to start with?

BARTON: Let's start with the signers of the "dec." That is a fun one.

BECK: OK. So, this — the premise here is — remember, America, no, there is, nobody, they're not God-fearing people. We're not a country based in God or faith. No, no, no. No.
Where do we start here?

BARTON: Let's start with the overall group. Let's just — let me start with this book right here. This came out of Continental Congress. This is the rarest, one of the rarest books in America. That little jewel right there is the first Bible printed in English in America.

BECK: Up here, one of the first Bibles printed in English.

BARTON: English in America. And it was printed by those guys there. The Congress printed that Bible. And the original congressional documents say that the Bible is, quote, "a neat addition of the Holy Scripture for use of our schools," end quote.

BECK: I'm sorry. What?

BARTON: "A neat addition of the Holy Scripture for use of our schools," end quote. And in the front of that Bible has a congressional endorsement.

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: But everyone will tell you separation of church and state.

BARTON: And that's what they wanted. They're the guys who came up with that. So, I think they know what the definition is.

BECK: OK. How many of these are left?

BARTON: There's 22 left in private hands. They printed 10,000 in Congress. And there's 22 left. And that's one of the 22 right there.

BECK: OK. So, let me start now. There's Congress. Let me just get a big red marker here so people can see it. Here is the — here is the Continental Congress and they are getting ready to sign the Declaration of Independence.

BARTON: That's Richard Henry Lee. He's the guy who made the recommendation we separate from Congress. It was really cool. When he died and his papers were passed on to his grandson, his grandson printed the papers in two volumes and they looked at the papers and said, isn't it cool that we had so many Christians together. And so, he's looking at the Founders' writings and that was the epitome of what Christian patriot looked like, Richard Henry Lee.

BECK: Let me — let me ask you this, because when the left always paints Christians as hate-mongers.

BARTON: Yes.

BECK: These guys, George Washington — George Washington, I mean, he went, they were vigorous defenders of other faith —

BARTON: Yes, you bet.

BECK: — of Jewish religion of any other religion, right?

BARTON: They were. One of the things you find is that that was a trait that they taught of Christianity. Christianity is not coercive. They said don't compare us to European Christianity. That was coercive. We're not. We believe that truth wins, you present the truth. That's fine.
And so, you'll find that in the American Revolution, we had Jewish patriots, we had Christian patriots. We had Muslims here in 1619. We had the first Jewish synagogues 1654. These guys had no trouble with other religions but they didn't deny their own.

BECK: Ben Franklin, he was asked — I think it was by Yale, you know this better than me.

BARTON: Yes.

BECK: Asked by Yale, what is the definition of American — the American religion? And he said, there is a God.

BARTON: That's right.

BECK: There is an afterlife. We'll have to answer for our sins in the afterlife.

BARTON: That's right.

BECK: And the best way to serve God is serve other people.

BARTON: That's right.

BECK: That doesn't sound like — I mean, that's not hate-mongers.

BARTON: Not radical stuff at all. And that's why they were so good. They set forth a model of real cooperation. And they're really good on that.

BECK: You know, let's go to number two here. Who's this?

BARTON: That's Sam Adams. Sam Adams, the father of the American Revolution. He was really known as an outspoken Christian guy. This is one of his proclamations. As the governor of Massachusetts, he did seven of these. Seven times he called the state to prayer and it is not the squishy language that he used in that.

BECK: This is — oh, he was amazing.

BARTON: He was outspoken.

BECK: If you see here of the faith, hope charity posters that we have made — can you get a shot of that?
Faith and hope and charity, that is Samuel Adams, the first face is Samuel Adams. Because you read him —

BARTON: Oh, yes.

BECK: Oh, my gosh.

BARTON: Oh, yes.

BECK: And when you're talking about separation of church and state, after the signing of the Declaration of the Independence and the Constitution, did not Massachusetts have a state religion?

BARTON: Oh, nine of 13 had state religions. It was the federal government who wasn't allowed to make a national religion for all denominations like they had in England.

BECK: So, this is kind of the thing — and the reason I bring this up is because this is like — we were talking on the radio today about health care. I don't have a problem with Massachusetts wanting to do health care. You can bankrupt your state all you want, but don't force it on me.

BARTON: That's right. That's right.

BECK: And that was the idea.

BARTON: That was in religion. That's why the First Amendment limited only the federal government. It didn't limit the states at all.

BECK: Right. You could do whatever you want.

BARTON: It's up to the people. Let people make choices.

BECK: OK.

BARTON: Real simple.

BECK: OK.

BARTON: Sam Adams.

BECK: So, there's proclamation of day of prayer.

BARTON: Yes. Day of — and by the way, he would often call the state to day of fasting, humiliation and prayer. So, he was serious about praying.

BECK: Don't ever ask to be humbled or humiliation from God because he'll give that to you.

BARTON: He'll give it to you.

BECK: Yes.

BARTON: Charles Carroll right there. Let me pull a letter from Charles. I've got Charles right here. This is a letter from Charles Carroll, he is the final surviving signer of the Declaration. Out of the 56, he's the last one to die. He died at the age of 95.
And this is a letter that he wrote at 89, a declaration of his faith in God, very outspoken. This guy actually took and endowed, he's the wealthiest man in America. He took his money and he endowed permanently a chapel and a preacher because he said in rural part of Maryland, we don't have churches and there's not enough people to pay for one. So, he took his wealth to endow chapel and a preacher permanently.

BECK: The reason why we're bringing this up, America, is because you have to know — you have to have the correct history here. The idea that these people were not men of faith is absolutely abhorrent. It is such a distortion of history.
Do you have the book, the book where, the modern day book of —

BARTON: Yes.

BECK: — oh, they were all godless heathens.

BARTON: Yes, this one right here.

BECK: Yes. This is it.

BARTON: A couple of Cornell professors.

BECK: Yes. Tell us what's in this book.

BARTON: What's in that book is called "The Godless Constitution" that's used in universities across the nation, in schools everywhere. And this is a textbook and it goes and says, hey, we're a secular nation. That's what made us great for 200 years, et cetera.

BECK: Now, this is scholarly book? Wait. Wait.

BARTON: Well, allegedly.

(CROSSTALK)

BARTON: It's academics, it's Ph.D.s who did it. It's a university textbook.

BECK: Right. Now, if you'll notice, if you've ever read anything scholarly — can we pick it up on three on Oscar's camera?
OK. If you've ever read anything scholarly, like read "Progressivism, the History of Modern Liberalism," it's a nightmare and it's full of footnotes. There are no footnotes.

BARTON: They say at the end, their quote is, we have dispensed what the usual scholarly apparatus of footnotes. Trust us, we're Ph.D.s, we know what we're talking about. None of the guys believed in God.

BECK: You have the largest collection in private hands of American papers and documents —

BARTON: Right.

BECK: — prior to 1800?

BARTON: Prior to 1812.

BECK: Prior to 1812. OK.
Let's continue to go here to number four.

BARTON: Benjamin Rush — he's considered one of the three most significant Founders. John Adams said when he died that you had George Washington, Ben Franklin and Benjamin Rush. We never heard of the guy today.
Benjamin Rush — let me pull his stuff right here. Benjamin Rush is the man who founded the first Bible society in America. He did the first mass-produced Bible in America. He founded the Sunday School Movement in America.
(VIDEO GAP)

BARTON: — John Adams.

BECK: When did this go awry?

BARTON: It went awry right after World War II. Right after World War II, we stopped teaching this in our textbooks. And today, we've been taught this knot-head stuff from these professors and this is what we think truth is. But here's truth.

BECK: Number five —

BARTON: Stephen Hopkins. You can tell by the hat the guy is religious. He is a Quaker. He's a devout orthodox Quaker.
He's a really cool guy, outspoken of his faith. He wrote several religious treaties back in 1765 to show why we were about to separate from Great Britain using scriptures to make his point.

BECK: Number six. This guy.

BARTON: Right there, he's a — he's a fun guy. That's Robert Treat Paine. He's attorney general of Massachusetts but he is a military chaplain. He's an ordained minister. He had churches and taught in churches and the way he served in the military was, he was a chaplain for the troops.

BECK: How did we get to this point? I mean, look at this section. Just look at this section. Look at this section. Look how many are deeply, deeply religious.

BARTON: Yes.

BECK: How did we get to the point where, I don't know, these are —

BARTON: Well, what happens today is we know Jefferson and Franklin, and nobody else on that. We've been taught to recognize the least religious and we've been taught, oh, all —

BECK: And they weren't the least religious.
BARTON: And they weren't. You know, if you take even Jefferson and Franklin, there's no question that those guys are a whole lot more religious in their public expressions.

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: They didn't — correct me if I'm wrong — they didn't necessarily believe in the organized religion that was jammed down your throat —

BARTON: That's right.

BECK: — where it was I got to baptize you in the name of Jesus and there's no other truths.

BARTON: That's right.

BECK: That's what they didn't believe.

BARTON: But they were not secular. They were not anti-God. They were not even anti-Christian. As a matter of fact, the way they do it, Jefferson has 19,000 written letters. There are six letters in which he raises some questions about orthodox Christian teachings. Everybody focuses on the six, they don't touch the 19,000. So, that's the way they make these guys look bad.

BECK: All right. So, now, we go to — I think, this guy. Who's this?

BARTON: That is James Wilson. James Wilson signed both the Declaration and the Constitution. He's one of the six guys that signed both.

BECK: This is a younger version of him.

BARTON: That's right. And you can spot him both times because he's the only one that wore glasses in the founding pictures. So, he's got glasses. He is an original Supreme Court justice.
This — he started the first law school in America. This is the first law book that was ever used in law schools and he did this.

BECK: Any relationship to Woodrow Wilson?

BARTON: No, not at all.
But this guy, he tells students and it's in that book, that you cannot have good civil law that excludes divine law. If you cut the scriptures out of civil law, you'll not have good civil law. And that's what he's teaching in the court.

BECK: Isn't it — isn't it Deuteronomy that is the most quoted —

BARTON: Yes.

BECK: — out of any of our founding documents, right?

BARTON: Yes.

BECK: It's not Locke. It's nothing. It's Deuteronomy.

BARTON: That's right. Deuteronomy.

The political science professors found that when they looked at all the writings the founders used and relied and quoted, and there were — there were 15,000 writings they used. They found 3,154 quotes, the most quoted source was the Bible — 34 percent of their quotes came out of the Bible. Most quoted book in the Bible is the Book of Deuteronomy.

BECK: Which is basically the Mosaic Law.

BARTON: That's right. That's right. Exactly right.

BECK: So, when we say we're Judeo-Christian, it doesn't mean you have to go to this church or anything else.

BARTON: That's right. These principles.

BECK: This is the law.

BARTON: That's right.

BECK: This is the — you know, and this is the thing that we bring up in the — you know, on the "American Revival" that we're doing when we're talking about the faith is the 10 Commandments.

BARTON: Yes.

BECK: America, who disagrees with the 10 Commandments? Thou shall not kill?
Now, here's one Jim Wallis: Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

BARTON: Yes.

BECK: I mean, don't covet, don't have false idols. The problem with America is we have false idols. We worship the almighty dollar or our house or our car or whatever the neighbor has. I mean, that's the problem.

BARTON: What's interesting is it's easier up until the last 20 years when the court got involved in this, it was easier to find the 10 Commandments in government building than the church building. And that's because we use the 10 Commandments as basis of civil law and the Western world, has been for 2,000 years. These guys definitely did it.

BECK: OK. This guy.

BARTON: That guy right there is Francis Hopkinson. And he's the guy who designed the American flag. He's one of our very first federal judges.
I got a really cool book of his right here. He did this book in 1767. It's America's first purely American hymn book. He took the entire book of Psalms and set the book to music. So, this is America's first hymn book done by a signer of the Declaration. The entire of Book of Psalms set to music.
And if you know the Bible, you know, Psalms 1:19 is really long. It is 62 pages long in this hymn book. One hymn, 62 pages.

BECK: This guy — these guys — just looking at this now, these guys would be deemed un-American.

BARTON: Oh, yes. They're part of the radical religious extreme right, whatever the stuff is out there they call them. Yes, absolutely.

BECK: All right. Now, this is John Adams here, isn't it?

BARTON: John Adams is a lot of fun. You know, HBO did a —

BECK: Oh he looks like it.

BARTON: Yes, right. HBO did a special on him and managed to leave out his faith. I've got a really cool letter from John —

BECK: Relationship to Sam?

BARTON: A cousin — distant cousin.

BECK: OK.

BARTON: A distant cousin. This is the letter from John Adams. This is the letter he wrote to Benjamin Rush, who was a good friend. And this stuff right here —

BECK: Wait, wait, wait. You have to tell this story from the beginning.

BARTON: Yes.

BECK: I know we're rushing through stuff, but you have to tell this story from the beginning. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson —

BARTON: Benjamin Rush.

BECK: Right. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, they're friends at first.

BARTON: They were great friends.

BECK: Great friends. And then they have so many disagreements that they start — they have a falling out. They can't even speak to each other. He only becomes president because he says, this guy is destroying, correct?

BARTON: Yes. Exactly.

BECK: OK. So, there's a falling out. Wait until you hear the rest of the story and then what's in that letter. We'll do that — next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: America, you are never going to get — thank God, fall to your knees, I mean this and thank God every day for the people at Fox because they allow stuff like this on the air. And believe me, they will have heat for it.
It's an hour of faith and our founders. If you want to rebuild or restore America, you got to know the truth of America. What are our building blocks? Faith is the first one. Faith, hope and charity.
I want to show you what you're not learning in school. Call and a friend and tell them. I don't know if this show will ever be repeated.
We were talking about Thomas Jefferson and John Adams — we're with David Barton, by the way — and Benjamin Rush who is right here.
I told you before we went into break, [Jefferson] and [Adams], good friends. [Adams] becomes president. [Jefferson] doesn't want to be president, but [Jefferson] says [Adams] is destroying the republic. And so, [Jefferson] has to become the third president. And they have a big falling out.
Benjamin Rush, then, in the middle of the night has a dream, right?

BARTON: Right.

BECK: And he has a dream that he reads a book, he sees somebody carrying a book of letters between these two going back and forth. And it's history. And he says he writes to John and says, these letters haven't been written yet.

BARTON: Yes.

BECK: You guys are supposed to get back together.

BARTON: Yes.

BECK: Now we know that because that document has been out — that letter has been out for a long time.

BARTON: That's right.

BECK: But was — what wasn't part of history was a letter that you found.

BARTON: Right here.

BECK: This is the response from — he says, I had a dream. You two are supposed to get back together. You're going to write letters. And they will — and I have the collection.

BARTON: And, you know, what's cool is, he also said, by the way, in the history book, I saw that you both died on the same day, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of the Independence, which they did, 17 years before this happened in the dream. That's when he saw and was written in the history book.

BECK: Unbelievable.
So, he says this, what history didn't know was what did he do about it, or what did he say. You have the letter sitting in front of you.

BARTON: Right there.

BECK: This is from John Adams to Benjamin Rush.

BARTON: And Benjamin Rush has told John, I had this dream, it's really strange. I think God gave me this dream, and I think you need to know about it. So, in the letter, John Adams goes through and he says, well, I'm willing, he says, but there's no conversation between me and Jefferson right now. But I'm willing.
 And then this thing was the dream from God. This is John Adams' quote right here. He's talking to Benjamin and says, "But my friend, Benjamin, there's something very serious in this business." He said, "The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system and his troop. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost." And he goes through this theological thing that I think God gave you the dream" I'm willing to do this. Let's get back together. That is the letter. They got these two guys reconciled. They did end up writing volumes of letters back and forth to each other from which we benefit today.

BECK: David, let me ask you this. In all the stuff that you've seen, because I think America is — I know, you know, I'm accused of a lot of things. I'm accused of just enriching myself. I'm accused — there's a lot of things.
You've known me for what, a month?

BARTON: Yes.

BECK: And you experienced some things with me. There's a lot I don't want to do and I don't want to say. Out of these guys, most of them were doing stuff they didn't want to do.

BARTON: Exactly right.

BECK: Right?

BARTON: Exactly right.

BECK: And they were prompted by God.

BARTON: That's right.

BECK: So, these are people who were — I mean, when we say we pledge our fortunes, our lives — our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor —

BARTON: That's right.

BECK: — with firm reliance on Divine Providence —

BARTON: Right.

BECK: — that's what they were doing.

BARTON: Seven of those guys never lived to see what they signed on the document. Seventeen of them lost everything they owned. Their fortunes, their states, everything — the British destroyed them. Four of them lost their wives. Four of them lost their kids. Five were prisoners of war.
You go through the list of what those guys went through — just to tell these stories of what they endured, it will make you cry. Because you just — you don't see patriotism like that.

BECK: And we don't tell these stories.

BARTON: We don't tell — we used to. Every school kid used to know this stuff.

BECK: I want to show America these things. Tell me what this book is first.

BARTON: That is called "Lives of the Signers of the Declaration" by historian Benson Lossing. That is a textbook for generations.

BECK: OK. This is a textbook and in the textbook, we needed to learn who all of these — I can't — I can't get my fingers around it. I don't want to be — I want to be very careful. This is very old. I don't want to open it up. But basically —

BARTON: It has that picture.

BECK: Right. Right on the front. In school, you had to learn all of the story.

BARTON: Every one of the 56.

BECK: OK. And in this book here, David, is what?

BARTON: It's called the "Wives of the Signers."

BECK: And this book was also a textbook?

BARTON: It was a textbook and it told you about what happened to the wives of these guys, because they made huge sacrifices. And their patriotism was huge.

BECK: So, it was the male and female version, OK?

BARTON: That's right.

BECK: And that's every school had that. You had to know those.

BARTON: Typical textbook, common textbook.

BECK: These are the reprints of this book. These are the exact reprints of the book. Anything changed in this?

BARTON: No. We just did exact reprints of what's there.

BECK: And available where?

BARTON: WallBuilders.com or Amazon or any other place.

BECK: If you want to know what our kids used to be learning, it's this.
More with David Barton on faith and the history of our country and God — next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Hello, America.
You know, my show is kind of focusing on faith, hope and charity. Those are the things that will unite us. Those are the things we can all come together. I don't care if you are Republican, Democrat or independent.
If you want to restore the country — because look, under George Bush, I was saying the same stuff, man. We're in trouble. If you want to restore the country, you have to know what it was, where we came from. How they put it together.
Tonight, an hour of faith.
David Barton is here. And David, you were actually on the Texas school book board. And thank you for all of your hard work because it's amazing. You know, you can hear these scholars, but you don't need to hear the scholars. You have the books.

BARTON: Yes.

BECK: You have the original writings. You have the largest collection of American documents and writings from 1812 and backwards.

BARTON: And backwards.

BECK: And backwards. We were I want to spend some time here, because where everybody takes this apart and they say, "Oh, they're deists." There's three of them: There's George Washington, there is Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

BARTON: Right.

BECK: OK. So help me out on this because these are the most — this is what everybody is saying: They're not religious at all.

BARTON: Yes. Let's start with Washington. Washington is a really simple one to start with. When he died, the chaplain of Congress did the first ever biography of him and had the first collection of Washington's writings.
So what he did is he wrote to Washington's family, particularly Nelly Custis, who lived with George for 20 years before she got married, the stepdaughter he adopted. And said, "You know, we just want to make sure. Was Washington really a Christian?"
And she went through this long letter describing what he did, his prayer habits, his scripture habits, how many churches he helped to start, what he did in churches. And she came up and she said, you know, you might as well question his patriotism as to question his Christianity. And that was her conclusion.
What happens in 1926, a guy named W. Wood, part of the progressives, wrote a new book on Washington that said, "Well, we don't think he had that much faith. He was really a deist."
And since then, everybody quotes that 1926 book —

BECK: All right. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Slow down a bit, because the progressive puts a book out that says here is new evidence, but —

BARTON: No, he didn't —

BECK: He didn't say new evidence. He just —

BARTON: It was this book right here. He had not a — he didn't have a single footnote in the book.

BECK: Right.

BARTON: He said, oh, no, Washington really wasn't religious. And he made all these claims.

BECK: Right. OK. So he says that, but then that book is discredited.

BARTON: That book is discredited the next year in 1927 with a scholarly book that came out and footnoted saying, hey, what you said last year, here is the exact opposite proof of what you said.
But nobody quoted the scholarly book. They kept quoting the progressive revisionist book, and that's where we are today. People think Washington was not religious.

BECK: And here is the thing — America, the progressives knew when they were with Woodrow Wilson — all of these guys, it was just a nasty mess. And they were trying to undo what those guys did. They were trying to undo the Constitution, to make progress past that.
I'm not saying that they were evil or anything else. That's what they wanted to do. But America wouldn't let them do it. Why? Because we used to talk about what these people did and we knew who they were.
And so the idea was we have to change history books. We have to discredit the Founders. This is, if I'm not mistaken, progressive period. That's when they were old, white, rich —

BARTON: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: That's all they did.

BARTON: That's right. Right.

BECK: And they were all — they were all not Christian. They weren't good or anything else.

BARTON: That's right.

BECK: OK. So there, you have Washington. How about Jefferson?

BARTON: Jefferson is a lot of fun. Jefferson right here — this is one of his presidential documents. And in the document, he didn't like — well, I can't say he didn't like. He just went further than what the other Founders did.
The other Founders signed the presidential documents the way the Constitution closes in Article Seven, "in the year of our Lord" and they signed it. Jefferson signed his documents —

BECK: Here — hang on. You've got to bring this — got to bring this in. Oscar, I don't know if you can get this. This is absolutely fantastic. It's right here. Can you bring it in any farther than that? What does it say?

BARTON: "In the year of our Lord Christ." That's the way Jefferson signed his documents. Now, the other fun thing about Jefferson was when his presidency of the United States just started in December of 1800, he started church services in the U.S. Capitol.
The church he started in the Capitol became the largest church in America. Over 2,000 people a week went to church inside the Capitol. I have the sermons that were preached back then in the Capitol.
Jefferson thought he could help the worship service in the Capitol. So he had the Marine Corps band come play worship services in the Capitol. It was a cool place. The first woman ever to preach in the Capitol, 1806, Dorothy Ripley. The first black ever to preach, Henry Highland Garnet. Huge black history stuff that we don't even talk about anymore with these guys.
There is so much cool stuff in the church that Jefferson started at the Capitol. And he went over and started a church in the War Department and a church in the Treasury Department and a church at the Navy Yard.

BECK: Where everybody gets — and this is where they are going to attack this show — Where everybody gets screwed up is they're going to say, Oh, there they go on the religious zealotry.

BARTON: Yes.

BECK: No. Jefferson didn't care what church you attended.

BARTON: That's it.

BECK: Right? That was America and that needs to be America: Go to church; worship God; follow the 10 Commandments. That's it.

BARTON: And what was so cool about the church of the Capitol was the chaplains ran it but you had preachers from all denominations coming in to preach. And that's what made Jefferson unusual as he was not denominational guy. He was a trans-denominational guy.

BECK: OK. One last guy and then we have to take a break. Help me out with Benjamin Franklin, because he is here and he is also here — Benjamin Franklin.

BARTON: Well, Ben Franklin is the guy who called for prayer at the Constitutional Convention, one of greatest calls, Thursday, June 28, 1787. He went through a number of scriptures to say, guys, we've had five weeks of fighting. We need to do some praying.
So he gave this passionate call for prayer. Washington said they recessed for three days and went to church at the Rev. William Rogers Church. It's in his diary.
And they had a time of prayer — actually, I have the original prayer that they prayed over at the convention there at the church. So Franklin does that. After that, he became — actually, he was the governor of Pennsylvania before.
And get this. Franklin, as the governor of Pennsylvania, came up with a plan to raise church attendance in state of Pennsylvania. When was the last time a governor did something like that? That's Franklin.

BECK: They say he is not religious because at the end of his life — if I'm not mistaken. You know better than I.

BARTON: Yes.

BECK: But he is painted here sitting in a chair, and that's because he had kidney stones, gallstones?

BARTON: Yes. He had all sorts — he had a whole plethora of —

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: He was actually carried —

BARTON: He was carried in.

BECK: In that chair, because he couldn't stand the pain of walking on cobblestones.

BARTON: Walking — that's right.

BECK: And so they carried him in. He was on opium —

BARTON: That's right.

BECK: And hated it —

BARTON: Yes.

BECK: And tried to get off it as much as he could because it clouded his mind. It was at this point that people began to question him because he was fiercely anti-slavery.

BARTON: Absolutely.

BECK: And they also started questioning his Christianity and his sanity because he was fiercely anti-slavery.

BARTON: Well, he had written one letter early in life where he called himself a deist. Now, the difference is a deist in that dictionary definition does not match up with what we call a deist.
A deist back then was someone who believed in God, believed in revelation, just wasn't sure about the divinity of Jesus. That's all a deist meant.

BECK: OK.

BARTON: So we turned the deist today into an agnostic, atheist and it's not the same thing.

BECK: OK.

BARTON: So he made one letter, but that was not the rest of his life. If you look at 60 years, he was a supporter of this church. He had a pew in his church, Christchurch. And then he is very active religiously. He is not what we might call orthodox. He's another trans-denominational guy, quite frankly.

BECK: He flew a kite in a storm and almost electrocuted himself —

BARTON: Exactly. Exactly.

BECK: Not orthodox. I think we got that.
Back in just a second.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Welcome back. I'm with David Barton from WallBuilders and we're talking about faith, how — the truth about the founding of our nation and the Founders.
This is — I mean, when they reprinted this — I don't know, maybe 10 years ago, I got a copy of it. I never heard of it. And I'm a big fan of Jefferson. And I am — and this is so cool. This is the morals of Jesus.

BARTON: "The Life and Morals of Jesus —"

BECK: Life and Morals —

BARTON: "Of Nazareth."

BECK: What Jefferson did — what he did is he took four different languages, the scriptures in four — the Gospel in four different languages and he put them side-by-side and kept them up. And you just called it a red letter.

BARTON: Yes. What he did was took all the words of Jesus and pasted them end to end non-stop so he can read the words of Jesus in four languages.

BECK: OK. Now, here is what is very interesting. This is — this one was printed in 1904. "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" by Thomas Jefferson and it was printed Washington, Government Printing Office, 1904. And I see here it's from the House of Representatives.

BARTON: Yes.

BECK: What is this?

BARTON: That is what was given to every freshman member of Congress every election. Congress gave that to freshmen members because they needed — they felt that this was an important thing for you to know. This is what Jefferson thought was important and was just passing it to members of Congress.

BECK: When did we stop printing this?

 BARTON: We probably stopped that about the progressive time, in the 1920s. We moved away from that.

BECK: Unbelievable. David, we are — we are going to Phoenix this weekend. Judge is going to be with us. He is doing something on charity, which is basically the Constitution. We have David Buckner on hope, which is truth. And you are doing faith.
Our country is facing a time that I haven't seen in my lifetime because we have all of this debt and everything else. And we have a storm coming our way.
Am I missing any of the fundamental building blocks of our country: faith, hope, charity? Faith, truth — charity comes from the individual. Live by the law and be good to each other. Am I missing anything?

BARTON: The one word that I would use that they used repeatedly is the word "duty." You mentioned these guys didn't want to do this. They wanted to be home.
Patrick Henry tried not to be governor four times and he said, I've got 19 kids. I've got 81 grandkids. I want to be home with the kids. And they kept electing him. He said, I've got a duty to serve.

BECK: That's amazing. [Washington], when they knocked on his door to come here to this convention said, "Please, find someone else." I know — I think his words were, "Have I not served my country enough?"

BARTON: That's right.

BECK: OK. So he didn't want to do it and he certainly didn't want to be president.

BARTON: That's right.

BECK: [Jefferson] guy didn't even put "president" on his tombstone.

BARTON: That's right.

BECK: Wouldn't you like to find one of those guys to run for office or force them in somehow or another?
Be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: We're with David Barton from WallBuilders and I want him to take you to the 20th Century now and different ways that the government has — it would never, never be involved.
Let's start with this: Forest and Flames in the Bible. The back, here is Smokey the Bear, "And please make people careful, Amen." I mean, Smokey the Bear is praying and this is all Bible scripture.

BARTON: All by the Department of Agriculture in the '60s, just showing what the Bible says about forests in flames. And let's preserve the forest and Smokey Bear praying.

BECK: OK. This is from World War II. Again, this is a government-issued poster. This is World War II. "This is the enemy." The book —

BARTON: The Bible.

BECK: What is the thinking behind this?

BARTON: The Nazi forces and the Axis powers were coming after our faith, our belief, our culture which is built on faith. That was — they were coming after —

BECK: Truman said this also about the Soviets, right?

BARTON: Truman, in the speech when he took over the Cold War, said it's a fight between Christianity and anti-Christianity. That was Truman's official position as president.

BECK: This is to buy war bonds, "Save Freedom of Worship. Each to the dictates of his own conscience." This actually comes from a speech of FDR.

BARTON: It is.

BECK: The progressives — [the Founders] guys lived it. The progressives used it.

BARTON: They used it. That's right. That's right.

BECK: Again, another buy bonds from the U.S. Government, "For peace and security."

BARTON: At the bottom, it says, "An official U.S. Treasury poster." I love the fact — there is the Nativity of the Christ.

BECK: And this one — this one again, the United States Treasury Department. This looks like World War I.

BARTON: That is divine guidance, Joan of Arc. God led her to victory over the enemy. And that's —

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: This was Woodrow Wilson.

BARTON: Yes, right. It would be that time.

BECK: You know, what's fascinating to me is — I mean, Woodrow Wilson, his father was a preacher.

BARTON: He was a preacher. That's right.
 
BECK: Yes. And they knew they had to — and this is why I say you must be very careful about the idea of social justice. Correct me if I'm wrong. Social justice is dangerous because these guy guys knew how they had to get into the churches.

BARTON: Yes.

BECK: To be able to control you, they had to get into the churches.
Remember, [the Founders], all of the stuff that we've laid out here in front of you — these two scenes, they were not about controlling you. They were about giving you freedom and liberty. And they didn't care what church or synagogue or anything. They didn't care what mosque you went to. Just regulate yourself and serve your fellow man.
[Progressives] use religion for power. That's where the danger comes in. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: We have been with David Barton. He is the author of a book that I read — I don't know — 10, 15 years ago. It's great, "Original Intent." He's from Wall Builders. And he is also joining me in Phoenix on Saturday at something we call the "American Revival." And it is the idea of faith, hope and charity, the building blocks of our country.
Whose face would you add for duty?

BARTON: All of them. That's what drove every one of them. They did things they would prefer not to, but it was their duty to do it.
And if we catch that notion of duty as citizens, we'll get this thing restored — not rebuilt, but restored. But we've got to have the same commitment to do things that are difficult and take our time because it's the right thing to do.

BECK: David, we'll see you Saturday. Tickets are still available at "GlennBeck.com," "The American Revival."
"Use truth as your anvil and non-violence as your hammer." And anything that doesn't stand the test when it is brought to the anvil of truth and hammered with non-violence, reject it. The words of Gandhi.

Read @ Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,590642,00.html#ixzz1NRrfahND

Virginia Declaration of Rights by George Mason 1776

Thomas Jefferson regarded Mason as the "the wisest man of his generation," the Virginia Declaration of Rights was adopted by the Virginia Constitutional Convention on June 12, 1776. Widely copied by the other colonies (by the end of 1776 five colonies had adopted declarations of rights; by 1783 every state had some form of a bill of rights), it became the basis of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution after Mason fought against ratification of the Constitution because it contained no bill of rights. The Declaration of Rights was also used by Thomas Jefferson for the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. The Marquis de Condorcet called the Virginia Declaration of Rights "the first Bill of Rights to merit the name."

A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government .
__________________________________________________________________________________
Equality Independence Freedom and Posterity

Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Power From The People

Section 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Right to Reform Alter or Abolish

Section 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration. And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible[1] right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal[2].

[1] indefeasible: not defeasible;  not to be annulled or made void; not forfeitable.(a)

[2] weal: good, well being, (b), prosperity, happiness, wealth (c). Antonym: woe
__________________________________________________________________________________
Payment or Privileges to Public Servants; Positions not Hereditary

Section 4. That no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments[3] or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, nor being descendible[4], neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary.

[3] emoluments: profit, salary, or fees from office or employment; compensation for services: Tips are an emolument in addition to wages. (d) Compensation

[4] descendible: capable of being transmitted by inheritance. (e)
__________________________________________________________________________________
Separation of Powers, Frequent Vacancy and Elections

Section 5. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciary; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burdens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part, of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Sufferage to those with Permanent Common Interest, and Restrictions on Law & Taxation

Section 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled for the public good.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Discouragement of the Suspension of Laws

Section 7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Rights of the Accused; Trial by Jury etc

Section 8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man has a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage[5], without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.

[5] Vicinage: proximity

Section 9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Warrant Without Evidence discouraged

Section 10. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Property Suits resolved by [sacred] Jury Trial

Section 11. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Freedom of Press

Section 12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Militia Good, Standing Army Bad

Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Singular Uniform Govt. of the State

Section 14. That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no government separate from or independent of the government of Virginia ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Necessities to the Preservation of Freedom

Section 15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence[6] to fundamental principles.

[6] recurrence: turning back (f)
__________________________________________________________________________________
Freedom of Religion: Duty to God; directed by Reason not Force
Christian forbearance, love, and Charity

Section 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance[7], love, and charity toward each other.

[7] Forbearance: the act of forbearing; a refraining from something, patience, endurance; self-control, tolerance 

__________________________________________________________________________________ 



http://www.constitution.org/bcp/virg_dor.htm