How are you doing, Buck? I appreciate your civility in this discussion.Barton has answered Throckmorton and Coulter in depth. The facts support Barton. One sample of Throckmorton's "debunking" of Barton I already gave, which is, to Barton's claim that Thomas Jefferson negotiated and signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe that agreed to use federal funds to build them a church and hire a priest. Throckmorton calls this a "lie". His basis? William Henry Harrison, who was Jefferson Secretary for Indian Affairs, did the face to face negotiating. He represented Jefferson. Just as other presidents negotiated treaties through their representatives. Barton backs up his claims, and his detractors are nothing but smear artists.
I've looked into this matter a little now, relying mostly on this:
What Throckmorton says is that Barton claimed more than that "Jefferson negotiated and signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe that agreed to use federal funds to build them a church and hire a priest." Throckmorton doesn't take issue with that claim, which appears to be historical fact.
Barton also claimed, "Jefferson put federal funds to pay for missionaries to go evangelize the Indians and gave federal funds so that after they were converted wed build them a church in which they could worship." This is the point of contention. Throckmorton claims that the Kaskaskia were already Christians, and that the purpose of the treaty was not to evangelize the Indians, but to take their land without war. The link supports that case very well. This is from the treaty, and indicates that Jefferson considered them Catholic, which undermines Barton's claim that Jefferson wanted to evangelize them:
"And whereas, The greater part of the said tribe have been baptised and received into the Catholic church to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars towards the support of a priest of that religion, who will engage to perform for the said tribe the duties of his office and also to instruct as many of their children as possible in the rudiments of literature. And the United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church."
Throckmorton goes on to say,
"To fully grasp how far off Bartons story is, one must consider Jeffersons stance toward negotiating with the Indians, and particular the Kaskaskia tribe. The tribe was small but they had claim to the highly desirable region of central Illinois between the Kaskaskia and Illinois rivers. Jefferson was keen to expand the borders of the United States and developed a strategy to attain land from the Indians without war. As indicated by at least two letters, one to Secretary of War, Henry Dearborn, and the other to territory Governor William Henry Harrison, Jefferson wanted to get the Indians into debt; and then when they could not pay their debts, negotiate a treaty favorable to the United States."
Then he supports that with these words from Jefferson to Dearborn:
"There is perhaps no method more irresistible of obtaining lands from them than by letting them get in debt, which when too heavy to be paid, they are always willing to lop off by a cession of land."
... and this to Harrison:
"we shall push our trading houses, and be glad to see the good and influential individuals among them run in debt, because we observe that when these debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off by a cession of lands."
I think Throckmorton made his case that Barton's version is revisionist and contains factual errors.