tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post6613279154953300703..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Gen. Charles Lee's OathBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-76235715858133421082011-09-29T16:07:09.030-06:002011-09-29T16:07:09.030-06:00I found the fact that Washington was the driver of...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.<br /><br />In fact, in his Farewell Address, Washington defends religion in public life precisely on the importance of oaths:<br /><br /><i>"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?"</i><br /><br />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.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-75239232238339215492011-09-29T06:53:25.958-06:002011-09-29T06:53:25.958-06:00Do we really want to reject oaths on utilitarian g...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.<br /><br />Back then honor was an important character trait and fear of eternal damnation had some sway. Just a thought.Jason Pappashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18233796281520274898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-30867097876494766112011-09-28T08:29:31.954-06:002011-09-28T08:29:31.954-06:00Here's the reference from To Try Men's Sou...Here's the reference from <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=Hyman+-+To+Try+Men%27s+Souls&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7#ds=bo&pq=hyman+try+men's+souls&hl=en&sugexp=pfwc&cp=1&gs_id=a9&xhr=t&q=%22hyman%22+%22To+try+men's+souls%22+%22unpredictable+charles+lee%22&qe=Imh5bWFuIiAiVG8gdHJ5IG1lbidzIHNvdWxzIiAidW5wcmVkaWN0YWJsZSBjaGFybGVzIGxlZSI&qesig=ZOi4t24Sp52tYfH-HYtNHA&pkc=AFgZ2tnIrB3QfxHSs0T3tTV56hrq6DLreUfgPsSZCZh7jcR5TD5-pLLEuGYrVnlYYyXJTPNyUh0HCBDun1jGDr_KgV-Xx9ZC2g&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&rls=com.microsoft:en-us%3AIE-SearchBox&tbm=bks&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=%22hyman%22+%22To+try+men's+souls%22+%22unpredictable+charles+lee%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=4f004465d14b071&biw=1012&bih=592&bs=1" rel="nofollow"><i>To Try Men's Souls, Loyalty Tests in American History</i></a>, pgs 82-83,<br />by Harold M. Hyman:<br /> <br />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 <a href="www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Our_Country_vol_2/generalc_bbe.html" rel="nofollow">Charles Lee</a>, who hesitated at renouncing the Prince of Wales. Lee finally signed. Benedict Arnold was absent, but signed later.Ray Sollerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07950061062767093373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-75856970180582740812011-09-27T22:22:46.752-06:002011-09-27T22:22:46.752-06:00The loyalty oaths taken during the course of the R...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.<br /><br />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 <a href="americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/06/american-tradition-universally.html" rel="nofollow">allegiance oath</a> 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.Ray Sollerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07950061062767093373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-87699594030499318072011-09-27T15:06:05.564-06:002011-09-27T15:06:05.564-06:00Of course, the problem with a coerced loyalty oath...<i>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. </i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Etc.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>During <br />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 <br />himself that we may distinguish friends from foes." He successfully urged <br />all 13 states and the Continental Congress to require oaths or affirmations <br />of allegiance from all inhabitants without exception.</i><br /><br />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=falseTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com