Palin’s Sloppy Scholarship
Jonathan Rowe on Aug 31st 2008
I just discovered that majority of quotations from Palin’s “Christian Heritage” resolution are misquotes. The actual underlying quotations do exist. She doesn’t cite them exactly as they are in the originals. When scholars want to do this, they have to use ellipses “…” and brackets [] or else they make an error [sic]. Most of Palin’s quotes are copying errors.
Let’s break down her resolution beginning with the first quotation by Ben Franklin:
WHEREAS, Benjamin Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention stated, “It is impossible to build an empire without our Father’s aid. I believe the sacred writings which say that, Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it (Psalm 127:1).”
This misquotes Franklin’s speech at the Constitutional Convention [as recorded by James Madison] where he was recording as saying:
I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proof I see of this truth that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel:
Next Palin writes:
WHEREAS, George Washington enunciated, “animated alone by the pure spirit of Christianity, and conducting ourselves as the faithful subjects of our free government, we may enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity.”
This misquotes an address Washington gave to Roman Catholics by a few words, notably switching “ourselves” for “themselves.” The bold is mine:
And may the members of your society [the Roman Catholics] in America, animated alone by the pure spirit of christianity, and still conducting themselves as the faithful subjects of our free government, enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity.
Next Thomas Jefferson. Palin writes:
WHEREAS, Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote, “Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed the conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?”
This misquotes Jefferson’s “Notes on the State of Virginia” where he said:
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . .”
In her defense, though, the words “Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?” do appear on panel three of the Jefferson Memorial.
Next Madison, Palin writes:
WHEREAS, James Madison, father of the United States Constitution advocated “the diffusion of the light of Christianity in our nation” in his Memorial and Remonstrance.
What the Memorial and Remonstrance actually says:
12. Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind.
The George Mason quotation from the Virginia Declaration of Rights is accurate. And I haven’t been able to confirm the Patrick Henry quotation in the original record.
Filed in The Belfry, The Bureau
Re: the Jefferson quotation:
Could Jefferson possibly have been as cynical as this sounds to me? I suspect not, but I read this not as saying that liberties really are a gift from God, but that believing so is a useful myth for causing people to cling tightly to those liberties.
Check that Washington quote again: there’s an extraneous “we may” in the final clause. At least, if Beliefnet’s quote is accurate. (And theirs makes more sense, syntactically.)
Thanks James & Jim,
James: Jefferson could be making a Straussian like argument (given they predated Strauss I’m not sure if that’s the best term for it): Religion is good for society because it is useful; whether it’s really true or not is in some sense besides the point. As such these key Founders didn’t give a hoot about “doctrines” like the Trinity rather all they cared about was that religion produced morality.
Jim: Let me double check with the original writings at UVA’s archive. Thanks for pointing this out.
Jim,
Thanks I corrected the problem. If I may explain myself. My friend Ray Soller caught error #1 but apparently not #2 and corrected Palin’s version which I copied. This shows how meticulous error spotting can be. But I understand you are a trained English instructor.
Mr. Henley, are you obliquely accusing Jefferson (or Tom, as I like to refer to him since he was just a few years ahead of me in college) of Straussian tendencies? *grin*
I don’t know if this constitutes defense of Palin, but I’m not sure it is fair to accuse someone of poor scholarship when, as far as I can tell, she wasn’t attempting scholarship of any sort in the first place. I mean, the woman is trained as a journalist, after all. (Insert “first draft of propaganda” joke here.)
I’ve had a running debate for decades with another journalist who shall remain nameless (but whose initials are RB) over string quotes and such. Journalists routinely string quotes together, sometime even from different events or occasions, without the use of ellipses, brackets, etc., and as far as I can tell they consider this acceptable practice as long as the result doesn’t, in their subjective opinion, misrepresent the speaker. This, needless to say, drives me crazy.
Anyway, when we descend from journalism, where at least lip service to accuracy and objectivity remains the case, to politics (still, not all that steep a descent), I think we’ve reached the level of Samuel Johnson’s dog walking on its hind legs. We should praise Palin for not making it up entirely, not condemn her for failure to conform the resolution to the Chicago Manual of Style.
Er, that’s “Hanley,” not “Henley.”
May I take this opportunity to add my voice to the choir asking for at least a preview function on comments? (Permitting co-bloggers to edit their comments on each other’s threads wouldn’t be such a bad idea, either. I never once, after all, claimed I believed in equal blogging rights for authors and readers.)
I’ll see what I can do about a preview, and about letting the top-level authors edit comments and maybe even posts. I know it would have spared me at least a few embarrassing typos.
Jon-
You probably won’t be surprised to find out I’ve been doing the same research you’ve been doing, looking up each of these quotes that I didn’t already know. I’ve been surprised at just how bad a lot of these quotes are.
Ed
Palin uses the term “enunciate.” Aside from attempts at journalism, this is nothing more that a show off of an ability to use a “big” term, and “impress” people. One should therefore argue the journalism is implied as a de facto basis for deriving her works.
However, the scholarship on the quotes is poor. Most certainly, the Washington quote is probably the worst, and I wonder if she’s read anything of the works she quotes or has she mined them or had them mined for her, just to have things to say that point to the founders as “good, God-fearin’ men”?