In Robert Morrison's 10/31/2013 Family Research
Council article, George Washington’s “So Help
Me God”: Did He or Didn’t He?, he
writes:
Of late, they [the liberals] really got me scratching my head. George Washington didn’t say “So help me God” when he took the oath as our first President, they claim. Really?
I took my wife and little children to Lower Manhattan on April 30, 1989 for the re-enactment of Washington’s First Inaugural. I distinctly recall those words were repeated for that official bicentennial ceremony. (And no, my young friends, I wasn’t there for the events of 1789.)
Atheizers are claiming Washington never said it. Atheizers are folks who, whether they believe in God or not, are determined to eradicate every reference to the Almighty in our public life.
If I am wrong about Washington’s invoking God as he took the oath, as the atheizers maintain, then I have a lot of company in my error. Here are just some of the many sources I’ve consulted over the years.
Chief Justice John Marshall [Sep. 24, 1755 - July 6, 1835] was a contemporary of George Washington. His multi-volume biography, Life of Washington, Vol. IV, contains a plate showing Washington’s oath-taking. His hand is on the open Bible. And this inscription accompanies it.
[Soller notes there's a missing introductory segment here.] On one side stood Chancellor Livingston, who administered the oath. On the other side was Vice-President John Adams Washington solemnly repeated the words of the oath, clearly enunciating, “I swear”: adding in a whisper, with closed eyes, “So help me God.”Reverently, with closed eyes, in a whisper. Maybe that’s why the atheizers missed it.
The article continues by producing a list of
"scholarly sources" with publication dates "that span a period of 124
years" going back to 1889. The book list could have been expanded by going back
to 1854, and, still, Mr. Morrison, as a matter of historical interest, is no
better off, since none of these sources produce a firsthand account from anyone
who described George Washington as having added a religious codicil to his oath
of office.
Now, understandably, a careful reader needs
to ask, "What about Chief Justice John Marshall?" His book dates back to
1807.
Yes, John Marshall was a contemporary of
Washington. Though not present at Washington's first inauguration Marshall
proved himself a capable historian. With that said, the real questions are
1) why did Morrison skip over the introductory segment associated with the
plate portraying Washington’s oath-taking ceremony, and 2) why did Morrison omit
the publication date for his copy of John Marshall's book.
Here's why:
1) what follows is the missing
introductory segment from the inscription that accompanies the plate:
On the balcony of the old City Hall, Broad and Wall Streets, New York, Washington was sworn in as first President of the United States, April 30, 1789. The artist here accurately depicts him wearing a suit of dark brown, at his side a dress sword, and his hair powdered in the fashion of the period. White silk stockings and shoes with simple silver buckles completed his attire.
"The artist here" is Alonzo Chappel (1828–1887). His
fine illustration "showing
Washington’s oath-taking" is from an engraving produced by him, which was
published by Johnson, Frye & Company in
1859, and then copyrighted in 1866. Sadly for
Robert Morrison, and those preoccupied with his same head-scratching mentality
the page in question is twenty-four years too late for John Marshall to have
seen it.
2) the missing publication date for John
Marshall's book tells the reader that he needs to consult the actual
text to find out how Marshall had narrated the inaugural
scene. And for those who are interested, this is what the historian, John
Marshall, wrote:
The ceremonies of the inauguration having been adjusted by congress; on the 30th of April, the president attended in the senate chamber, in order to take, in the presence of both houses, the oath prescribed by the constitution.
To gratify the public curiosity, an open gallery adjoining the senate chamber had been selected by congress, as the place in which the oath should be administered. Having taken it in the view of an immense concourse of people, whose loud and repeated acclamations attested the joy with which his being proclaimed president of the United States inspired them, he returned to the senate chamber where he delivered the following address. - - - ;
14 comments:
Outstanding refutation Ray, as usual.
"Atheizers are claiming ..."
I'm assuming he meant to write, "Trutheizers are claiming ...", as atheists hold no monopoly on seeking accurate and factual historical representations.
Here's a non-atheist perspective on the matter:
http://faithandamericanhistory.wordpress.com/2014/02/27/whats-really-at-stake-in-the-christian-america-debate/
(apologies ahead of time since the article is primarily about David Barton)
via John Fea's place at:\
http://www.philipvickersfithian.com/2014/03/sunday-night-odds-and-ends.html
Jimmyraybob, thanks for the link to Professor Robert Tracy McKenzie's blog, Faith and History - Thinking Christianity and the American Past. No apologies needed.
It does escape some people that there's a lot of "apocryphal" history--stories generated over the centuries that are consistent enough with the truth to be taken without even a grain of salt.
So it is with this one.
However, there certainly have been "atheizers"--"secularizers" would be more accurate--who over the years HAVE deemphasized the role of religion in our history,
either by calculation or honest marxian [race/class/gender] ideological commitment.
When David Barton began his "career," he no doubt believed that the [unreliable] second-hand sources such as the 1854 "So Help Me God" source top which Ray Soller notes here---were reliable, and held truths that had been buried.
Sort of like the global warming thing. Whether or not it's real, there has been much scandal among scientists pushing the issue. That Family Research Council types have no faith in the honesty of the "experts" is hardly surprising. In fact those who swallow the "experts" uncritically are the ones who need a reality check.
http://retractionwatch.com
Ray, Thanks.
I was trying to reconcile the timing issues and looked at the publication date of the edition of the Life of GW that you linked to - 1926 (THE CITIZENS' GUILD OF WASHINGTON'S BOYHOOD HOME FREDERICKSBURG, VA.). Also, in addition to portrait faux pas, most of the other illustrations are black and white photos - hard not to conclude that the 1926 edition was making additions to enhance the Christian image of GW.
Those darn rascally Chistiizers.
Then again, maybe it was just an innocent mistake. Or not. But then again....
Either way, it's a good source for bias confirmation.
As for me, it makes me just as happy if GW said "so help me God" as if he didn't. But, if there's no clear evidence then it remains just a possibility.
Tom Van Dyke writes, Sort of like the global warming thing. Whether or not it's real, there has been much scandal among scientists pushing the issue.
Wildly untrue, but I'm not surprised you'd be the one here that would spread this lie.
Whatever, pal. I'm not going to debate your religion. We don't do that here.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/15/phil-jones-lost-weather-data
The climate expert at the centre of a media storm over the release of emails onto the internet has admitted that he did not follow correct procedures over a key scientific paper.
In an interview with the science journal Nature, Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University East Anglia, admitted it was "not acceptable" that records underpinning a 1990 global warming study have been lost.
The missing records make it impossible to verify claims that rural weather stations in developing China were not significantly moved, as it states in the 1990 paper, which was published in Nature. "It's not acceptable ... [it's] not best practice," Jones said.
Stuff like this, or the numerous errors in Al Gore's propaganda movie, rightly made people doubt the warmists.
This is not to "deny" global warming, which is clear to the careful reader of my original comment.
Now go back to your left-wing echo chamber, Michael. Your personal attacks are apparently permitted there.
Tom VanDyke writes, "I'm not going to debate your religion. We don't do that here.
[...]
Now go back to your left-wing echo chamber, Michael. Your personal attacks are apparently permitted there."
Uh, you raised the topic, not me. I merely called you out for defaming climate scientists.
And just like it's defamatory to lie about climate scientists as you do in this thread, you also do the same here with me by falsely claiming my calling you out on defaming others somehow makes that "my religion". Uh no, that does not compute.
I always find it ironic how you go off on red herrings falsehoods and when called out on your misrepresentations, falsely accuse your responders for changing the topic as we see here. That's some nuclear grade psychological projection going on there from two perspectives:
1) Your changing the topic and then complaining when somebody directly responds to you where you then complain that they're not supposed to change the topic.
2) Complaining about my "personal attacks" on you when you're the one defaming others. I'm merely pointing out your demonstrably bad behavior.
Global warming is the least productive exchange I've ever seen on the internet. I've had my say and you've had yours. Now please take your personal attacks back over to your Bearded Spock Universe, Michael.
Tom Van Dyke writes, "Global warming is the least productive exchange I've ever seen on the internet. I've had my say and you've had yours."
My posts were not about global warming, instead they were about you defaming an entire group of people.
You don't seem to understand the "personal" in "personal attack," Michael. I defamed nobody.
FTR, the very existence of the secret email back-channel among peer reviewers at East Anglia to co-ordinate their "messaging" on global warming is an ethical breach. [Much like the secret left-left wing email cabal of "JournoList."]
Make all the excuses you want, go convince people that these people haven't betrayed the public's trust. [Preferably somewhere else.]
"FTR, the very existence of the secret email back-channel among peer reviewers at East Anglia to co-ordinate their "messaging" on global warming is an ethical breach."
Michael, while I appreciate your attempt at rational discussion, it's really pointless with Tom. He's interested in only one thing and that's to catapult as much rightwing bullshit as possible. He's fighting a culture war and if your not with him you are an enemy. Absolutely everything is a left-right culture war battle with him.
The quote above is a good example of a conservative meem that's been investigated to death with no unethical findings. Tom just hates modernity and "scientism." As you point out, it has nothing to do with the post or discussion - it's just an attempt to poison.
Sorry for not falling into your trap on East Anglia. To repeat what I actually said, the very existence of the secret email back-channel among peer reviewers at East Anglia to co-ordinate their "messaging" on global warming is an ethical breach. [Much like the secret left-left wing email cabal of "JournoList."]
As for the culture wars, they certainly do exist and they're not of my devising.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/03/06/american-atheists-work-to-keep-wtc-cross-out-of-911-museum/
FTR:
http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/Climategate_Opinion_and_Loss_of_Trust_1.pdf
The respondents were then asked: “Have these stories about the controversial emails caused you to have more or less trust in climate scientists?” Over half (53%) said that the stories had caused them to have much less (29%) or somewhat less (24%) trust in scientists, while 43 percent said it had not affected their level of trust. Five percent said they had more trust in scientists as a result of the news stories.
Finally, respondents were asked several questions to investigate the conclusions they had
reached about the scandal itself and its wider meaning for the issue of global warming. Of those
Americans paying attention to the story, 69 percent said that they somewhat (36%) or strongly
agreed (33%) with the statement: “Scientists changed their results to make global warming
appear worse than it is”. Likewise, 66 percent somewhat (33%) or strongly agreed (33%)
that: “Scientists conspired to suppress global warming research they disagreed with.”
Again, I don't take a position on the content of the secret back-channel emails here, only that they caused a loss of trust by much of the public.
Distrusting scientists is not the same as distrusting "science." But scientists are no less dishonest than normal people.
;-P
http://retractionwatch.com/
Post a Comment