Critiquing David Barton’s History

David Barton of WallBuilders is a big name among public speakers and authors who teach on our nation’s founding fathers and the soul of America. His latest book, The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson, is being harshly criticized by historians who usually agree with his conclusions. World Magazine reports:

Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President (Salem Grove Press), argues that Barton “is guilty of taking statements and actions out of context and simplifying historical circumstances.” For example, they charge that Barton, in explaining why Jefferson did not free his slaves, “seriously misrepresents or misunderstands (or both) the legal environment related to slavery.”

In response, Barton says he cites his sources extensively so that critics can take up their arguments in their original context.

0 thoughts on “Critiquing David Barton’s History”

  1. Barton is a joke. As someone who has an undergrad degree in history and who loves reading history, his distortions are a scandal. Christians ought to know better. Some of this stuff reminds me of the Soviets who were constantly “revising” their history in the interests of “socialist realism.” When we are above all to be people of the TRUTH, playing fast and loose with historical facts gives the Church a major black eye. ARGH!

  2. Wow. I didn’t have that harsh an impression of him, but I haven’t looked at his conclusions closely and matched them to the sources.

    Can you think of any specific error he has advocated?

  3. Wow. It’s clear the appearance of a link to the World article on this blog changed the mind of a powerful Christian publisher. I’m glad they are wise enough to read us.

  4. I just read an article criticizing Barton’s article on John Locke. It was linked from at least two other articles on the current topic. It’s remarkable for those of us who thought Barton was giving us a fair shake. Greg Forster gives some specific statements Barton makes about Locke and refutes them, i.e.

    2) Barton: “Locke . . . saw many of his principles enacted into policy during the rule of Lord Cromwell . . .”

    Cromwell ruled 1653-1658; Locke’s first known writings on government, the aforementioned Two Tracts, were written after Cromwell’s death, and weren’t circulated outside Oxford that we know of until their rediscovery in the 20th century. Moreover, Locke was a strong royalist partisan during his time at Oxford in large part due to his detestation of Cromwell and the republicans, whom he viewed as turbulent religious fanatics. I think it would be difficult to find a ruler whose “policy” was more hostile to Locke’s “principles” than Cromwell; it’s not much of a stretch to say Locke supported the rebellion against James II largely because he saw James as a Catholic version of Cromwell – a man willing to tear apart the fabric of society out of loyalty to a narrow-minded religious enthusiasm.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.