was how John Adams ended his claim that America was founded on the simple principles of nature. According to Adams, the whole American experiment was to see if laws for authority and obedience could be founded solely on reason, morality and the Christian religion. This was the American experiment, and Adams viewed it as being successful. But look at the way that Carrier refers to this line from Adams:
Adams does also say that “morality and the Christian religion, without the monkery of priests” has helped to sustain America’s success, but he never once credits any specific principle from that religion (like the Ten Commandments) as lying at the foundation of the American Constitution. That idea isn’t even considered. (emphasis in original)
Do you see the difference? According to Carrier, Adams viewed Christianity as something which helped to “sustain America’s success.” But according to Adams himself, Christianity was one of the foundations on which the entire American experiment was grounded. Carrier has taken a statement which directly refutes his claim, twisted it into saying something else entirely and presented it as evidence that he is right. As I said before, the level of ignorance required for this to have been a mere misunderstanding is unfathomable. And yet, it gets even worse.
As part of his claim that Adams did not consult the writings of Moses, Carrier cited a list of the authors that Adams quoted from in his Defence, and he pointed out that “Moses is conspicuous for his absence.” Of course, Solon was absent from that list as well since none of his writings were available to Adams, but Carrier notes that “Solon, of course (and in contrast), would be represented most significantly in the writings of Aristotle.” I have no problem with this; Adams certainly obtained some of his information on Solon from the writings of Aristotle, but if Solon can be represented second-hand, why can’t Moses be found in Adams' book in the same way?
Carrier identified Algernon Sydney as being one of the writers that Adams quoted, but he completely ignored the fact that part of what Adams quoted Sydney as saying was:
And if I should undertake to say, there never was a good government in the world, that did not consist of the three simple species of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, I think I may make it good. This at the least is certain, that the government of the Hebrews, instituted by God, had a judge, the great Sanhedrim, and general assemblies of the people.
WAIT!!! STOP THE PRESSES!!! Did Adams just reference the divinely inspired Law of Moses? Why, yes. Indeed he did, or at least, he quoted someone else in a favorable light who did so. And that’s not all.
One of the other names on the list was James Harrington who was renowned for his studies of the Law of Moses. In fact, the second volume of his work The Art of Lawgiving was entitled “Containing the Commonwealths of the Hebrews; Namely, Elohim, Or the Commonwealth of Israel; and Cabala, Or the Commonwealth of the Jews.” And in another of Harrington’s books, The Commonwealth of Oceana, he claimed that the Greeks and Romans attempted to implement the same principles of government which were “first discovered to mankind by God himself in the fabric of the commonwealth of Israel.” Adams quoted from Harrington extensively and even included the statement that:
This kind of law, fixing the balance in lands, is called Agrarian, and was first introduced by God himself, who divided the land of Canaan to his people by lot.
This gives us at least two instances in which Adams favorably quoted statements about the Law of Moses in regards to crucial points of the American legal system. The first was in regards to the three branches of government and the second in regards to the agrarian origin of private property rights. Carrier claims that Adams made “No mention of Moses,” but here we see two very important references to him which prove that Carrier is either insanely ignorant of his subject matter, or he is intentionally deceiving his readers.
As long as this article already is, I c