Founders’ Bible Cites Pro-Slavery Leader as Proponent of America as a Christian Nation

At the end of the month at Glenn Beck’s Restoring Love rally in Dallas, David Barton will sign his new book. While he may sign some copies of his other new book — The Jefferson Lies — the new book I am referring to is called The Founder’s Bible.  From 2:30-4:00pm on July 26, Barton will sign the Bible and then the next day at 9:00-10:00am Barton will give a speech about it.

There is very little information about The Founder’s Bible on the web. The website, Facebook, Twitter and You Tube pages are incomplete.  On the website, the pre-order shopping cart leads to Bronze Bow Publishing which publishes motivational tapes, self-help and fitness books.  Bronze Bow Publishing describes itself as ” a leader in helping men and women achieve their ultimate potential in functional athletic strength, fitness, natural muscular development, and all-around superb health and youthfulness.” They also say they sell Christian products to help Christians reach their “ultimate potential.”

John E. Peterson publishes many fitness books on Bronze Bow and appears to have some involvement in the Founders’ Bible. On a Bronze Bow forum for something called “transformetrics,” Peterson said in June.

My colleagues and I have been working night and day on ‘The Founders’ Bible’. Every one of you reading this will be amazed at the level of national press coverage and promotion this extraordinary Bible will receive.

The Founders’ Bible is published by Windblown Media (the same group that published The Shack) via a new imprint – Shiloh Road Press. Apparently Bronze Bow and Windblown have some connection. Consistent with the Restoring Love schedule, Peterson’s identified the release date for later July with a general release for August.

Here are some particulars. The Founders’ Bible contains the entire Bible text of the New American Standard Bible translation. In addition, it features more than 150 articles (averaging 4 pages each) by our Signature Historian David Barton covering everything from the founding of the first American colony in Jamestown, Virginia, on May 14 of 1607, forward to the present day. It deals with virtually every political hot button including Radical Islam’s current Jihad against America. The Founders’ Bible is scheduled for a very specific release the end of July 2012. And general release in August of 2012. Based on our early projections, our first 50,000 units will be sold within a very short span of time necessitating an immediate second printing.

Peterson then reproduced part of what appears to be an article to be included in the Bible.

With the above in mind I want to give each of you an idea of what The Founders’ Bible has to offer. For that reason I have printed Part 1 of an article titled, “America a Christian Nation’ below:

America: A Christian Nation

John Adams was a leader among the select group of Founding Fathers who directed the birth and establishment of America as an independent nation. Four decades afterwards, reflecting back over what he had personally seen and experienced, he declared:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . Now I will avow that I then believed (and now believe) that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.

Subsequent generations routinely reaffirmed what Adams had declared, including South Carolina governor James Hammond, who in 1844 publicly described America as a Christian nation. Following that pronouncement, a small group openly censured him and demanded an apology. Shocked by that reaction, Hammond responded:

“Unhappily for myself, I am not a professor of religion – nor am I attached by education or habit to any particular denomination – nor do I feel myself to be a fit and proper defender of the Christian faith. But I must say that up to this time, I have always thought it a settled matter that I lived in a Christian land and that I was the temporary chief magistrate of a Christian people! That in such a country and among such a people I should be publicly called to an account, reprimanded, and required to make amends for acknowledging Jesus Christ as the Redeemer of the world, I would not have believed possible if it had not come to pass.”

Across four centuries of American history, there have been literally thousands of declarations about America being a Christian nation. Yet today, few offenses will subject an individual to greater public derision than repeating what John Adams, James Hammond, and hundreds of other American leaders said. In fact, even a passing suggestion that America is or ever was a Christian nation makes apoplectic the post-modern elites in media, education, law, and politics.

There is more but I am saving it for another post.

There are several problems with this short quote, but the most disturbing to me is the use of James Hammond as an advocate of America as a Christian nation. James Henry Hammond was a racist and proud of it. As a Congressman and Senator from pre-Civil War South Carolina and then governor of that state, Hammond became a leading defender of slavery as a moral good. Hammond was one of a tiny minority of Representatives who voted against ending the slave trade in the District of Columbia. On February 1, 1836, Hammond spoke at length in defense of the slave trade in D.C. From the Congressional Globe, here is just one representative paragraph:

Hammond was a major proponent of the mudsill theory, i.e., the view that inferior races should serve superior races. On March 4, 1858, Hammond gave a speech on the Senate floor outlining his views. Here is a portion of it:

In all social systems there must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life. That is, a class requiring but a low order of intellect and but little skill. Its requisites are vigor, docility, fidelity. Such a class you must have, or you would not have that other class which leads progress, civilization, and refinement. It constitutes the very mud-sill of society and of political government; and you might as well attempt to build a house in the air, as to build either the one or the other, except on this mud-sill. Fortunately for the South, she found a race adapted to that purpose to her hand. A race inferior to her own, but eminently qualified in temper, in vigor, in docility, in capacity to stand the climate, to answer all her purposes. We use them for our purpose, and call them slaves. We found them slaves by the common “consent of mankind,” which, according to Cicero, “lex naturae est.” The highest proof of what is Nature’s law. We are old-fashioned at the South yet; slave is a word discarded now by “ears polite;” I will not characterize that class at the North by that term; but you have it; it is there; it is everywhere; it is eternal.

The Senator from New York said yesterday that the whole world had abolished slavery. Aye, the name, but not the thing; all the powers of the earth cannot abolish that. God only can do it when he repeals the fiat, “the poor ye always have with you;” for the man who lives by daily labor, and scarcely lives at that, and who has to put out his labor in the market, and take the best he can get for it; in short, your whole hireling class of manual laborers and “operatives,” as you call them, are essentially slaves. The difference between us is, that our slaves are hired for life and well compensated; there is no starvation, no begging, no want of employment among our people, and not too much employment either. Yours are hired by the day, not cared for, and scantily compensated, which may be proved in the most painful manner, at any hour in any street in any of your large towns. Why, you meet more beggars in one day, in any single street of the city of New York, than you would meet in a lifetime in the whole South. We do not think that whites should be slaves either by law or necessity. Our slaves are black, of another and inferior race. The status in which we have placed them is an elevation. They are elevated from the condition in which God first created them, by being made our slaves. None of that race on the whole face of the globe can be compared with the slaves of the South. They are happy, content, unaspiring, and utterly incapable, from intellectual weakness, ever to give us any trouble by their aspirations. Yours are white, of your own race; you are brothers of one blood. They are your equals in natural endowment of intellect, and they feel galled by their degradation. Our slaves do not vote. We give them no political power. Yours do vote, and, being the majority, they are the depositories of all your political power. If they knew the tremendous secret, that the ballot-box is stronger than “an army with banners,” and could combine, where would you be? Your society would be reconstructed, your government overthrown, your property divided, not as they have mistakenly attempted to initiate such proceedings by meeting in parks, with arms in their hands, but by the quiet process of the ballot-box. You have been making war upon us to our very hearthstones. How would you like for us to send lecturers and agitators North, to teach these people this, to aid in combining, and to lead them?

The Founder’s Bible holds Hammond up as an American leader because he called America a Christian nation. The choice of Hammond highlights the problem with this approach to Christianity and civics. What kind of Christian nation are we? For Hammond, a Christian nation was one that celebrated racism and human bondage. In his writing on slavery, Hammond used Christianity to justify the practice when he wrote:

It is impossible therefore to suppose that slavery is contrary to the Will of God. It is equally absurd to say that American slavery differs in form or principle from that of the chosen People. We accept the Bible terms as the definition of our slavery and its precepts as the guide of our conduct. We desire nothing more. Even the right to buffet which is esteemed so shocking finds its express license in the Gospel (1 Peter ii 20). Nay what is more, God directs the Hebrews to bore holes in the ears of their brothers to mark them when under certain circumstances they become perpetual slaves (Ex. Xxi: 6). I think then I may safely conclude and I firmly believe that American slavery is not only not a sin but especially commanded by God through Moses and approved by Christ through His Apostles. And here I might close its defence for what God ordains and Christ sanctifies should surely command the respect and toleration of Man. But I fear there has grown up in our time a Transcendental Religion which is throwing even Transcendental Philosophy into the shade a Religion too pure and elevated for the Bible which seeks to erect among men a higher standard of Morals than the Almighty has revealed or our Saviour preached and which is probably destined to do more to impede the extension of God’s Kingdom on earth than all the Infidels who have ever lived.*

It is a disgrace James Hammond is held up as an American leader and used as a talking point to justify America as a Christian nation. I sincerely doubt that anyone associated with the Founders’ Bible would advocate the theories and views of Hammond. However, it is beyond disgusting and offensive that they laud him as an American leader simply because he once said America is a Christian nation.  A project held up as a historical and spiritual teaching tool should not make Hammond a Christian nation hero in the pages of Holy Scripture.

Readers, what should Windblown Media do about this?

There is lot wrong with the rest of the excerpt from the Founders’ Bible which I will take up in subsequent posts.



*Two Letters on the Subject of Slavery in the United States Addressed to Thomas Clarkson, Esq., Silvee Bluff, SC, January 28, 1845. In Letters and Speeches of  James H. Hammond of South Carolina. (NEW YORK: JOHN F. TROW & CO PRINTERS, 1866).

"U.S. District Court, so no. Cameras are not allowed in Federal courts."

Every Gospel for Asia Donor Should ..."
"Not that I'm aware of, and certainly not for public distribution."

Every Gospel for Asia Donor Should ..."
"The Windrush Scandal. understanding is that part of the problem is that a whole load ..."

Court Evangelicals Pay the Palace a ..."
"Just for clarity ... we are certainly aware of the movement to adopt many, for ..."

K.P. Yohannan Blesses and Consecrates Holy ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Lynn David

    A reference for you, from: Writings on American history 1959. Compiled by the National Historical Publications Commission, James R. Masterson, editor, Joyce E. Eberly, assistant editor. [Volume II of the annual report of the American Historical Association for the year 1961.]

    ROBERT CINNAMOND TUCKER: James Henry Hammond [1807-1864], South Carolinian. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Univeristy Microfiilms, 1958 [i.e. 1959]. Positive microfilme of typescript. iv, 492 leaves. bibliog. (leaves 484-92). Thesis–Univ. of North Carolina. Abstracted: Dissert. abstracts, 19:2331 (Mar.). On his life in SOuth Carolina, his activities in South Carolina and national politics, his work as “a propagandist for and practitioner of scientific agriculture,” and his writings in defense of slavery.


    I have a PDF of this newspaper article: The Cradle …. of Secession; Date: November 13, 1898; Location: Birmingham, Alabama; Paper: Age-Herald [reprint of Washington Post article?]

    It says of Henderson: “James Henry Hammond, United States senator from South Carolina, who made a national reputation as “Mud-sill Hammond” for his reference in the debate on the Kansas question to the slaves or negroes as the necessary “mud-sills” of society…”

    It also mentions other famous and noted statesmen who were in that “cradle of secession.”

  • Lynn David

    Perhaps Barton is enamored of what Henderson said at the end of Henderson’s ‘Cotton is King’ speech:

    The Senator from New York says that that is about to be at an end; that you intend to take the Government from us; that it will pass from our hands into yours. Perhaps what he says is true; it may be; but do not forget — it can never be forgotten — it is written on the brightest page of human history — that we, the slaveholders of the South, took our country in her infancy, and, after ruling her for sixty out of the seventy years of her existence, we surrendered her to you without a stain upon her honor, boundless in prosperity, incalculable in her strength, the wonder and admiration of the world. Time will show what you will make of her; but no time can diminish our glory or your responsibility.

  • Yellow Dog Democrat

    From Wikipedia on the right wing hero: Hammond was perhaps best known during his lifetime as an outspoken defender of slavery and states’ rights. It was Hammond who popularized the phrase that “Cotton is King” in an 1858 speech to the Senate. He also compared the South’s “well compensated” slaves to the North’s “scantily compensated” slaves (hired skilled laborers and operatives).

    His Secret and Sacred Diaries reveal that his appetites did not end there. He describes, without embarrassment, his ‘familiarities and dalliances’ with four teenage nieces – the daughters of Wade Hampton II. Blaming the seductiveness of the “extremely affectionate” young women, his political career was crushed for a decade to come, and the girls with their tarnished social reputations never married. His mansion in Beech Island, South Carolina, Redcliffe [1], represents his ideal of the perfectly run plantation. [2]

    As a young man, Hammond had a homosexual relationship with a college friend, Thomas Jefferson Withers, which is attested by two sexually explicit letters sent from Withers to Hammond in 1826. The letters, which are housed among the Hammond Papers at the South Caroliniana Library, were first published by researcher Martin Duberman in 1981, and are remarkable for being rare documentary evidence of same-sex relationships in the antebellum United States.[2]

    Hammond School in Columbia, South Carolina is named after him. Founded in 1966, it was originally named James H. Hammond Academy.

  • Rob Major

    Warren, I’m just glad to know that you and Chis Rodda and others who care about the truth are on Barton’s case. He is a despicable fraud, a snake-oil slesman of the highest order, and should be challenged every inch of the way. I, for one, appreciate your willingness to take on the task. The idea of America as a “Christian nation” becomes more clearly gruesome when you consider Iran as an Islamic Nation. Barton and his ilk desperately want the USA to become Iran’s mirror image: equally backward, equally ignorant, equally sanctimonious, equally repressive, equally resistant to science (except where weapons are concerned), equally hostile to women, minorities, other religions and viewpoints, slaves to iron-age ideology and the verminous whims of the clerics. Thanks for all you do to reveal his intellectual dishonesty, and to prove that this two-bit emperor has no clothes.

  • WOW! This last bit of evidence on Hammond should be hammered away at considering Barton’s anti-gay stances.

    I agree that the whole idea of the Founder’s Bible is wrong, but to even hint that Hammond is one of the basic founders of the whole “Christian Nation” meme is ridiculous. Barton, however, feels that he can get away with anything simply because his fan base is so rabidly promoting his work as a “historian”. Righteous arrogance does indeed breed stupidity, but die-hards will eat it all up as manna.

  • I sincerely doubt that anyone associated with the Founders’ Bible would advocate the theories and views of Hammond.

    I don’t doubt it.

    I readily concede most wouldn’t. Few would admit to it, though given what has been said in the past by certain NARTH members, some might.

    Leave out the whole “inferior race” nonsense – something widely believed at the time, even by Abolitionists – and what he says about the “proletariat” to use the Marxist terminology is true.

    There’s a huge difference in the ability to split up families, legally assault and even murder someone, to legally possess their children, and the powers of even the most piratical of Robber-Barons. In terms of economic welfare though, quite true, and troublingly true today.

    When I visited New Orleans for a Supercomputer conference, I was a stranger in a strange land. Virtually all the minimum-wage employees I talked to (and made darn sure to tip generously before I left, even though I’m on the poverty line myself) were on probation for minor drug offences. Most, but not all, were African-American.

    It’s blindingly obvious to me, a very conservative small-l 18th century liberal, right-wing by Australian standards, that the system there is set up to perpetuate an underclass of cheap, disposable, fungible menial workers with no alternatives in their lives.

    I’ve seen something similar in the UK where I was born, and even to a lesser extent in Germany and Australia. But nothing remotely as blatantly fixed as in New Orleans.

    Hammond may have been loathsome, a total failure as a human being. But being a hypocrite of the first order himself, he knew hypocrisy when he saw it.

  • sbh

    As I’ve pointed out elsewhere this Adams quotation is dishonestly edited to distort its meaning. Adams most emphatically did not say that “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence” were “the general principles of Christianity”; rather he included “the general principles of Christianity” among the “general principles on which the fathers achieved independence” alongside “the general principles of English and American liberty”. Here is what he actually wrote to Jefferson:

    The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young men could unite, and these principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system.

  • James

    I think that because Barton is the ONLY ONE who is doing the work to reconnect Christians in America with their Christian heritage, that he will be punished severely for doing so. If you think that I buy any of the obvious LEFTISTS who are making comments about Barton, you can forget it. I WILL purchase this Bible, and STUDY IT. Here is thought for the PRETEND “Christians” so “concerned” about this. Could it be that many of our founding fathers had opinions about slavery that were wrong, yet they were CORRECT about freedom and Liberty and the absolute necessity and superiority of Christianity to be a BASE and to be critical for our nation to survive? Could it be that they were wrong about slavery, but correct about the tendency of government to grow and oppress people? So, attention COMRADES posing as Christians, I WILL purchase this Bible, and I WILL teach my children to love FREEDOM AND LIBERTY, and if Barton is SO bad a historian, AND you are a REAL Christian, then do something other than bad mouth Barton. Because right now, he is the ONLY ONE doing the work necessary for Christians to reconnect with their history.

  • ken

    James says:

    September 22, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    “I think that because Barton is the ONLY ONE who is doing the work to reconnect Christians in America with their Christian heritage, that he will be punished severely for doing so.”

    No, what Barton is doing is distorting history in an attempt to elevate christians above all others in the US. And he is being challenged because of his distortions, not because of his christian beliefs. Warren, Michael and many others (conservative, liberal and moderates, christians and others) have all given evidence of Barton’s misrepresentations. Further, it is BARTON who is doing all the name-calling, not his detractors. Calling them, leftists, liberals, elitists, atheists, and anything else he can think of that will resonate with his followers. But he never really addresses the issues they raise.