|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,384 Year: 3,641/9,624 Month: 512/974 Week: 125/276 Day: 22/31 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Paul Serup Answers Theodoric: Credibility of Authors and Book | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh yeah, such as what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: You speculated that Paul Serup:
considered what he said here to be persuasive enough to honest generous gracious people for starters, the kind of people one used to expect to find in intellectual and scholarly contexts
But obviously he would be wrong to think that the cherry-picked, weak, circumstantial evidence that he did produce would be sufficient on it's own. Indeed, you yourself have admitted that he didn't do a good job and insist that there must be better evidence in the book (although you have no good reason to believe that).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
Why are you making excuses for Serup? Why aren't you joining me in inviting him to provide good evidence? I'm not particularly accusing YOU, but why are you the one making such a big issue out of this? If you put half as much effort into honestly examining the issue as you do into character assassination, you'd do your own credibility a lot of good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Faith writes: Lincoln is recounting how it was Narcisse Terrien who told him how Philomene Moffat was persuaded to come and testify. Lincoln had nothing to do with it, she came to him. Yes, I see now. But you raised this point in rebuttal to a point it was completely irrelevant to, leading to yet more confusion. George described what the historical records show, and you responded that he was using Chiniquy as a source. He was not, he was using the historical record, which you have yet to respond to.
And again, it is utterly irrelevant TRIVIA how the case was dismissed legally and there was no reason for Chiniquy to mention it. His account is perfectly reasonable that it was dismissed because Moffat came forward to testify at the point where they were falsely attacking Chiniquy's moral character. But they were not "falsely attacking Chiniquy's moral character." Imorality had nothing to do with it. Chiniquy was charged with slander. Read again the agreement that Spink and Chiniquy signed:
This day came the parties and the defendant denies that he has ever charged, or believed the plaintiff to be guilty of Perjury; that whatever he has said, from which such a charge could be inferred, he said on the information of others, protesting his own disbelief in the charge; and that he now disclaims any belief in the truth of such charge against said plaintiff -- It is therefore, by agreement of the parties, ordered that this suit be dismissed, each party paying his own cost -- the defendant to pay his part of the cost heretofore ordered to be paid by said plaintiff. As this note indicates, and as court records show, Spink charged Chiniquy with slander because Chiniquy had accused Spink of perjury from the pulpit. What possible help could Moffat have provided by testifying that Chiniquy was guilty of no immorality when slander was the charge?
You have no evidence that anything else was the cause and Chiniquy's story is credible. Historians of Lincoln describe his strong preference in cases of slander for settling matters out of court.
They dropped their case when she appeared and Lincoln's note is about the legal terms on which it was dismissed. That's Chiniquy's account, but there's no evidence for it.
Again you're all just swatting at gnats out of some kind of misguided prejudicial zeal to join with Chiniquy's persecutors. We're just pointing out that there is no positive evidence for any of Chiniquy's claims, be they about the Urbana case, or about the religions of the conspirators, or about the involvement of the Catholic church or the Jesuits, while there is plenty of evidence contradicting Chiniquy's accounts. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Faith writes: Oh yeah, such as what? Such as the quote of Joseph George describing what the court records and attorney's notes show that you claimed was just a corruption of Chiniquy's account. Here's the quote again:
Joseph George Jr. writes: The court records and attorneys' notes from that trial contradict almost every point in Chiniquy's autobiography. The original documents show that Spink v. Chiniquy involved little more than a personal feud between two embittered friends. Peter Spink, the plaintiff in the case, charged in his complaint that "on or about the 10th day of January A.D. 1854" he was accused by Chiniquy, "in a public assembly," of committing perjury. Apparently the public assembly was a church service, and Chiniquy, then a priest, had announced to his congregation that Spink, a land speculator, was advising clients to enter public lands on which French-Canadians had cut timber. Spink's plan, Chiniquy told his parishioners, was to make the French-Canadians pay for the wood. Spink charged that the accusation was "false and malicious" and had caused his clients to lose confidence in him. As a result Spink was unable "to do business as before, wherefore he was greatly injured and sustained great damage." Spink further charged that the priest had "at divers times before the instituting of this suit - slandered and defamed this deponent." Those statements are recorded in the official complaint, "Sworn and Enscribed," on February 3, 1855, in the circuit court of Kankakee County. The official charge brought by Spink was slander, not immorality. The Bishop of Chicago (who was not, in any case, Chiniquy's superior) had nothing to do with the complaint. The trial was shifted, as Chiniquy said, from Kankakee to Urbana, but before, not after, the first court proceedings. There was first a mistrial, and the jury chosen for the second hearing could not agree. Lincoln then became Chiniquy's attorney. In the words of his friend H. C. Whitney, Lincoln "abhorred that class of litigation [slander]," and was influential in bringing about a compromise before a third trial. A statement of agreement, in Lincoln's handwriting, is extant. It reads:
This day came the parties and the defendant denies that he has ever charged, or believed the plaintiff to be guilty of Perjury; that whatever he has said, from which such a charge could be inferred, he said on the information of others, protesting his own disbelief in the charge; and that he now disclaims any belief in the truth of such charge against said plaintiff -- It is therefore, by agreement of the parties, ordered that this suit be dismissed, each party paying his own cost -- the defendant to pay his part of the cost heretofore ordered to be paid by said plaintiff. It is difficult to believe that Chiniquy and Lincoln would have had reason or occasion at Urbana for a discussion of the evils of the Catholic church -- which in any case had no connection with the trial. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I have no idea what the point of your post is and I'm not going to slog back through this thread to find out if I did in fact claim this particular quote was a corruption of Chiniquy or whatever.
George doesn't QUOTE any of those "original documents," he just gives his own interpretation of them, which apparently you take as gospel, a personal feud etc., which he implies differs from Chiniquy's account, which he also doesn't quote. Is that what you want me to deal with? How can I if he doesn't give the source in Chiniquy or in the documents he's referring to? Spink's accusation is just Spink's accusation, what would you have me address in that? I guess the idea is that Spink saw things differently than Chiniquy? Big deal to that. Chiniquy may have a different view of the matter but his side isn't stated and Serup says George gets him wrong on some points so maybe this is one of them. Do you want me to answer George's complaint that the case was about slander rather than immorality, implying that Chiniquy was lying? But that I've answered a number of times already: Chiniquy's moral character was attacked somewhere in the second trial in October, and Moffat came forward specifically to counter that effort so George simply misses the point but of course he misses it in the service of making Chiniquy out to be a liar when he simply misread him. And about the bishop, as I recall it's the bishop Chiniquy accuses in his book, not Spink. Does he call the bishop his superior and is there a question about that, and if so where does Chiniquy say this so I can check it out, and why dos this matter anyway? Again, I have no idea what you think your post demonstrates, and as Serup has pointed out George got Chiniquy wrong on a number of points so which point is it you want me to deal with and where am I supposed to find it in Chiniquy so I can find out if George is misrepresenting something or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Hi Faith,
Yes, you're right that George was incorrect to say that Chiniquy described how Lincoln influenced the obtaining of a witness. He should have said that Chiniquy described Lincoln recounting how a witness was obtained. But this is an incredibly minor point, and you raised it in rebuttal to a point to which it was completely irrelevant.
This goes all the way back to somebody's accusing Chiniquy of lying that he was on trial for immorality. He was "on trial" WITHIN the trial about the slander suit as his character was being attacked to discredit him further and when the woman who was his supposed victim and her friend Moffat heard this Moffat was persuaded to come and testify against that accusation. The final disposition described in Lincoln's note does not have to mention any of this and Chiniquy does not have to mention that note either for this to be HOW the case came to be dismissed. But even Chiniquy doesn't describe the charge of immorality, and court records are pretty clear that the difference between the two men had nothing to do with moriality:
George writes: Peter Spink, the plaintiff in the case, charged in his complaint that "on or about the 10th day of January A.D. 1854" he was accused by Chiniquy, "in a public assembly," of committing perjury. Apparently the public assembly was a church service, and Chiniquy, then a priest, had announced to his congregation that Spink, a land speculator, was advising clients to enter public lands on which French-Canadians had cut timber. Spink's plan, Chiniquy told his parishioners, was to make the French-Canadians pay for the wood. Spink charged that the accusation was "false and malicious" and had caused his clients to lose confidence in him. As a result Spink was unable "to do business as before, wherefore he was greatly injured and sustained great damage." Spink further charged that the priest had "at divers times before the instituting of this suit - slandered and defamed this deponent." Those statements are recorded in the official complaint, "Sworn and Enscribed," on February 3, 1855, in the circuit court of Kankakee County. The official charge brought by Spink was slander, not immorality. How exactly do you see immorality becoming part of a charges about false accusations of deception about who will pay for wood? At best Chiniquy, at a distance of 25 years, is adding elements to his Urbana story from other problems, namely with Bishop O'Regan amidst rumors of his inappropriate behavior with women, though the eventual charges were of being a schismatic priest. O'Regan excommunicated Chiniquy, who formed his own church and within a couple years merged it with the Presbyterians. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: In fact George DOES quote the order dismissing the case, written by Lincoln, in full. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes they WERE attacking Chiniquy's moral character and you have to dismiss a huge part of Chiniquy's account to make him out to be a liar about that. Moffat came to answer that part of the trial, as reported by Chiniquy and you simply prefer to believe none of that ever happened, SO ready to make the man out to be a liar. So apparently he made up that entire account? Bullshit. OF COURSE there's "no evidence" for Chiniquy's account, his account IS the evidence, and George offers nothing to refute it.
SO WHAT Lincoln preferred to settle such cases out of court? There is nothing in the fact of it's being settled as it was to say HOW it arrived at that point, but for some reason you prefer to make Chiniquy out to be a liar about how it came about. We know there was a trial, a hung trial in May and then another in October so Lincoln didn't get to settle it out of court, but AFTER there had been a trial. And in the second trial they were accusing Chiniquy of moral w4rongdoing, and that's what Moffat came forward about and that's what Chiniquy says got the accusers to throw in the towel and then the case was dismissed on the terms Lincoln described. Nothing George says refutes any of that. Something got lost in my post here and I'm not up to trying to recapture it. But NO YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE AGAINST CHINIQUY, NO YOU HAVE NOT. Nothing but the usual allegations, no evidence. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
HE QUOTES THE HANDWRITTEBN DISMISSAL NOTE< BUT THAT"S NOT WHAT I"M TALKING ABOUT> There IS NOTHING IN THAT NOTE THAT REFUTES Chiniquy's account as I've pointed out a million tijmes already.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I ASS7UME THEY BROUGHT IT UP TO DISCREDIT CH8INIQUY'S CHARACTER AS PART OF THEIR CASE AGAINST HIM. HAVEN'T I SAID THAT ENOUGH TIMES ALREADY? AND WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR YOU TO DIGEST? THERE IS NOTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THAT SORT OF TACTIC IN COURT. AND APPARENTLY IT COULD HAVE LOST CHINIQUY THE CASE IF MOFFAT HADN'T COME FORWARD TO REFUTE IT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
It's an original document. AND it indicates that the case was dismissed by mutual agreement - when Chiniquy claims that Spinks unilaterally abandoned the prosecution. There IS a real issue here and just dismissing it without consideration is not the way to get at the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Faith writes: I have no idea what the point of your post is and I'm not going to slog back through this thread to find out if I did in fact claim this particular quote was a corruption of Chiniquy or whatever. You could click on the "Faith Posts Only" link and find it in a jiffy. Oh, wait, I'll do it for you... Oh, wow, I'm exhausted, took two clicks and 15 seconds. See your Message 153. In rebuttal to my quote of George describing the court records you quoted Serup saying that "George’s source was Charles Chiniquy’s autobiography," and then you followed this up in your Message 167 with this:
Faith in Message 167 writes: "Must be," huh? The fact is that WHAT YOU QUOTED was derived from Chiniquy himself and no other source. So there you go, everything you could ever want to know about how you responded to a description of the historical record with accusations that it was actually misstatements of Chinquy's account.
Spink's accusation is just Spink's accusation, what would you have me address in that? I guess the idea is that Spink saw things differently than Chiniquy? Big deal to that. Chiniquy may have a different view of the matter but his side isn't stated and Serup says George gets him wrong on some points so maybe this is one of them. We're talking about what the court record says. Chiniquy can't have a different opinion of what Spink's complaint said because the complaint is laid out in plain English. George describes the basics of the complaint like this:
George writes: Chiniquy, then a priest, had announced to his congregation that Spink, a land speculator, was advising clients to enter public lands on which French-Canadians had cut timber. Spink's plan, Chiniquy told his parishioners, was to make the French-Canadians pay for the wood. Spink called this slander, claiming that it had hurt his business:
George writes: Spink charged that the accusation was "false and malicious" and had caused his clients to lose confidence in him. As a result Spink was unable "to do business as before, wherefore he was greatly injured and sustained great damage." Spink further charged that the priest had "at divers times before the instituting of this suit - slandered and defamed this deponent." Those statements are recorded in the official complaint, "Sworn and Enscribed," on February 3, 1855, in the circuit court of Kankakee County. So again, where, exactly, do you see charges of immorality playing out in this? Or are you suggesting that Joseph George, a respected historian (now retired) and one time chairman of the history department at Villanova University, misrepresented a court record that many historians examine all the time, being as how Lincoln is still a very active subject of historical research. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Faith writes: Yes they WERE attacking Chiniquy's moral character... Other than Chiniquy's own self-serving account, what is your evidence that the case in Urbana had anything to do with Chiniquy's moral character?
...and you have to dismiss a huge part of Chiniquy's account to make him out to be a liar about that. I never use the word "liar" myself, but the evidence suggests that Chiniquy took great liberties with the truth.
Moffat came to answer that part of the trial, as reported by Chiniquy and you simply prefer to believe none of that ever happened,... No, I don't prefer to believe it. I accept the judgement of history that over a hundred plus years has found little credibility in Chiniquy's book concerning its more spectacular claims, specifically, the Urbana case, the religion of the conspirators, and the claims of connections to the Catholic church and the Jesuits. And from what I understand the historical record to be, the judgement of history looks pretty accurate.
OF COURSE there's "no evidence" for Chiniquy's account, his account IS the evidence,.. Well, this is, of course, wildly wrong. A claim is not evidence.
...and George offers nothing to refute it. George offers the historical record to refute it.
SO WHAT Lincoln preferred to settle such cases out of court? There is nothing in the fact of it's being settled as it was to say HOW it arrived at that point, but for some reason you prefer to make Chiniquy out to be a liar about how it came about. Well, again, liar is your term, not mine, but could you explain how, exactly, you see issues of immorality becoming a part of this dispute about whether Chiniquy was slandering Spink when he charged that Spink was deceiving people about who would have to pay for wood on public lands?
We know there was a trial, a hung trial in May and then another in October so Lincoln didn't get to settle it out of court, but AFTER there had been a trial. And in the second trial they were accusing Chiniquy of moral w4rongdoing, and that's what Moffat came forward about and that's what Chiniquy says got the accusers to throw in the towel and then the case was dismissed on the terms Lincoln described. Nothing George says refutes any of that. Well, this is just another Cosmic Teapot. There's no way to refute 127 year old claims about minutia from 157 years ago, but has any evidence surfaced to support anything Chiniquy has claimed about the Urbana trial, the religion of the conspirators, or the connections to the Catholic church or the Jesuits? Or do Chiniquy's claims, after all this time, still stand without any independent support whatsoever? No letters or notes from Terrien or Moffat or any of the conspirators? No documents from the Vatican archives? No Jesuit apocrypha? No Southern records of Jesuit support? It's been 148 years since the Civil War concluded, and still nothing? As wild as Chiniquy's claims seem to most people, writing a self-serving but inaccurate book while taking great liberties with the truth to place himself in the best possible light concerning the controversial events of his life makes a lot of sense. And so of course the judgement of history that there's nothing to Chiniquy's more fantastical claims seems in perfect accord with the evidence to most people. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Faith writes: I ASS7UME THEY BROUGHT IT UP TO DISCREDIT CH8INIQUY'S CHARACTER AS PART OF THEIR CASE AGAINST HIM. HAVEN'T I SAID THAT ENOUGH TIMES ALREADY? AND WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR YOU TO DIGEST? THERE IS NOTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THAT SORT OF TACTIC IN COURT. AND APPARENTLY IT COULD HAVE LOST CHINIQUY THE CASE IF MOFFAT HADN'T COME FORWARD TO REFUTE IT. Ouch, my eyes. No one is questioning Chiniquy's claims by characterizing them as impossible or incredibly unlikely. They're questioning his claims because there is no evidence for them whatsoever (especially in the written court records), and because they're so incredibly self-serving. If testimony about immorality had occurred in the courtroom during the first two trials, there would be a record of it. As you read Chiniquy's account, do you ever wonder at his ability to recall 30 year-old conversations, or at the fact that no matter who is talking, they all sound the same, especially in their flattery of Chiniquy himself? --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024