Ten Tortured Words: How the Founding Fathers Tried to Protect Religion in America . . . and What's Happened Since [ハードカバー]

After reading an op-ed by Mansfield on the USA Today website, I decided to get a copy of this best-selling author's latest book. Given the assertions made by Mansfield in his op-ed, which included the ridiculous claim that Thomas Jefferson "insisted upon the Bible as part of the curriculum at the University of Virginia," I thought I knew what to expect from his book. Ten Tortured Words, however, surpassed even my lowest expectations.

When I got the book, the first thing I did was turn it over to read the description on the back of its jacket, which begins:

"It was the steamy summer of 1787, as America's founding fathers fashioned their Constitution, they told the most powerful institution in their new nation what it must not do:

'CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.'"

What??? This seems to be saying that the First Amendment was written in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention. I must have misread this, I thought, and proceeded to reread it several times. No, I read it right the first time. It really does say that the First Amendment was written at the Constitutional Convention. My next thought was that this jacket text wasn't written by Stephen Mansfield himself, but by some history ignoramus at the publishing company. Mansfield, a New York Times best-selling author, writing an entire book on the First Amendment, couldn't possibly be unaware that this amendment was written two years later by the first Congress. Well, reading the book quickly proved that the benefit of the doubt I was giving Mansfield for this erroneous jacket text was completely undeserved. In fact, I didn't need to read any further than the introduction to realize this.

On pages xv-xvi, Mansfield says of Thomas Jefferson's January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists:

"It did not matter that Thomas Jefferson wrote this letter some fourteen years after the First Amendment became law. It did not matter that Thomas Jefferson was not even in the country during the convention that drafted the First Amendment. ..."

This is even worse than the jacket text. Fourteen years after the First Amendment became law??? The First Amendment, drafted by the first Congress in the summer of 1789, didn't become law until December 15, 1791. This, of course, would make Jefferson's writing of his letter to the Baptists almost exactly ten years after the amendment became law, not fourteen years. And, again, Mansfield calls the body that drafted the amendment "the convention."

On page 65 of his book, Mansfield not only gets this wrong again, but isn't even consistent with the version in his introduction, in this case indicating that he not only doesn't know that the amendment was written by the first Congress, but doesn't realize there was a two year gap between its writing and its becoming law. According to Mansfield:

"Also, he wrote the Danbury letter nearly a decade and a half after the First Amendment was written. ..."

Remarkably, in other places in his book, Mansfield does have the first Congress drafting the First Amendment, as if he copied this information without it even dawning on him that it contradicts his other statements and timeline.

But, wait...it gets better. Mansfield apparently doesn't understand that the Constitutional Convention and the Continental Congress were two separate bodies, with the Congress continuing to meet in New York while the Convention was taking place in Philadelphia. This is blatantly apparent in his description of how the Northwest Ordinance, also written in the summer of 1787, came about. On page 14, he has Manasseh Cutler pitching his Ohio Company proposals to the Constitutional Convention.

"On July 13, 1787, when the Constitutional Convention was but seven weeks along in its great task, a Massachusetts war hero, medical doctor, and clergyman named Manasseh Cutler asked the Convention to approve a plan for establishing a colony in the Ohio Territory. ..."

Even a person with a rudimentary knowledge of this period of American history, let alone a person passing themselves off as an authority by writing a book on it, should certainly be expected to know that the Constitutional Convention's sole purpose and work was the Constitution, and that the regular business of the country was simultaneously proceeding at the Congress in New York, which, of course, is where Cutler took the proposals for the Northwest Ordinance. Mansfield makes David Barton, whose masterpiece of historical revisionism, Original Intent, is listed in the bibliography of Ten Tortured Words, almost seem by comparison to be the real historian he claims to be.

On pages 143 to 148 of his book, Mansfield presents a list of twenty quotes, the purpose of which is to argue against the idea that, while many of the founders were personally religious, the government they created was secular. Some of these quotes are accurately presented, but most are either out of context, complete fabrications, or in some other way deceptive. One of the twenty even appears on David Barton's "Unconfirmed Quotations" list. For those unfamiliar with this list, these are quotes that even a history revisionist as bad as David Barton urges his minions to refrain from using.

Here's an example of the numerous instances of Christian nationalist revisionism found in Ten Tortured Words, in the form of the following Madison "quote," found on page 146.

"Religion is the basis and foundation of government. -- JAMES MADISON"

Where does this quote come from? Well, according to Mansfield's note, Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments. Here is the untortured paragraph from that document. Notice how many words appear between the word "Religion" and the phrase "the basis and foundation of government," words omitted by Mansfield to create a "quote" with an entirely different meaning.

"15. Because finally, 'the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience' is held by the same tenure with all his other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consider the 'Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basis and foundation of government,' it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis."

(Want some more torture from Mansfield's book? Go to the Amapedia section -- right under Customer Discussions below.)

Mansfield's book ignores the true history of our country as preserved in the records of the debates that led to the ratification of our Constitution. His many factual errors are inexcusable and suggest an intent to decieve, not merely a sloppy and poor understanding of his subject matter.

As background, it is important to understand, as Mansfield apparently does not, that the U.S. Constitution was drafted by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia from May to September of 1787 (which met separately from the Continental Congress simultaneously convened in New York). Upon its completion on September 17, 1787, the Constitution was then submitted to the legislatures of the 13 original states for ratification. By its terms the Constitution became effective when ratified by nine states, an event that occurred June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire gave the Constitution its approval.

The first 10 Amendments of the Constitution, known as the "The Bill of Rights," were not drafted and submitted to Congress until September 1789 (the Constitutional Convention having adjourned two years earlier), and were not fully ratified until 1791 when they became effective. These amendements were added to the Constitution largely due to concerns raised in the state ratification conventions in which the proposed Constitution was the subject of much debate.

These ratification debates are the best remaining evidence of what our Founders believed. Consider these words from the men who SUPPORTED the ratification of the Constitution when discussing the "No Religious Tests Clause" of the Constitution which forbade the new Federal goverment from dictating that only Christians could serve in office.

For example, James Iredell, later a Justice of the United States Supreme Court appointed by Washington, argued eloquently in the North Carolina ratification debates of 1788 against the position taken now by Mansfield and taken back then by OPPONENTS of the Constitution:

"Mr. HENRY ABBOT, after a short exordium, which was not distinctly heard, proceeded thus: Some are afraid, Mr. Chairman, that, should the Constitution be received, they would be deprived of the privilege of worshipping God according to their consciences, which would be taking from them a benefit they enjoy under the present constitution, They wish to know if their religious and civil liberties be secured under this system, or whether the general government may not make laws infringing their religious liberties. The worthy member from Edenton mentioned sundry political reasons why treaties should be the supreme law of the land. It is feared, by some people, that, by the power of making treaties, they might make a treaty engaging with foreign powers to adopt the Roman Catholic religion in the United States, which would prevent the people from worshipping God according to their own consciences. The worthy member from Halifax has in some measure satisfied my mind on this subject. But others may be dissatisfied. Many wish to know what religion shall be established. I believe a majority of the community are Presbyterians. I am, for my part, against any exclusive establishment; but if there were any, I would prefer the Episcopal. The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic. They suppose that if there be no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans. Every person employed by the general and state governments is to take an oath to support the former. Some are desirous to know how and by whom they are to swear, since no religious tests are required -- whether they are to swear by Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Proserpine, or Pluto. We ought to be suspicious of our liberties. We have felt the effects of oppressive measures, and know the happy consequences of being jealous of our rights. I would be glad some gentleman would endeavor to obviate these objections, in order to satisfy the religious art of the society. Could I be convinced that the objections were well founded, I would then declare my opinion against the Constitution. [Mr. Abbot added several other observations, but spoke too low to be heard.]

Mr. IREDELL. Mr. Chairman, nothing is more desirable than to remove the scruples of any gentleman on this interesting subject. Those concerning religion are entitled to particular respect. I did not expect any objection to this particular regulation, which, in my opinion, is calculated to prevent evils of the most pernicious consequences to society. Every person in the least conversant in the history of mankind, knows what dreadful mischiefs have been committed by religious persecutions, Under the color of religious tests, the utmost cruelties have been exercised. Those in power have generally considered all wisdom centred in themselves; that they alone had a right to dictate to the rest of mankind; and that all opposition to their tenets was profane and impious. The consequence of this intolerant spirit had been, that each church has in turn set itself up against every other; and persecutions and wars of the most implacable and bloody nature have taken place in every part of the world. America has set an example to mankind to think more modestly and reasonably -- that a man may be of different religious sentiments from our own, without being a bad member of society. The principles of toleration, to the honor of this age, are doing away those errors and prejudices which have so long prevailed, even in the most intolerant countries. In the Roman Catholic countries, principles of moderation are adopted which would have been spurned at a century or two ago. I should be sorry to find, when examples of toleration are set even by arbitrary governments, that this country, so impressed with the highest sense of liberty, should adopt principles on this subject that were narrow and illiberal.

I consider the clause under consideration as one of the strongest proofs that could be adduced, that it was the intention of those who formed this system to establish a general religious liberty in America.

...

But it is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. The people in power were always right, and every body else wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened.

...

It would be happy for mankind if religion was permitted to take its own course, and maintain itself by the excellence of its own doctrines. The divine Author of our religion never wished for its support by worldly authority. Has he not said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it? It made much greater progress for itself, than when supported by the greatest authority upon earth.

...

I hope that I have in some degree satisfied the doubts of the gentleman. This article is calculated to secure universal religious liberty, by putting all sects on a level -- the only way to prevent persecution. I thought nobody would have objected to this clause, which deserves, in my opinion, the highest approbation. This country has already had the honor of setting an example of civil freedom, and I trust it will likewise have the honor of teaching the rest of the world the way to religious freedom also."

The debate also spilled out of the ratification conventions into the popular press of the day. In fact, Oliver Ellsworth, who with Roger Sherman and William Samuel Johnson represented Connecticutt at the Constitutional Convention, and who later was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by Washington, said as much in his letter no. 7 from his Letters to a Landholder series in the Connecticutt Courant and American Mercury (which was essentially the Federalist Papers for Connecticutt):

"A test-law is the parent of hypocrisy, and the offspring of error and the spirit of persecution. Legislatures have no right to set up an inquisition, and examine into the private opinions of men. Test-laws are useless and ineffectual, unjust and tyrannical; therefore the Convention have done wisely in excluding this engine of persecution, and providing that no religious test shall ever be required."

Similarly, in the Massachusetts debates, the Rev. Shute put argued: "To establish a religious test as a qualification for offices in the proposed federal Constitution, it appears to me, sir, would be attended with injurious consequences to some individuals, and with no advantage to the whole. By the injurious consequences to individuals, I mean, that some, who, in every other respect, are qualified to fill some important post in government, will be excluded by their not being able to stand the religious test; which I take to be a privation of part of their civil rights. ... In this great and extensive empire, there is, and will be, a great variety of sentiments in religion among its inhabitants. Upon the plan of a religious test, the question, I think, must be, Who shall be excluded from national trusts? Whatever answer bigotry may suggest, the dictates of candor and equity, I conceive, will be, None."

I could go on and on. Mansfield needs to learn history before he writes it.

and the students at my college would laugh if I tried to assign this book as "history" or "political/historical analysis." A true historian approaches her or his subject without inherent bias.

Mansfield is no historian--he's written fiction that is on the level of the Naomi Watts/Nicolas Cage movie "National Treasure," however, so the book does have some redeeming entertainment value.