Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Don't Know Much About History - K. C. Davis

On June 21 Kenneth C. Davis released an updated version of his book, Don't Know Much About History, Anniversary Edition - 2011. I examined an online version to see how Davis would implement a much needed update to the section from his 2003 edition in which he described the basics for George Washington's first inaugural ceremony. You can turn to the section, Who elected George Washington the first President?, and read a paragraph on page 131 which tells about the presidential oath of office, and there encounter, "Custom, not constitutional directive, dictates that the president-elect place his left hand on a Bible and keep his right hand slightly raised for the duration of the oath." -- and here comes the curveball --"When George Washington took the oath in 1789, he ad libbed a bit and added the words, 'So help me God" at the end of the oath. Since then, every president has customarily said the same words."

The "So help me God" tagline fails credibility, because we now know better. Recent scholarship shows that there's is no known contemporaneous account that substantiates George Washington swearing to anything other than what is prescribed by the Constitution. On top of that, unless Ken Davis is clairvoyant, the "ad libbed" part can't be taken seriously. (Other commentators have parroted, "Washington spontaneously added 'So help me God.'") Furthermore, the "every president" assertion is pure hokum, and Davis should have known that. (See Don't Know Much About Anything, 2007, Answer No, 5, page 272.)

Being the stickler for facts that I am, I expressed my concerns, and sent an e-mail to the publisher. This got no response. After I spotted a similar yarn in another Davis book, America's Hidden History (2009) I tried again. See page 232:
On April 30, 1789, George Washington stood on the balcony of Federal Hall in New York City, the temporary capital. He took the oath of office on a Masonic Bible, ad-libbing the words "So help me God," which the oath of office as specified in the Constitution does not require.
This time I received a response:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Davis"
To: "Ray Soller"
Sent: January 20, 2011 8:14 PM
Subject: Message from the Website

Ron Chernow also addresses this question in his new book on Washington and my book will be edited to reflect this changed view.

Ken Davis

So, if we move on to this new 2011 "Revised, updated and expanded edition of the classic bestseller" and look at the same page 131, this is how the author's "changed view" checks out:
Custom, not constitutional directive, dictates that the president-elect place his left hand on a Bible and keep his right hand slightly raised for the duration of the oath. When George Washington took the oath in 1789, he ad libbed a bit and added the words, "so help me God" at the end of his oath, according to legend. This report is disputed. [my italics] Since then, every president has customarily said the same words.
After reading this edited paragraph, I had to wonder, "What was that?" I mean, it comes across as being unreasonably garbled. Instead, I propose that something like the following, which is less confusing, much more accurate, and even fits into the same allocated space, be substituted:
Custom, not constitutional directive, advises that the president-elect place his left hand on a Bible and raise his right hand during the presidential oath. It is often told, despite there being no proof, that in 1789 when George Washington took his oath, he added "so help me God." Even so, modern-day presidents include these words and believe they are following Washington's example.
I don't know about anyone else, but I think the author of the book, Don't Know Much About History, needs to examine the facts:
1) Starting with the colonial era, the "custom" of swearing on a Bible did not, generally speaking, carry on without dissent. It was seen as an obligation dictated and strictly enforced by officials delegated by both the British Crown and the Church of England. By April 30, 1789, New York State statute had already mandated that the bible-oath, as carried forward from the colonial era, be administered in the usual and customary mode.

2) While most presidential inaugurations have included a Bible, all indications are that after the federal government left New York City and when an appointed federal judge was available to administer Washington's oath for his second term, there is no sign of a Bible being used. With the exception of Andrew Jackson, there's no mention of a Bible being used until James Polk's inauguration on Mar 4, 1845. In addition, both Calvin Coolidge's 1923, and Theodore Roosevelt's 1901 swearing-in ceremony are two other examples, where a Bible-oath did not occur.

3) There is no known contemporaneous account for our nation's first inauguration that suggests George Washington pronounced anything other than what is spelled out by the United States Constitution.

4) The published notion that Washington added the words, "So help me God," to his oath made its debut in 1854. One can dispute whether it was Rufus W. Griswold or Washington Irving who first promoted this claim, but the mistaken proposition that George Washington began an identifiable custom of adding a religious tagline to the presidential oath doesn't surface for another century.

5) Most presidents are not known as having added "So help me God" to their oath of office. The ritualized practice of adding these four words to the presidential oath did not begin until FDR's 1933 inauguration. Four years later, the vice-president and president both for the first time shared the same inaugural stage. Then in 1937, 1941, and again in 1945 FDR continued to add "So help me God," but now in the afterglow of the vice president's standard federal oath. As might be expected, Truman, Eisenhower, and JFK did the same, thereby setting a pattern that was magically imagined as tracing back to George Washington.

Newsflash: I just received this e-mail message from Kenneth C. Davis:
We can discuss the [presidential] Oath of Office issue again soon. But I thought you might be interested in this piece [Why U.S. is not a Christian nation] appearing on cnn.com today [July 4, 2011 9:10 a.m. EDT]

6 comments:

Tom Van Dyke said...

Ray, in my disinterested opinion, Davis correction/addendum of

"according to legend"

acknowledges yr objection. I read that as "possible, but unsubstantiated as fact" or even "not impossible, but unsubstantiable as fact."

"This report is disputed" seems superfluous and actually clouds the waters more. Since Davis is going for as few words as possible in this massive overview---not wanting to get into the tall weeds off the thing---he should have left it at "according to legend."

Since then, every president has customarily said the same words.

"Every president" is grossly inaccurate. Yr objection sustained!

"Many presidents have" is enough for a massive overview of the type Davis is attempting. "Some" would connote too few, "most" is probably too extravagant. "Many" to me connotes 60-40 either way, unobjectionable.

___________

I think Davis' CNN essay stinks to high heaven, unworthy of an historian, esp in its declaration that the "Christian nation" question is closed in favor of "no."

As our friend Dr. Fea writes--as do some of us around here as well--it's far too complicated a question to leave to a handful of factoids and the Treaty of Tripoli.

I'm not impressed with this Davis fellow, Ray, either or both for your reasons or mine. Shoddy work.

Anonymous said...

Are you seriously suggesting that America was not a profoundly Christian nation and society in 18th and 19th Century?

How could this be possibly be so?

Sounds to me that you are projecting your beliefs and desires on the historical record. You engage in historical revisionism. Your only sources appears to be secondary pseudo-histories written by left of center academics and "writers" of dubious intent and integrity. Furthermore, you project you own feelings and experiences on the matter. An example: merely because you have a distant relationship with the RC church, even though you were baptized n that confession, it cannot be rationally extrapolated that the founders had a similar circumstances. This is a wholly unfunded allegation based not on anything but you imagination. I would point out as well that this amount to a accusation that the founders were lairs, cynics and hypocrites, and that their public utterances were somehow "coded speech". One doubts that all of this is true.

You seem to not be able to understand the age that you woild describe, but rather use that age to describe the current one.

I would not, BTW, be proud to be featured on CNN if I were. That pack of Media Maoists have particularly vile agenda. Their support harms and not helps you "argument". The only way this could be viewed as positive would be if you too are a Leftist. Are you? It is certainly starting to look that way.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Anonymous I don't know who you are responding to. I think it was me because of the Roman Catholic line.

"Furthermore, you project you own feelings and experiences on the matter. An example: merely because you have a distant relationship with the RC church, even though you were baptized n that confession, it cannot be rationally extrapolated that the founders had a similar circumstances."

I did no such thing. Rather I used a personal example to illustrate a common sense point not to confuse formal/nominal affiliation with actual beliefs. All of the Founders, including Jefferson and Franklin had nominal connections to orthodox churches. Yet they were not "Christians" in a way that would satisfy an evangelical's standard.

I tend to take their public God talk at their word and do not read in or out anything into their public utterances.

Re the oaths issue it's more complicated. As I noted, there is no evidence that 50+/55 took "oaths" to their churches' official doctrines. However, some of them did; and there ARE some examples, like Jefferson becoming a vestrymen of taking oaths to doctrines in which one personally rejects to achieve an "end." Finally, I'll point out again, the Anglicans when they took their oaths pledged loyalty to the crown. Simply rebelling against the crown as they did in 1776 would make them "lairs, cynics and hypocrites" according to your standard.

Ray Soller said...

Tom, thanks for the comment. Obama is our 44th President. The last thirteen presidents added SHMG. There might have been up to five presidents who added SHMG before that. That adds up to no more than eighteen presidents who have added SHMG, which means most presidents are not known to have added SHMG.

I grant the possibility that some legends can be true, so that if Adams and every other president who followed GW did indeed add SHMG, then one could dispute the legendary characterization by the numbers and believe the legend to be true. But that's not the case.

What's interesting about KC is his March 26, 2004 New York Times Opinion article,
Jefferson, Madison, Newdow? would have been more compelling if he had been aware of the evidence for GW having said SHMG being a legend.

As for his CNN article KC deserves more than just a "shoddy work" write-off. Other than his use of the Treaty of Tripoli factoid, how about your critiquing his article with a few more specifics.

Ray Soller said...

Here are two more two more not so shoddy, good reads by Kenneth C, Davis: 1) America's True History of Religious Tolerance, Smithsonian magazine, October 2010, and 2) Highlights in the History of a 'Christian Nation', Huffingto Post, 05/12/2011.

Tom Van Dyke said...

The last thirteen presidents added SHMG. There might have been up to five presidents who added SHMG before that. That adds up to no more than eighteen presidents who have added SHMG

Ah, if true, "some presidents" would fit. I'd probably write "some but definitely not all," but that's more a term of art.

As for Davis at CNN, I gave my reasons why: he attempts to close the book on the whole discussion with a handful of quotes from the usual handful of suspects, the T of T, and the questionable premise that "America" began with the ratification of the Constitution. Poppycock.