Over at his excellent blog
Boston 1775, J.L. Bell
has a post highlighting General Charles Lee's loyalty oath, which he created to essentially divide those loyal to the American cause from those who were not:
I ——— here, in the presence of Almighty God, as I hope for ease, honour, and comfort in this world, and happiness in the world to come, most earnestly, devoutly and religiously swear that I will neither directly or indirectly assist the wicked instruments of ministerial tyranny and villany commonly called the King’s troops and navy, by furnishing them with provisions and refreshments of any kind, unless authorized by the Continental Congress or Legislature at present established in this particular Colony of Rhode Island.
I do also swear, by the Tremendous and Almighty God, that I will neither directly or indirectly convey any intelligence, nor give any advice to the aforesaid enemies described; and that I pledge myself, if I should by any accident get knowledge of such treasons, to inform immediately the Committee of Safety; and as it is justly allowed that when the rights and sacred liberties of a nation or community are invaded, neutrality is not less base and criminal than open and avowed hostility:
I do further swear and pledge myself, as I hope for eternal salvation, that I will, whenever called upon by tho voice of the Continental Congress, or by that of the Legislature of this particular Colony under their authority, take arms and subject myself to military discipline in defence of the common rights and liberties of America. So help me God.
I've never really been all that interested in oaths. To me they are mere weapons of mass distraction that don't really amout to a whole lot either way. But I know that they have been a topic of great interest here at American Creation (especially for our resident oath guru, Ray Soller), so I thought Mr. Bell's article deserved some attention here. Here is what he had to say about Charles Lee's oath:
Of course, the problem with a coerced loyalty oath is that you don’t need to administer it to people who are already loyal while administering it to people who are enemies or neutrals simply makes them feel coerced and more likely to abjure the oath once they get free of the coercion.
And then there’s the question of whether any New Englanders respected a lecture from Lee about what they should “devoutly and religiously swear.” He was admired for many qualities this early in the war, but great piety was not among them.
Less than twelve months after Lee visited Rhode Island, the British military took over the island that includes Newport. That royal authorities held that territory against American assaults until 1779.
5 comments:
Of course, the problem with a coerced loyalty oath is that you don’t need to administer it to people who are already loyal while administering it to people who are enemies or neutrals simply makes them feel coerced and more likely to abjure the oath once they get free of the coercion.
In the modern age, sure. But they took oaths more seriously back then, or at least I think they did. I would think that many Tories, faced with swearing such an oath, were the type to flee to Canada instead.
I would think that there were Anglican ministers who could not take up the cause because they'd sworn loyalty to the king as part of their clerical orders.
Etc.
Anyway, I'd like to see more before concluding that Gen. Lee's Oath had no value. See also legal scholar Sanford Levinson, etc. Interesting stuff.
During
the revolt against Britain George Washington wrote in December 1775: "It is high time a test act was prepared and every man called upon to declare
himself that we may distinguish friends from foes." He successfully urged
all 13 states and the Continental Congress to require oaths or affirmations
of allegiance from all inhabitants without exception.
http://books.google.com/books?id=uzJuy_YSAwIC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=loyalty+oath+continental+congress&source=bl&ots=sjbnkiLdU-&sig=98hrV01Yl326pG3Oqtc1Bhs3CTw&hl=en&ei=VTmCTtq0C4HeiAKYsqmdDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=loyalty%20oath%20continental%20congress&f=false
The loyalty oaths taken during the course of the Revolutionary War produced mixed results, which were mostly determined by the exigencies of the moment like when a British warship docked at Washington's Mount Vernon Estate and sailed away with a hold full of farm produce.
Sorenson's statement that "He [GW] sucessfully urged all 13 states and the Continental Congress to require oaths or affirmations of allegiance from all inhabitants without exception" requires some explanation. (One should note that as for the Continental Congress, the Articles of Confederation did not even mention an oath as being necessay for its delegates.) When Washington's request for a loyalty oath reached Congress, the request backfired. New Jersey, the most war-torn state, and the other states were generally offended, because they felt that General Washington was attempting to trample over state authority. The state delegates, in turn, wanted to show Washington who was in charge, so the Continental Congress legislated an allegiance oath for all officers in the Continental Army. Washington, apparently was slow to respond, and it was only when Congress tied the granting of post-war military and widow pensions to the allegiance oath that GW fell in line and undertook the logistical headache of distributing and collecting the oath certificates signed by his officers in the field.
Here's the reference from To Try Men's Souls, Loyalty Tests in American History, pgs 82-83,
by Harold M. Hyman:
Since Congress particularly feared treason in high military office (eleven of the twelve generals had formerly held royal commissions, and three were English-born Royal Army veterans) it required that nonjurors be cashiered, forfeit two months' pay, and face perpetual exclusion from government service. Optimistically, Congress required all officers to subscribe the new test within twenty days of its proclamation. Washington had more pressing martial duties. Only after repeated importunities from Congress, and the threat of restricting post-war pensions to those who signed immediately, did Wasington finally sign the new oath himself and arrange for his subordinate officers to affirm their loyalty. Washington assembled his generals and all signed except the unpredictable Charles Lee, who hesitated at renouncing the Prince of Wales. Lee finally signed. Benedict Arnold was absent, but signed later.
Do we really want to reject oaths on utilitarian grounds? One can cite an oath violator as evidence that oaths don’t work just like one can cite a sinner as evidence that religion doesn’t work. That’s a bit too easy in each case.
Back then honor was an important character trait and fear of eternal damnation had some sway. Just a thought.
I found the fact that Washington was the driver of it and it just wasn't a one-off by some general to be the interesting part.
In fact, in his Farewell Address, Washington defends religion in public life precisely on the importance of oaths:
"Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?"
Man of honor that he was, Washington would have romanticized the sacredness of the taking of oaths more than the average Joe, but still, I doubt it seemed as absurd back then as it apparently does today.
Post a Comment