Subject: Tripoli, wun mo tahm.
From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT)
Date: 25 Nov 1998 20:15:47 EST
In article <19981125135527.03747.00000512@ng-fr1.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:
>Well, Kevin, then you must agree that the U.S. is not a Christian nation.
>Because, while these treaties only trade Bibles and buildings in a quid pro
>quo, and they make no representations for internal policy, there IS that
>little treaty with Tripoli, from the same time.
>
>CorumB posted on this board last December 27, again in response to Kevin:
>
>Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United
>States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most
>refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:
>
> "As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense
>founded on the Christian religion [-] as it has in itself no character of
>enmity against the laws, religion [] or tranquillity [] of Musselmen [-] and
>as the said [s]tates never have entered into any war or act of hostility
>against any M[a]hom[e]tan nation, it is declared by the parties[,] that no
>pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of
>the harmony existing between the two countries." [Note: corrections to
>Walker's text by CorumB, based on the photo of the same portion of the Treaty
>shown at the website]
>
>The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of
>George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American
>diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty
>negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the
>revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read
>Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for
>rationalism
>and became an advocate of secular government. Barlow, along with his
>associate, Captain Richard O'Brien, et al, translated and modified the Arabic
>version of the treaty into English. From this came the added Amendment 11.
>Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy
>Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now
>during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate.The Senate
>approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate
>with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review
>process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The
>treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette
>on 17 June 1997.
>
>So here we have a clear admission by the United States that our government
>did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of
>Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all treaties do according
>to the Constitution (see Article VI, Sect. 2).
>
>Although the Christian exclusionary wording in the Treaty of Tripoli only
>lasted for eight years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented
>the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the U.S. government.
>
>So, if you wish to argue that treaties with foreign nations indicate what the
>founders wanted, this friendship treaty with Tripoli is clear indication that
>the founders did not intend to found a "Christian" nation.
>
>
The Founders did not intend to "found" a Christian nation. This is true.
America was already a Christian nation. If the Founders intented to
found a secular nation, their constitution would have been utterly
rejected.
As for the Treaty, I'm always happy to repost the facts.
In article <1998072712305100.IAA20463@ladder03.news.aol.com>, corumb@aol.com (CorumB) writes:
>frwy>> Wisdom according to President John Adams:
>
> "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It
>is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."<<
>
>CorumB> Adams knew that Christianity did not have a monopoly on morality,
>though he personally viewed it as the best standard of morality, and Adams
>had the habit of applying the term "Christian" even to pagans that exhibited
>good morals. He also concurred that:
> "... the Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the
>Christian religion ...", as stated in the Treaty with Tripoli, which Adams
>and a unanimous Senate signed in 1797. Adams knew that the United States was
>not a "Christian Nation".
Here we go again with the Treaty of Tripoli. But I never tire of reposting the
truth from past posts, so here goes:
1) The phrase in question does not appear in the Arabic version
2) The phrase was understood to mean that the US did not have officially
hostile relations with nations which were officially Muslim.
3) The treaty was renegotiated a few years later. The phrase was indisputably
NOT a part of the subsequent treaty.
>The U.S. is not, and never was, a Christian nation.
In 1783 the US and Britain ended the war with the Paris Peace Treaty.
The treaty was written by John Adams, John Jay, and Ben Franklin.
Its very first words are
In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.
It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts . . .
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/paris.htm
Clearly America WAS a Christian nation, so any claim that it "never"
was is inaccurate.
Nothing legally changed America from a Christian nation to a
non-Christian one. Certainly the Treaty with Tripoli did not.
The following distortions (written by Jim Walker) on the Treaty of Tripoli
can be found at the website:
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
>Unlike governments of the past, the American Fathers set up a
>government divorced from religion.
This statement is terribly misleading. Unlike governments of the past, the
American Fathers set up a government divorced from *ecclesiastical control,*
not religion in general, and not Christianity.
Isaac Cornelison wrote a book in 1895 entitled:
The
Relation of Religion
to
Civil Government
in
The United States of America
A State Without a Church, but Not Without a Religion
No nation is without a religion.
Today our nation's religion is the religion of Secular Humanism.
Nor is any nation without a duty to have a religion.
George Washington stated that "it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge
the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His
benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor." He went on in his
Thanksgiving Proclamation of October 3, 1789 to write, that as a nation "we
may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the
great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and
other transgressions." George Washington, "Proclamation: A National
Thanksgiving," A Compilation Of The Messages And Papers Of The Presidents,
1789-1902, ed. John D. Richardson, 11 vols. (Washington, DC: Bureau of
National Literature and Art, 1907), 1:64.
If the disputed language in this treaty was actually signed by Adams, he
undoubtedly meant something other than that attributed to him by secularists.
Adams expressed his religious views on numerous occasions, but his call for a
National Fast Day on March 6, 1799 is the most expressive:
As no truth is more clearly taught in the Volume of Inspiration,
not any more fully demonstrated by the experience of all ages,
than that a deep sense and a due acknowledgment of the
growing providence of a Supreme Being and of the accountable-
ness of men to Him as the searcher of hearts and righteous
distributor of rewards and punishments are conducive equally
to the happiness of individuals and to the well-being of communities.
...I have thought proper to recommend, and I hereby recommend
accordingly, that Thursday, the twenty-fifth of April next, be
observed throughout the United States of America as a day of
solemn humiliation, fasing, and prayer; that the citizens on that
day abstain, as far as may be, from their secular occupation,
and devote the time to the sacred duties of religion, in public
and in private; that they call to mind our numerous offenses
against the most high God, confess them before Him with the
sincerest penitence, implore His pardoning mercy, through the
Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and
that through His Holy Spirit, we may be disposed and enabled to
yield a more suitable obedience to His righteous requisitions in
time to come; that He would interpose to arrest the progress of
that impiety and liscentiousness in principle and practice so
offensive to Himself and so ruinous to mankind; that He would
make us deeply sensible that "righteousness exalteth a nation,
but sin is a reproach to any people" [Proverbs 14:34]."
Note the contrast Adams draws between things "secular" and "sacred." Clearly
Adams did not believe that government could never "advance religion" ("Lemon
test"), but rather, had a duty to do so. Thus Tocqueville wrote,
The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty
so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them
conceive the one without the other...In the United States, if a
political character attacks a sect [denomination], this may not
prevent even the partisans of that very sect, from supporting him;
but if he attacks all the sects together [Christianity], every one
abandons him and he remains alone.
(The Republic of the United States of America and Its Political
Institutions, Reviewed and Examined, Henry Reeves, trans.,
Garden City, NY: AS Barnes & Co., 1851, Vol. I, p. 334-335)
>The establishment of a secular government
>did not require a reflection to themselves about its origin; they knew this
>as an unspoken given.
"Disestablishment" has reference to ecclesiastical affairs, not to
Christianity in general. All of the Signers of the Constitution believed that
Government depended on and should encourage the Christian religion. I
challenge secularists to quote one signer of the Constitution who believed
that their document created a union of "secular" states.
Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support
depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of govern-
ment, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of
government, the Christian religion is the established religion;
and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon
the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection
in their religious liberty.
Runkel v. Winemiller; 4 Harris and McHenry 276, 288 (Sup. Ct.
Md. 1799)
On another occasion, John Adams wrote: "The general principles, on which the
Fathers achieved independence, were . . . the general principles of
Christianity." John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813, in Lester J.
Cappon, ed., *The Adams-Jefferson Letters*, 2 vols. (Chapel Hill, NC:
University of North Carolina Press, 1959), 2:339-40.
>However, as the U.S. delved into international affairs,
>few foreign nations knew about the intentions of America.
>Joel
>Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held
>responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under
>Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends
>with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned
>Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular
>government. Barlow, along with his associate, Captain Richard O'Brien, et al,
>translated and modified the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From
>this came the added Amendment 11.
The statement "As the government of the United States of America is not in
any sense founded on the Christian religion" must be read in context and with
background knowledge of the religion of Islam before its meaning can be
determined with certainty. America was considered to be a Christian nation by
Tripoli. This is made clear by reading the original Treaty. In a 1930
annotated translation of the Treaty, Dr. C. Snouck Hurgronje of Leiden,
Netherlands, reviewed the original Treaty and found numerous statements that
clearly show that Tripoli considered America to be a Christian nation. Here
is just one example:
Glory be to God! Declaration of the third article. We have agreed that
if American Christians are traveling with a nation that is at war with
the well-preserved Tripoli, and he [evidently the Tripolitan] takes
[prisoners] from the Christian enemies and from the American
Christians with whom we are at peace, then sets them free; neither
he nor his goods shall be taken."
Throughout the Treaty "Christian nations" (e.g., Article VI) and "Tripoli," a
Moslem stronghold that was used as a base of operations for Barbary pirates,
are contrasted. Moslem nations were hostile to "Christian nations." The
Barbary pirates habitually preyed on ships from "Christian nations." In
drafting the treaty, the United States had to assure the Dey (ruler) of
Tripoli that in its struggle with the pirates that "it has in itself no
character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen," that
"the said states never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any
Mehomitan (Moselm) nation."
A contrast was also being drawn between America as a disestablished
Chiristian nation, and the European nations which had long been involved in
military struggles with the Muslims (crusades, Ferdinand&Isabella's expulsion
of Muslims from Grenada, etc.). As Noah Webster said, "The ecclesiastical
establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are
not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it." Daniel Webster
similarly explained: "Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [burning
stake or hot branding iron] are unknown -- general tolerant Christianity is
the law of the land!"
>Although the Christian exclusionary wording in the Treaty of
>Tripoli only lasted for eight years and no longer has legal status, it
>clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of
>the U.S. government.
Nothing about the clause is "clear." It is not even clear if it is in the
treaty at all. It is not representative of the feelings of the Founders.
It may have been Joel Barlow's intent to state that, but the Senate's
intent was simply to reassure the Muslims that "holy war" was not
a part of this new nation's policy.
Piracy remained a problem despite the 1797 Treaty. In addition, Tripoli
demanded increased tribute payments in 1801. When President Jefferson refused
to increase the tribute, Tripoli declared war on the United States. A United
States squadron, under Commander Edward Preble, blockaded Tripoli from 1803
to 1805. After rebel soldiers from Tripoli, led by United States Marines,
captured the city of Derma, the Pasha of Tripoli signed a treaty promising to
exact no more tribute.
It is important to note that the 1805 Treaty with Tripoli differs
considerably from the 1797 Treaty. The most important difference is this:
In the 1805 version "as the Government of the United States of America is not
in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" is conspicuously absent. The
first Treaty was terminated by war. A new treaty was drafted in 1805
(ratified April 12, 1806). Article 14 of the new treaty corresponds to
Article 11 of the first treaty. It reads in part: "[T]he government of the
United States of America has in itself no character of enmity against the
laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselmen." The phrase declaring that the
"government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on
the Christian religion" does not appear. Assurances are still offered that
the United States will not interfere with their religion or laws.
It's obvious that by 1805 the United States had greater bargaining power and
did not have to knuckle under to the demands of this Muslim stronghold. A
strong navy and a contingent of marines also helped.
THE TRINITARIAN TREATY OF 1822
If the critics of a Christian America thesis are going to be honest, then
they must give an adequate reason why the 1805 treaty does not contain the
words that seem to denounce the Christian religion. They also must answer why
the revised Treaty occurred during Thomas Jefferson's term as president,
since Jefferson, when compared to Washington and Adams, is the most hostile
to organized Christianity!
If treaties are going to be used to establish the religious commitment of the
nation, then it's essential that we look at all of the treaties. In 1822, the
United States, along with Great Britain and Ireland, ratified a "Convention
for Indemnity Under Award of Emperor of Russia as to the True Construction of
the First Article of the Treaty of December 24, 1814." (16) It begins -- as
many treaties did -- with these words:
"In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity."
Only Christianity teaches a Trinitarian view of God. If the 1797 Treaty of
Tripoli does in fact make Christianity null and void in America (which it does not),
the Treaty of 1822 reestablishes Trinitarian Christianity as the official
religion of the United States.
(16) Malloy, TREATIES, CONVENTIONS, INTERNATIONAL ACTS, PROTOCOLS
AND AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND
OTHER POWERS, 1776- 1909, 1:634.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CorumB> I realize there are many more
>interesting details regarding the Treaty, and I would like to check on this
>material from other sources, but I would like to ask the other readers here
>for their comments on this explicit declaration that "... the Government of
>the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian
>religion; ...".
>I'm also curious - Kevin, can you cite any official, legally
>binding document of the U.S. signed by a Founding Father that explicitly
>states that the U.S. was founded as a "Christian Nation"? I don't mean
merely
>your interpretation of references to God and religion as denoting
>Christianity in particular ("generic" or otherwise).
The question betrays a failure to understand the nature of the American
system. Each of the colonies became independent states after 1776, much like
Switzerland is in independent state. Neither the Articles of Confederation or
the Constitution changed that. The Constitution would not have been ratified
without the guarantee in the First Amendment that there would be no
declaration of a Federal church which would override the religious character
of the states. The foundation of all the states was Christianity, a founding
which took place generations before the Constitution, and what united the
states was not a federal declaration of religious unity but a religion
commonly-held by the states. The Constitution did not transform America from
"Christian" to "secular."
Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinity.htm
---------------------------------------------
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7
Subject: Re: The Truth about the Treaty of Tripoli
From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT)
Date: 02 Aug 1998 01:47:13 EDT
In article <1998080202115800.WAA28811@ladder01.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:
>Kevin said: >>Here we go again with the Treaty of Tripoli. But I never tire
>of reposting the
>truth from past posts, so here goes:
>
>1) The phrase in question does not appear in all versions of the Treaty
>2) The phrase most likely was understood to mean that the US did not have
>officially hostile relations with nations which were officially Muslim. It
>was
>not meant to explain to the Muslims the nature of our government, nor to
>establish that nature.
>3) The treaty was renegotiated a few years later. The phrase was indisputably
>NOT a part of the subsequent treaty. Whatever that phrase meant for a
>few short years, it has absolutlely no effect today.
>4) Subsequent treaties express our nation's firm reliance upon the God of
>the Bible.<<
>
>But the facts remain that the Senate approved and the President signed an
>English version of the treaty that contains the words exactly as CorumB
>presented them. There were acceptable to the Senate, and acceptable to the
>President. When the treaty was renegotiated, the Moslem nations did not
>demand that the U.S explicitly state it would not go to war with them over
>religious items. There was a history at that point.
What evidence do you have that a demand was made that the U.S
"explicitly state it would not go to war with them over religious items"?
The line was apparently inserted into the treaty by Joel Barlow acting
as an autonomous secularist.
>The phrase in the English version was put there by the State Department's guy
>on the spot, the one who knew what the treaty was supposed to say. On what
>authority do we question the guy who negotiated the treaty?
Barlow did not know Arabic. The treaty was translated into English sometime
in Jan-Feb 1797, probably by an Algerian court official. The translation Barlow
submitted with a signed statement that "The foregoing is a literal translation
of the writing in Arabic" is way off the mark. A better translation was made in
1930 by Dr. C. Snouck Hurgronje of Leiden, and is found in Charles I. Bevans,
*Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America,
1776-1949* (Department of State, 1974) vol XI at 1073f. See the translation
of Article 12. It differs markedly from Barlow's.
On Article 11, Bevans has the following:
Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the
Barlow translation with its famous phrase, 'the government of the United States
of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,' does not exist
at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and
12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from
the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and
to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there
written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic
correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.
(at 1070)
A number of explanations have been put forth as to how Article 11 became part of
the Treaty. "One explanation is that the Dey of Algiers wrote this note on the Treaty
to mollify certain concerns of the Pasha of Tripoli about entering into a Treaty with an
'infidel' (non-Islamic) nation. The Algerian court official translating the document
translated everything on the page without regard to its nature or source. It is also
possible that the American foreign service officials, eager to conclude a treaty,
allowed the Barbary officials to continue under that impression." (Eidsmoe,
*Christianity and the Constitution*, p. 415)
>So it was written out by the guy who negotiated the treaty and knew what it
>meant; the treaty's language that the U.S. is in no way a "Christian nation"
>was approved by the Senate and the President.
>
>It's rather like the Constitution. No matter how much Kevin doesn't like it,
>there's no explaining away the simple words of the law.
>
>Ed
No one can beat Ed at explaining away the words of the U.S. Supreme Court:
These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of
unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that
this is a Christian nation.
And all of the "organic utterances" cited by the Holy Trinity Court are real and
their authenticity unquestioned, in sharp contrast to the elusive Article 11 of a
long-ago superceded treaty.
Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinity.htm
---------------------------------------------
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7
>Subject: Re: Is the USA a really a Christian nation ?
>From: Dave Mullenix djmullen@tds.net
>Date: 23 Mar 2001 03:56:10 GMT
>Message-ID: <99ehgq$n9j$10@newsmonger.rutgers.edu>
>On 19 Mar 2001 06:33:15 GMT, pooua@aol.comeon (Pooua) wrote:
>
>There's also Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli that George
>Washington sent
No, he didn't.
>to the Senate for ratification.
George Washington retired from office March 3, 1797; John Adams delivered his
inaugural address on March 4, 1797. The Treaty of Tripoli to which you refer
was submitted to the Senate on May 29, 1797, having been sent to the Senate by
then-President John Adams on May 26, 1797, following the arrival of the treaty
in the United States from Algiers, where it had been signed on January 3, 1797.
There is no evidence or reason to believe that George Washington ever saw the
Treaty of Tripoli, or ever knew of its wording.
http://64.77.32.152/public/library/hist_doc/Tripoli.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/bar1796t.htm
>This contains the
>famous phrase, "...the government of the United States of America is
>not in any sense founded on the Christian religion ..."
Famous, indeed; unfortunately for your position, the United States was not in
any sense founded on the Treaty of Tripoli. The wording of the Treaty of
Tripoli was John Barlow's, not any elected representative's certainly not any
elected Founding Father. No one knows who invented Article 11, or when, except
that it was created after the Treaty was signed in Tripoli and Algiers; it does
not appear in the original version of the Treaty. Humanists have latched onto
the spurious phrase as if it represented the belief or opinion of the Founding
Fathers of the United States. Even if those who ratified the Treaty in the
United States saw the wording (and there is no certain evidence they did there
is absolute silence from that period on the matter), it still would not mean
that any of them agreed with every phrase including that one that appeared in
the Treaty. Rather than send the Treaty back to Tripoli (a 2- or 3-month trip
at that time, plus the diplomatic difficulty of getting the Moslems to re-sign
a treaty they didn't like and soon broke) for a single insignificant phrase, it
would have been signed. Finally, the meaning of the Treaty of Tripoli that the
Humanists have attached to it is simply factually incorrect; no matter what the
authenticity of the Article 11 might have been, it would have been factually
incorrect for it to have denied the Christian foundations of the United States.
Indeed, this Treaty with Tripoli and other correspondence from that period and
location contained several references to the US being a Christian nation; one
of the legal witnesses of the Treaty even signed it,
"We Don Gerardo Joseph de Souza Knight of the order of Christ, Consul General
and Charge des Affaires of his Catholic Majesty in this City and Kingdom of
Tripoli of Barbary.
Certify That the foregoing signatures and seals are those of the persons who
sign all treaties of peace which are concluded with Christian Nations."
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/bar1796n.htm
So, the idea that the Treaty of Tripoli demonstrates that the US was not a
Christian nation is absurd. The straightforward, simple logic of these
statements has, for some reason (probably spite) eluded the grasp of the
Humanists.
>For the fundamentalist spin on this one, see David Barton's web site
>at http://www.wallbuilders.com/et_treatyoftripoli.html
"The numerous documents surrounding the Barbary Powers Conflict confirm that
historically it was always viewed as a conflict between Christian America and
Muslim nations. Those documents completely disprove the notion that any
founding President, especially Washington, ever declared that America was not a
Christian nation or people. (Chapter 16 of Original Intent will provide
numerous additional current examples of historical revisionism.)"
>Briefly, this treaty was negotiated by Washington's diplomat, Joel
>Barlow,
During 1796 to 1797.
>and prepared for sending to the Senate for ratification by
>Washington. (By the time it was actually sent, John Adams was
>president.)
That piece of paper probably wasn't even in North America when Washington left
office. It was signed in Algiers on January 3, 1797. It was then hand-copied
(at least 3 copies were made) and translated into English, before eventually
being sent half-way around the world to the United States and it could not have
been copied and translated along the way to the United States, because at least
one copy (the Cathcart Copy) remained in the Mediterranean area. The trip
itself must have taken months it took 2 or 3 months just to sail that distance,
besides any delays along the way. It would have been quite difficult for the
Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 to have arrived in the United States before
Washington retired to Mount Vernon.
>I think we can safely say that he read the treaty
Quite the opposite; we can safely say he didn't see it. And, inasmuch as he
didn't keep up with such news, he may very well have never seen it.
>and
>that if he had seen anything he didn't approve of, he would have
>removed it.
Obviously he could not, because it wasn't in his possession, and because it
would have been impractical to have sent the Treaty back to Tripoli for a
sentence that could not change historical fact.
>Since he didn't, we must assume that he approved of the
>phrase.
We must assume he had nothing to do with it.
>(And the Senate too, since they ratified the treaty.
Without a single comment made on it, no less; doesn't that, by itself, strike
you as odd?
>It was
>read aloud, in its entirety,
You don't know that. There are no historical records from that period that shed
any light whatsoever on the reception of Article 11; it is all dead silence,
having neither praise for it, nor condemnation of it.
>each Senator got a printed copy, and it
>passed unanimously.).
Again, no matter what it stated, it could not change the facts of what had
already happened.
>Barton attempts to finesse this by confusing the two different
>meanings of "Christian nation". The US is one, in the sense that
>Christianity is the dominant religion. The US isn't one in the sense
>that it's not founded on Christianity and the founding fathers went to
>considerable lengths to keep _all_ religions out of the government.
Barton hazarded his best guess. That's all the more that anyone can do, because
there are absolutely no historical records from that period commenting on the
Treaty.
>Ed Buckner has a much better article on this treaty at
>http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html
It is a short article that makes various observations of which not very many
details are specified.