A Presidents' Day Special
On Jan
3, 2014 Ray Soller [that's me] sent a Contact Us message to
NPS [National Park Service] - [New York City] Federal Hall National Memorial. It
said:
I can't believe it. The NPS website, Washington to Obama: Inaugural Traditions, says: Upon speaking those words [prescribed by the Constitution], the newly sworn-in President Washington added 'So help me, God,' a tradition that continues today.The notion that George Washington added SHMG [So help me God] to the presidential oath is a myth, and, consequently, George Washington can not be said to have initiated any such "tradition that continues today."Please consult: “'So Help Me God'”: A George Washington Myth that Should Be Discarded", "No proof Washington said 'so help me God' will Obama ?" , and “'I Do Solemnly Swear . . .' George Washington Takes the First Oath of Office, 1789".I hope the necessary corrections will take place.
This is how NPS Chief of Cultural Resources Steve Laise
responded:
----- Original Message -----From: Laise, SteveTo: Ray SollerSent: Friday, January 17, 2014Subject: Statement on Federal Hall Web SiteDear Mr. Soller,Thank you for your comments about the statement on the Federal Hall web site regarding the phrase "So Help Me God" in connection with George Washington's inaugural oath. After consulting the references you provided, as well as several others on this topic, the statement will be deleted. Instead, the following three sentences will be inserted:"There is some question whether Washington added "So Help Me God" to the inaugural oath prescribed in the Constitution. The few written eyewitness accounts do not mention it. However the phrase "So Help Me God" was included when swearing (or affirming) oaths required in the courts, the military, and other public offices and was an accepted part of such solemn commitments at the time."Given that President Washington also is known to have taken the oath with his had upon a Bible and kissed it afterward, I believe that the statement above fairly represents our present knowledge of the event.I appreciate your interest in the National Park Service and Federal Hall National Memorial.Sincerely,
Steve Laise
Chief of Cultural Resources
Needles to say, I take issue with the blanket response that
says "So Help me God" was included when swearing (or
affirming) oaths required in the courts, the military, and other public offices
and was an accepted part of such solemn commitments at the
time."
Here's why:
1) Except for the some twenty years following the outbreak of the Civil War, adding SHMG was never a required (legislated) part of taking a federal oath for public office, or military service The special oath required for federal judges does include the SHMG codicil, but the judicial appointee can either chose to swear or affirm their oath.
2) Saying that "SHMG was included when ...affirming" is absolutely false.
3) Saying that "The few eyewitness accounts do not mention it" is a gross distortion of what is actually known. The fact is that among many firsthand reports, there are no contemporaneous accounts in which GW is described as having added SHMG. Significantly, we do have three close-up accounts of the swearing-in ceremony. They were recorded by Samuel A. Otis, Senate Secretary (see Otis endnote); Tobias Lear, George Washington's personal secretary; and Comte de Moustier, the French Minister to the U.S. who, at the time, gave a detailed account of the inaugural ceremony in a report he sent back to France. His account repeated the constitutional oath word for word. None of these reports made any mention of SHMG.4) Saying that Oaths ending with the non-biblical SHMG "was an accepted part of such solemn commitments at the time," was not true for members of dissident churches, who held conscientious scruples against such oaths based mainly on Matthew 5:34-37--e.g., "Swear not at all".
After I explained myself to NPS Steve Laise he responded again with an
email of 1/24/2013 which included the following:
Thank you for your most recent message on the topic of the addition of the phrase "So Help Me God" to Washington's inaugural oath. I think at this point that we are in agreement that the question cannot be definitively answered given our present knowledge of the event. We are therefore evaluating probabilities, based on other usages that may (or may not) be relevant. I would therefore respectfully ask that I be allowed to step aside, and allow those with greater knowledge to carry on.
I don't agree that making either false,
exaggerated, or unsubstantiated historical claims, as Masonic literature and the NPS Federal Hall
website has done, boils down to a simple matter of "evaluating
probabilities." It's a matter of performing a comprehensive examination of the
available historical material instead of relying on confabulated historical
claims. If one checks with a notable scholar like Ed Lengel, editor-in-chief of The Papers of George Washington,
who wrote the book, Inventing George Washington, page 105, you'll find his
conclusion:
In sum, any attempt to prove Washington added 'So help me God' requires mental gymnastics of the sort that would do credit to the finest artist of the flying trapeze.
Otis endnote: Journal of the Secretary
of the Senate, Samuel A. Otis, April 30, 1789
The original Otis journal is in the official records of
the U.S. Senate in the National Archives.
Senate Secretary Samuel A. Otis recorded:
"The Secretary of the Senate whose seat was inclined to the right of the Vice-President carrying a bible on a cushion. The President laying his hand on the bible and repeating the oath--after which the President of the United States kissed the book, and the Chancellor proclaimed him President of the United States."
7 comments:
Great stuff as usual Ray.
Ray - I second Jon's big "thank you" for "performing a comprehensive examination of the available historical material instead of relying on confabulated historical claims."
JMS said...
Ray - I second Jon's big "thank you" for "performing a comprehensive examination of the available historical material instead of relying on confabulated historical claims."
Oh, please. Let's cut the bleat.
The National Park Service has devoted a generous number of words to this piece of trivia. in reality, by swearing on a Bible, GWash was swearing "So Help Me God" anyway.
This is the nontrivial truth.
If one checks with a notable scholar like Ed Lengel, editor-in-chief of The Papers of George Washington, who wrote the book, Inventing George Washington, page 105, you'll find his conclusion:
"In sum, any attempt to prove Washington added 'So help me God' requires mental gymnastics of the sort that would do credit to the finest artist of the flying trapeze."
More drama.
Although I'm in sympathy with the opinion that GWash didn't say SHMG [I find Ray Soller's previous argument that GWash was a stickler for formalities], it's far from certain, certainly not enough for embarrassing exhibitions like these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPdIELOvJPU
Adding "So Help Me God" would have been so common a prevailing custom [especially in the State of New York] as to go unnoticed and unremarked upon by the small handful of eyewitnesses who reported on it.
The National Park Service has done justice to the "controversy." Good on them. But that Washington kissed the Bible that he swore upon is beyond dispute, and that's far more "religious" than adding a formulaic "So help me God."
We lose the forest for the trees sometimes. Most of the time, these days.
Tom, thanks for piping in with your anti-bleats and insightful witticisms. Sadly, though, you don't offer anything more to the point than NPS respondent Steve Laise.
What irked me about how Mr. Laise replied is where he said, After consulting the references you provided, as well as several others on this topic, the statement will be deleted. Instead, the following three sentences will be inserted. But when you read the "three sentences" nothing is provided in the way of other "references."
On top of that, when one checks out the recommended websites for Further Reading you find these two references:
Watch a video produced for CBS Sunday Morning about the first inauguration, featuring a Federal Hall Park Ranger: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50139336n
and
The Story of the Washington Bible:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50139336n
Both of these websites support the notion that GW added the formulaic SHMG, and they don't suggest that there's any question about it.
In my book of fair play the least that could be done on a website supported by federal tax money is to include any one of the three references I have already provided.
Both of these websites support the notion that GW added the formulaic SHMG, and they don't suggest that there's any question about it.
In my book of fair play the least that could be done on a website supported by federal tax money is to include any one of the three references I have already provided.
I agree completely, Ray. Neither do I approve of referencing any site that states SHMG as a fact. As prev noted, I lean against, for the exc reasons you give.
I do resist decreeing he definitely didn't say it--I recall a good link we had that argued virtually all NY oaths had it, and thus SHMG would have been so routine it wouldn't have even registered with the eyewitnesses, since few if any would have been aware that the phrasing as set forth in the Constitution doesn't include SHMG.
In fact, you could validly argue that since SHMG was so routine, if he DIDN'T say it, THAT would have been worthy of note!
But if pressed, I'd say it's possible, although not probable.
Cheers.
Tom, at the time of GW's first inauguration, NYS had two different legal forms by which an official oath could be administered:
1) the usual mode, known as the book-oath, which carried over from the days of British Colonial rule where the oath-taker repeated the oath with one hand resting on the Bible, and then kissed it when the oath was completed;
or alternately,
2) a newly legislated form for those who had conscientious scruples concerning the book-oath who were allowed to repeat an oath in the following manner, "I do solemnly swear in the presence of the Almighty dot - dot - dot, so help me God."
Chancellor Livingston, apparently, administered GW's presidential oath in a form that if not officially administered according to NYS statute was, at lest, consistent with NYS statute.
Now with this said, even we assume that all of the firsthand accounts, by some chance, hadn't noticed GW adding a non-biblical, religiously discriminating addendum to the presidential oath, one also has to explain why this same oversight continued without exception until September 20, 1881. Interestingly enough, by this time ending a federal oath was mandated for everyone in the federal government except for the president.
The explanation would be that no swearing-in was as notable or important as Washington's First Inaugural.
As for the formal logic of your position, the formal rebuttal is
"the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
;-}
That said, I tend to agree with you, although not for all the reasons you give.
Post a Comment