Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TurkeyLurkey
I asked you “which historians,” meaning which historians do you mean, like WHO, didn’t buy into “that claim by that author,” and which author? The original author, Hugh A. Garland, who wrote the biography in 1853 and quoted Randolph’s letter? Or David Barton’s citation of Randolph’s conversion using Garland’s book as the basis of his comments?

I think the burden is on you and your goofy claim, and your goofy authors, do you accept that Abraham Lincoln was black?

77 posted on 07/04/2010 8:45:48 PM PDT by ansel12 (Mitt: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]


To: ansel12
The Virginia Randolphs were no more Muslim than the man in the moon, ever. Some very revisionist someone with an axe to grind or a desire to elevate Muslims in this country's history is hanging his hat upon a stray quip regarding the Crusades, made while a perfunctory Anglican. Any man or family of any standing at all in ol' Virginny belonged to that established church, while a colony or a State, shortlived though the established State church may have been.

Randolph was a man of high standing, and so he belonged. That's how it was. Dissent was not well tolerated, as the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians among others knew quite well, settling in remote Shenandoah Valley if they remained in Virginia at all, specifically in order to be beyond the reach of those who would use the power of the State to smother dissent. I have a Baptist ancestor who was forced to leave Goochland County for this very reason. He came to NC, as did many in a similar situation. Others continued on up the valley into what later became Tennessee, or went further into the hills into what later became Kentucky.

George Washington, too, belonged to the established church. He played a large role in disestablishing that church, though. By the same weird backflip of revisionist logic, what would that make Washington? He continued to attend the church he literally designed and built, Pohick Church. Virginians called it Anglican, not Episcopalian. The question of any presumed "conversion" of Randolph, from what, to what and when, can be answered similarly. The when is particularly important because of the establishment and then disestablishment of the Anglican Church in Virginia.

For those unfamiliar, Anglican = Episcopalian = Church of England.

80 posted on 07/04/2010 11:20:37 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies ]

To: ansel12

The original author, who lived in the 19th century and wrote a biography of John Randolph, and David Barton, who cited him in 2007 as a result of Keith Ellison’s (a Muslim) election to Congress and the press’ claim that he was the first Muslim elected to Congress—neither are goofy, and I don’t have a burden to prove/do anything regarding the subject. Good day.


88 posted on 07/05/2010 10:54:19 AM PDT by TurkeyLurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson