It's Incontrovertible, "So Help Me God" Stays Put

The Newdow v. Roberts case is still hovering about. In a recent ruling dated May 07, 2010, Janice Rogers Brown, a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, effectively declared that when the Supreme Court Chief Justice of the United States administers the presidential oath, it's incontrovertible, "so help me God" stays put (at least, for now).

Unfortunately, when Judge Brown directed her attention towards Michael Newdow et al, and expressed her view dealing with the historical context surrounding the questioned practice of adding a religious codicil to the presidential oath, she appears to be woefully uninformed:

Plaintiffs do not claim President Obama's recitation of "So help me God" at the conclusion of his oath injured them. See Br. [*18] for Appellants at 38. The President cannot be denied the prerogative of making such a religious reference, they concede, because doing so would abrogate his First Amendment rights. See Tr. of Oral Argument at 10-11. For sure, if it were otherwise, George Washington could not have begun the tradition by appending "So help me God" to his own oath; ... .

The obvious problem with this comment – for those who have examined Newdow's original brief or have otherwise done their homework – is there is no known firsthand account that descibes George Washington as having deviated from the presidential oath as explicitly defined by the United States Constitution. Consequently, the claim that George Washington started a tradition of adding "so help me God" is a bridge much too far, since it apparently took another 165 years for this so-called "tradition" to receive any public notice. (See here for an early prominent example dating back to 1961.)

In a concurring opinion, Judge Brett Kavanaugh compared the addition of "so help me God" to the presidential oath to the legislative prayer upheld in Marsh:

Like the legislative prayer in Marsh, the words “so help me God” in the Presidential oath are not proselytizing or otherwise exploitative. Moreover, like the practice of legislative prayer, use of “so help me God” in oaths for government officials is deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition. By many accounts, George Washington said “so help me God” when he took the first Presidential oath in New York on April 30, 1789. The First Congress – the same Congress that drafted and approved the First Amendment – mandated “so help me God” in the oaths of office for federal judges.

…

Under Marsh and other Supreme Court precedents, the Establishment Clause permits “so help me God” in the official Presidential oath.

According to the above mentioned historical-like sound bites, Judge Kavanaugh thinks he has completely validated the inclusion of "so help me God" during the administration of the presidential oath by citing practices "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition." First off, the necessary obligations required for the presidential oath are spelled out by the United States Constitution, and unlike legislative prayer, this obligation has never been subject to legislative action or First Amendment concern. Secondly, Kavanaugh relies upon several legendary law journal shibboleths in building his case: 1) of the "many accounts" that describe George Washington's first inauguration none has ever claimed to have heard Washington recite the presidential oath but for what was actually prescribed by the Constitution; 2) the legislated inclusion of "so help me God" to the standard federal oath did not occur until the outbreak of the Civil War; 3) even if we assume that Washington could have added a non-constitutional "so help me God" to his oath of office, there still is a gap of ninety-two years before a subsequent president is known to have repeated this so-called "tradition;" and, finally, 4) even if one includes New York State Chancellor Robert Livingston, there is no known record of any judicial officer who prompted a president to conclude his oath with "so help me God" any earlier than FDR's 1933 inauguration.

It is true, but somewhat misleading, to say: The First Congress – the same Congress that drafted and approved the First Amendment – mandated “so help me God” in the oaths of office for federal judges. All Department of Justice employees swear to the standard federal oath. The oath for appointed federal judges does not replace this standard federal oath, which, as proposed by the First Federal Congress and signed into law on June 1, 1789 by President Washington, did not include the phrase "so help me God." In the special case of the additional judicial oath, it is not, as implied by Judge Kavanaugh, strictly prescribed as a singular mandate, because every judicial candidate has always been able to omit saying "so help me God" by affirming the oath.

Now, with all this said and just as one might expect, on June 9th, little more than a month after Judges Brown and Kavanaugh had their say, the undaunted Michael Newdow challenged their ruling, and filed a petition for an en banc rehearing of the case, Newdow v. Roberts. So, if Newdow's petition is granted, the cadre of D. C. district judges will get another crack at whether or not the correct wording of the presidential oath includes "so help me God." Stay tuned.

In Defense of "So Help me God"

In recent tradition, the words "so help me God" have been added to the oath taken by the incoming President of the United States, with many assuming that this addition goes back to the inauguration of George Washington. Whether this is true has been challenged by secularists - fellow American Creation contributor Ray Soller being one of the leaders in this fight.

The presidential oath according to the United States Constitution reads as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The Most Important Question

If a President were required to utter words outside of the constitutionally prescribed oath - words including "so help me God" - then I would agree with Mr. Soller and others that the Constitution has been transgressed.

However, if a President - by his own choice - adds "so help me God" to the oath, he (and, in the future, she) is well within his rights to do so. No secularist has the right to tell an incoming President that he can't ask for God's help in adhering to the oath of office.

To tell an incoming President that he can't add "so help me God" to the oath is a clear infringement of that President's freedom of speech. The same applies, by the way, if a President were to say "so help me, Allah" or "so help me, America" or "so help me, Harvey" (remember the Jimmy Stewart movie?).

A President has the right to add whatever words he wishes to the end of the oath. Why? Because the oath has already been administered.

Did George Washington say "So Help me God"?

There is no way to scentifically prove whether Washington added "so help me God" to his inaugural oath, because there's no way any of us can directly observe Washington's inauguration. Until time travel is invented, we're out of luck! Scientific proof is, after all, based on observation.



Can we historically prove it? Mr. Soller and others have done a great job in showing that no contemporaneous account exists to prove that Washington added "so help me God" to the oath, other than that of then six-year old Washington Irving. (I personally think they are wrong to so cavalierly dismiss Irving's credibility, but I'll set that aside for now).

However, one of the most disturbing trends in our postmodern, media-saturated society is that we have frankly become much too cynical. We call everything into question that doesn't fit with our postmodern worldview and for which we don't have multiple attestation -- attestation, that is, from sources that we're comfortable with.

Now, I'm all for prudence and healty skepticism. But we've gone to ridiculous extremes in recent years, as Australian scholar Keith Windschuttle so articulately points out in The Killing of History.

If we need contemporaneous, on-the-spot validation for everything, then we've just undermined virtually all that we know from ancient, medieval, and early modern history. For instance, remember that the earliest biography of Alexander the Great was written 400 years after the man's death!

The truth is that we have a claim that Washington added "so help me God" to the oath. Yes, the claim emerged 60 years later - but the claim comes from someone who was present at the event.

Is the claim consistent with what President Washington did at the inauguration? The answer is yes. Washington took the oath on the Bible. That is not disputed, and (I would add) not required under the Constitution. What's more, Washington very explicitly called on the nation to pray during his inaugural address.

Here's what Washington said of God, prayer, and the nation in his First Inaugural:

"...it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency..."

I find it interesting that secularists so often challenge things like whether Washington was an "orthodox" Christian or whether he actually added "so help me God" to the oath. These serve to distract from some rather clear FACTS about George Washington, namely that he:

• Devoutly believed in God


• Believed in prayer


• Called on the nation to pray and give homage to God


• Considered the United States "bound to acknowledge and adore" God

This just scratches the surface, but these can hardly be considered the sentiments of a secularist or a Deist.

So WHAT if you prove somehow (and, by the way, you can't) that Washington didn't say "so help me God" at the end of the presidential oath. You've only proven a technicality.

The record is clear. George Washington believed in God and was encouraging all Americans to likewise believe in and submit to God. Whether the secularists today are comfortable with this is immaterial.

What's more, the tradition of adding "so help me God" to the presidential oath will likely continue. Not so much because George Washington did it. Even if Mr. Soller and others are successful in "proving" that Washington didn't say it, the tradition will likely continue. Why? Because virtually all of our Presidents have believed in God. And it's not likely that the American people will elect an atheist to the highest office of the land anytime soon.

*********

Addendum: Allow me to add (in light of some of the comments) that I agree enough doubt has been raised by those questioning the "so help me God" tradition that historians and the US government should acknowledge the dispute over when the "so help me God" tradition began.

I will further accept that the Chief Justice (or whichever court official administering the oath) should stick to the constitutionally prescribed oath. The only exception to this would be IF the incoming President expresses his or her plans to add "so help me God" (or "so help me Allah" or whatever) to the oath. In that event, I have no problem with the Chief Justice accommodating the incoming President. The only problem would be if the incoming President chose to remove portions from the oath.

All that having been said, at this point, "so help me God" has become a part of the tradition, and a majority of the American people expect and are comfortable with the President saying those words. It's unlikely that the American people will elect an atheist to the presidency anytime soon.

Over at the Addicting Info blog

Over at the Addicting Info blog you can find a 10/5/2011 article, The Christianization of Early American History and the Perpetrating Fraud, David Barton by Jay R. Adams.  For all that David Barton has had to say, even the most unsuspecting author can parrot fraudulent history. The following snippet from the Adams article is a case in point:

Even the executive oath, explicitly prescribed in Article II is devoid of any religious litmus. “So help me God” was first affirmed verbally by George Washington and since repeated as customary tribute to our first President.

It's commonplace to see the myth about Washington's presidential oath repeated without question, but the myth has no basis in fact. One should realize, there's a serious problem here on two counts:

There is no firsthand account describing George Washington as having inflated the presidential oath of office by adding "So help me God." (See 1/7/2009, USA Today - No proof Washington said 'so help me God' ;1/11/2009 - "So Help Me God": A George Washington Myth That Should be Discarded - Prof. Peter Henriques.)

Currently, as far as one can determine, the practice of adding a religious codicil, "since repeated as customary tribute to our first President," never became an infused part of our national consciousness until January 20, 1961.

Competent researchers at the Papers of George Washington (Ed Lengel), the Documentary History of the First Federal Congress Project (Charlene Bickford), and the Library of Congress are on record as saying that there is no contemporaneous evidence showing that George Washington added "So help me God" to his oath of office. This unsubstantiated notion that Washington added "so help me God" made its debut sixty-five years after the event (1854) with the assistance of "Reverend" Rufus Wilmot Griswold. It is possible, Griswold may have picked up parts of his inaugural narrative from a prior conversation he had with Washington Irving. And, as expected, three years later (1857), when Irving wrote his five volume biography of George Washington he repeated the "So help me God" tidbit without citing a personal recollection or identifying a possible source. For those who still rely on Washington Irving's six-year old so-called "recollection" of the event, they ignore the fact that Irving shows absolutely no credibility because the bulk of his inaugural narrative was plagiarized from the Memoir of the Life of Eliza S[usan] M[orton] Quincy (see footnote at bottom of page 52).

The fact is that most presidents are not known to have added "So help me God" to their oath, and according to the historical record there are very few instances where there's any cause for doubt. The first president who is known to have included a religious tagline as part of his inaugural ceremony is Chester A. Arthur who on 22 September 1881 was sworn in as president after the death of President Garfield. We have to wait until the first part of the twentieth century before we can find an example where an elected president took up this extra-constitutional practice. In 1929 President Hoover was the last president who stayed true to the presidential oath as prescribed by the Constitution. In 1933 FDR started the unbroken practice of adding "So help me God" to the presidential oath. Still, for all of this time, there's no known record of anyone trying to say that adding a religious codicil to the oath was a practice that started with George Washington.

Regretfully, regardless of what the facts may be, come Sunday, January 20, 1957, on the eve of President Eisenhower's official inaugural ceremony we have Pulitzer-prize, Civil War author, Bruce Catton issuing a Los Angeles Times article, " ... So help me God," where he said:

The words George Washington added were for all of us, in all times George Washington was a man inspired -- and his inspiration has come down to all of us, coloring the environment in which we live.

When he became the first President of the United States, he was called on to recite a formal oath of office. It obliged him to repeat these words: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Washington stood on a covered portico looking out over downtown New York, one hand resting on a Bible, and the other raised in the air. Dutifully he repeated these words, which over the years would become hackneyed, almost meaningless, with much repetition. Then he added words not in the script. After reciting the formal oath, he put in a short sentence of his own:""So help me God."

Every President since has added those words. They have now become part of the ritual; and it is a good part, an essential part, pledging more than was originally intended when the oath was written. For Washington, taking on himself the immeasurable responsibility of guiding and leading the American people, looked into his own heart and found a need which he expressed in four words: "So help me God." He spoke not only for all future Presidents, but for the rest of us too.

[ . . . ]

Saying those words, Washington spoke for all of us.

Four years later (1961/1962), Philip B. Kurland synthesized the following gem: "There is hoary tradition for this: George Washington added the words 'so help me God' to his presidential oath and every successor has done the same."

After that the "So help me God" myth became even more popular. Some commentators realized that there were some notable exceptions to the "every president" storyline (i.e. Franklin Pierce, Theodore Roosevelt, and Herbert Hoover) so they modified the "every president" claim to say "virtually every president," "almost every president," or "most presidents." Now, even if one chooses to say, "[succeeding presidents] repeated [So help me God] as customary tribute to our first President," that's still incorrect, because there's simply no way to show that Washington actually added those four words to his presidential oath.

Did Washington Ask God for Help at His First Inauguration?

Whether George Washington invoked God's name at the end of his official presidential oath has become a debate that obscures a more obvious truth, one that sheds light more on the man himself than on any ideological agenda in today's so-called Culture War. The man who took the oath of office in April 1789 was scared to death of what might become of his beloved country and his almost equally beloved reputation. He wanted all the providential help he could get.

Did Washington Say "So Help Me God"?

Did George Washington add "so help me God" to the presidential oath? That question has become one of the flashpoints in today's so-called Culture War. And American Creation's Ray Soller continues the debate in a well-researched, articulate response (see "Jerry-Rigging the Presidential Oath With The Wall Builders") to David Barton's claim that Washington indeed said the words (see "Did George Washington Actually Say 'So Help Me God' During His Inauguration?"). (Note: I would link to Mr. Soller's article, but the title link goes to a different post by Mr. Soller than the one I'm trying to reference).

I've blogged about Washington's first inauguration before (see "Facts About George Washington's Inauguration") and have addressed the issue of Washington and SHMG in numerous posts and discussions here at American Creation. There's little value in repeating all that again. I will simply say that I believe Washington said the words, but I acknowledge I can't prove it. No one can prove the issue one way or the other. But, if I may ask your indulgence, let's take a moment and reflect on this question from a different angle.

The Wrong Question?

In my opinion, the issue of whether Washington said "so help me God" is a pointless dispute in the so-called Culture War. Those who want a completely secular presidential oath already have their wish, in that the legal oath, as prescribed in the Constitution, makes no mention of God. What's more, the Constitution expressly forbids any religious test for federal office. It is unconstitutional and improper for the one administering the oath to require or demand (by coercision, intimidation, or manipulation) that the President-elect append "so help me God" to the oath. Those who desire a secular presidential oath already have their wish.

Likewise, for faith-oriented conservatives caught up in the so-called Culture War, this is the wrong battle. So what if George Washington added "so help me God" to the presidential oath? For the first time around, he probably did. The second time around, he probably didn't. Then again, he may not have said "so help me God" at either time. Do social conservatives really want to pin so much on this one dispute?

I mean no disrespect to anyone with strong feelings on this issue. I applaud the desire of anyone to get at the truth, to uncover the facts, and/or to better understand our nation's history. Ray Soller here at American Creation has done a commendable job in pointing out the lack of evidence surrounding the assumption made by many over the years that Washington added "so help me God" to the presidential oath. And Mr. Soller does well in responding to David Barton's latest attempt to argue that the Washington SHMG tradition is accurate. Nevertheless, after reading the arguments of both men, I once again come to the inescapable truth that neither side can provide verifiable proof. We just don't know whether Washington said the words or not.

I personally like how Ron Chernow handles the issue in his biography Washington: A Life. Chernow writes: "Legend has it that [Washington] added 'So help me God,' though this line was first reported sixty-five years later. Whether or not Washington actually said it, very few people would have heard him anyway, since his voice was soft and breathy." Nicely done. I personally would've said "tradition" instead of "legend," but I like how Chernow handles the matter, especially how he only devotes a couple sentences to it, and then moves on.

The debate over Washington and SHMG will likely continue, but I don't think this calls for the kind of emotion that's been devoted to it. If Washington said "so help me God," that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution itself (which supersedes Washington in authority and importance) doesn't call for the words to be added. Even if Washington added "so help me God," everyone present would've understood it to be a personal addition to the legally prescribed oath. Washington's addition (if indeed he said the words) did not alter the official oath, nor did it change the Constitution's prohibition of a religious test. When a President-elect says "so help me God" after the oath, he is simply adding his personal sentiment. He's not writing law. He is asking God to help him fulfill his legal obligations.

On the other hand, if Washington did not say "so help me God," that hardly makes him a secular Deist who wanted to distance God from government. Washington's First Inaugural Address, which contains overt religious themes, puts to rest any possible misunderstanding along those lines. No matter whether Washington said the words "so help me God" or not, the historical fact is that the first President of the United States wove religious imagery and sentiment into his inauguration. No one can dispute this, as the record is abundantly clear.

A Glimpse into Washington's Mind

Fisher Ames recorded that Washington looked "grave, almost to sadness" at the time of his inauguration. One senator said the President-elect was "agitated and embarrassed." These men noticed how Washington felt, which was, as he confessed to his friend Henry Knox, as a "culprit who is going to the place of his execution." Washington felt the enormous strain of responsibility being thrust upon his shoulders, along with the unrealistic expectations of so many of his countrymen. Who wouldn't be a little stressed? And who wouldn't want a little help?

I believe this is what we are missing when we debate the issue of "so help me God." If Washington indeed said the words, it wasn't to make some kind of political point, and I think he'd be very disappointed if activists today tried to do so. Rather, Washington was genuinely vexed, and he sincerely needed help from Divine Providence. This much is certain when one looks at the Inaugural Address itself.

In his Inaugural Address, the newly sworn-in President confessed that "no event could have filled me with greater anxieties" than being called upon to serve as President. He referred to the "the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my country called me" and cited his own "inferior endowments." He admitted he was "peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies," and in that context, he moved to the religious portion of his speech, in which he declared:

"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge."

This isn't Washington trying to be a culture warrior. It's Washington confessing his fear and anxiety (albeit in a strained, formal, 18th century manner) and confidently asserting that God can compensate for "every human defect." To the extent that this is a statement in the so-called Culture War today, it's only because the United States has become more culturally and religiously diverse - and more distant from our heritage (the latter not necessarily being a good thing). In the 18th century, no one would've heard these words with offense. They would've welcomed them as an affirmation of Washington's humility and faith, qualities they desired in a leader. If one were to ask the attendees that day if they heard or thought Washington had asked God for help after his inauguration, all of them would have pointed to his Inaugural Address as opposed to what he may or may not have whispered following the legal oath.

Whether Washington said "so help me God" or not after his oath is simply not a relevant issue to the Culture War. For that matter, neither is the debate over the painting of Washington praying at Valley Forge. The painting may very well be apocryphal in how it depicts Washington, but does anyone seriously doubt Washington prayed during the long winter at Valley Forge - at least once or twice!? Washington was a man of prayer, and there were times in his life (such as at Valley Forge and when taking the oath of office as President) that he needed God and turned to prayer. No credible historian disputes this. The evidence is clear.

Once again, I mean no disrespect to anyone engaged in this debate. I commend both Mr. Barton and Mr. Soller for well-written essays. Mr. Soller, in particular, has written extensively on the subject, and I applaud his research. But I do (respectfully) feel we're losing sight of the forest for the trees. When it comes to Washington's inauguration, let's not allow a peripheral debate to obscure what is of much greater interest and importance, that of gaining insight into the mind of George Washington and the extraordinary challenges he faced when becoming our first President.

Three minutes on C-Span with Gordon Wood

or

Listening to What's in the Air and Watching the Waves

September 5, 2010 - In Depth with Gordon Wood - 1:20:15

Host (Peter Slen): One more question about religion and then we're going to move on, but this is from Ray Soller whom you have communicated with in the past, and he has sent us a new e-mail that you and he exchanged. He [on Aug. 31, 2010] had written to [both C-Span and] you:

In your book, Empire of Liberty, you, in a footnote, comment that "[t]here is no contemporary evidence that he [George Washington] also said 'so help me God' at the end of the oath; the matter is very controversial today."

Soller: What was skipped over by the host, Peter Slen, is that I had also cited the entire footnote:

See Forrest Church, So help me God: The Founding Fathers and the Great Battle over Church and State, (New York, 2007), 445-49. Since the Judiciary Act of 1789 declared that the oath to be sworn by the justices of the Supreme Court and the other federal judges included the phrase "So help me God," it is likely that Washington may have also used the phrase (1 Cong. Ch. 20, 1 Stat. 73, Sec. 8). I owe this information to Steven G. Calabresi.

Host: And that's in your footnote in Empire of Liberty.
Soller: Again, what was skipped over by the host is that I had also said:

My basic question is "Did Forrest Church get it right when he wrote the Appendix chapter, Did George Washington Say "So Help Me God"? I mean, in view of the facts that 1) a long letter by the French foreign minister provided a detailed account of Washington's inaugural ceremony that recorded the president's oath of office without including the words "so help me God," and 2) the bulk of Washington Irving's 1857 narrative of the event is known to have been plagiarized from the memoirs of Eliza Susan Morton Quincy, who was a teenager at the time of the inauguration; how can you still favor the notion that Washington had added "so help me God" to his oath?

I also need ask why you feel that the Judiciary Act of [September 24] 1789 seems to have had more of an influence on how Washington recited the presidential oath than the first bill Washington signed into law on June 1st 1789 that contained the standard oath for all federal employees except for the president. Peter Henriques, the author of Realistic Visionary, A Portrait of George Washington, wrote a 1-12-09 History News Network article, "So Help Me God”: A George Washington Myth that Should Be Discarded, came to the opposite conclusion based on his review of the House and Senate deliberations regarding the standard federal oath.

Host: And then you [Gordon Wood, just an hour later,] wrote to Mr. Soller:

I have no idea whether he said that phrase and no one else does either. Everyone is guessing. George Washington was not someone who liked to create waves so that if the phrase was expected he probably would have used it. But I don't know with any certainty. [I find it fascinating that people today care so much. GSW]

Host: Now, Mr. Soller has e-mailed [both C-Span and] you here today [actually, four days earlier], and he said:

Thank you for responding, but I still hope the question, in one form or another, as to whether George Washington added "So help me God" to his oath will come up during the C-Span interview.

You are correct Professor Wood, ultimately, everyone is guessing, though some guesses are more reasonably formulated than others. However, it is not a guess to say that there are no firsthand accounts that support the notion of George Washington adding "So help me God" to his oath.

Soller: I didn't stop there. I also said:

It is unfortunate that the Senate Historical Office under the direct supervision of the Senate Rules Committee does not recognize what is actually known about GW's swearing-in ceremony when it comes to its Facts and Firsts website (accessed 9/13/2010). Here, the website states in the entry for GW's inauguration on April 30, 1789,"First Inauguration; precedents set include the phrase, "So help me God," and kissing the Bible after taking the oath." No correction has been made even though staff members at the Senate Historical Office are currently aware of the inaccurate nature of their assertion, and this is a big reason why I care so much about this question.

Guest (Gordon Wood): That's right, but there is contemporary evidence that he did kiss the Bible – after the oath. So we had somebody who witnessed that. And the question then is did he say "So help me God"? Well, what's interesting is that the Judiciary Act of [Sep. 24,] 1789, which was passed shortly after his inauguration [April 30, 1789] in that same year, did prescribe for judges an oath, which does include "So help me God." So it may have been in the air. People might have expected it, although it is not in the constitution – the oath as prescribed in the constitution does not – does not say anything about God. So there's where we are. You can make up your mind. What I think is fascinating is the interest in this, because the stakes seem high for people. If you can show that he said or did not say that phrase, then certain things follow from that. I'm not sure we want our politics to hinge on that one fact.

Host: Did the news accounts at the time [report it] – nobody reported it?

Guest: No, nobody reported it.

Host: So where does the contemporary evidence come from?

Guest: You mean at the time, there was no contemporary evidence?

Host: No, today.

Guest: It's from what I said before - the fact that he kissed the Bible and that the Judiciary Act which was passed that same year did prescribe for the oath for judges that they say "so help me God." So you can deduce from that that maybe he said it. That's all we have. It seems to me I'm happy to just leave it at that. But others, lots of people want it settled for reasons that have to do with contemporary political life.

Soller: Please note, on 1/25/2009 the Balkinization blog featured Steve Calabresi on the Oath Controversy (recall the footnote shown above), where Calabrisi settled the matter this way:

The addition of the words including the President’s name (in this case “Barack Hussein Obama”) and “so help me God” are permissible both because they do not take away any of the words the Constitution mandates and because two centuries of practice starting with George Washington himself have established that the addition of these words is permissible.

Soller: Yeah right?! - that's a line from Scot Turow's book, Presumed Innocent.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Special thanks to Pinky, who alerted us all at American Creation to the September 5, 2010 C-Span interview with Gordon Wood; to Todd Andrlik over at RagLinen.com for providing the link to the "contemporary evidence that he did kiss the Bible – after the oath"; and myself for providing Gordon Wood with a full transcription of the Lear letter to which he referred at 1:01:40 into the interview.

Article II, Section 1.8 of the U.S. Constitution

In view of the current 220th year anniversary for George Washington's First Inauguration and as a follow-up to the Comments made to my earlier post, David Barton and His Seven Signs, here are a pair of e-mails, arranged in chronological order, between myself and Dr. Fred Beuttler, Deputy Historian of the House, and myself (Ray Soller).

From: Raymond Soller
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 9:35 AM
To: Office of the Historian
Subject: Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution
Historian,
In response to the January 22, 2009 question by Mr. A.P. from the Netherlands asking for the reason why the VP's oath is longer than the presidential oath I found the following statement:

When George Washington was inaugurated as the first President of the United States on 30 April 1789 in New York City, he added the phrase, “So help me God” at the end of the oath of office. It has been in place ever since.

The story that Washington added a religious codicil to his oath of office is not supported by any known contemporary or subsequent firsthand account. I don't know exactly what is meant by "It has been in place ever since," but if we skip over the Sept. 22, 1881 swearing-in ceremony for Chester A. Arthur [after the death of President Garfield], then we can safely say that no elected president is known to have departed from the constitutional oath until the early part of the twentieth century. Herbert Hoover was the last president whose oath was administered as prescribed by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. It has only been since FDR that all presidents have been prompted to conclude their oath with "So help me God."  

My question is: Does the Office of the Historian have any documented facts to support the notion that George Washington added "So help me God" to the presidential oath?
Is it possible that your office missed out on Dr. Donald Kennon's January 14th briefing, but nevertheless I do appreciate (see 28 minutes into the video), at the U. S. Department of State Foreign Press Center?
Reply requested,
Ray Soller

----- Response -----
From: Beuttler, Fred
To: Raymond Soller
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 6:10 PM
Subject: RE: Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution
Dear Mr. Soller,
Thank you for your response to our web post. You are technically correct, and that phrase we used in that answer was overly definitive. It was an oversimplification of a historically complex incident. While it is possible, and indeed probable, that Washington used the phrase, “so help me God,” the record is silent as to whether or not he actually did say it.
Thank you as well for pointing out my friend and colleague Don Kennon’s remarks, although I think he went too far in implying that the absence of a direct source affirms the contrary position. While no direct reference to Washington’s use of the phrase “so help me God” has been found, it is quite possible for him to have added that at the end of the presidential oath. He had no scruples against seeking divine guidance for his administration, as indeed he does in his inaugural address. His “fervent supplications to that Almighty Being …” and his “homage to the Great Author of every public and private good” suggest that he would affirm the sentiment of “so help me God.” Further, the phrase was required of most oaths at the time, a commonplace in English and most American state oaths.
The evidence as to Washington’s use of the phrase is circumstantial, but for most things in the past, that is probably as close as it gets. Washington did bring a Bible to the oath ceremony; he also “repeated” the constitutional oath of office with “devout fervency.” And he also performed this remarkable act, according to at least one [anonymous - RS] eyewitness: “he bowed down and kissed the sacred volume.” (“Extract from a letter from New York, May 3,” in THE FEDERAL GAZETTE, May 8, 1789, p.3) Now, why would he do that? What Washington was most likely doing was following the custom of English monarchs, who in the eighteenth century, and even now, take their oath of office (including the phrase “so help me God”), and then bow down and kiss the Bible. [my italics]
One could look as well to the precedent of the House of Representatives. A little over three weeks before Washington’s inauguration, the House was sworn in, on April 6, 1789 [the date was April 8th - RS], with an [ad hoc] oath to uphold the Constitution, “so help me God.” While the records of the Senate are silent as to their oath of office, it was clear that when Washington said his oath, at least [no, only] the Representatives themselves had recently taken an [ad hoc - RS] oath of office with the phrase, “so help me God.” [The Senate record is not silent. It wasn't until June 3, 1789 that Senate President John Adams administered the official legislated oath to all Senators, which had been signed into law by President Washington on June 1st.]
Did Washington end his oath of office with the phrase “so help me God”? As far as recent historians have been able to discover, the record is silent as to whether he said it or did not say it. The direct evidence for or against is equal on both sides. Given the historical and congressional context, however, along with Washington’s seeming use of the monarchial precedents and his willingness to invoke divine aid at most opportunities, it seems plausible that Washington did say “so help me God,” after the oath of office and before kissing the Bible. Indeed, it seems more plausible to think that no one thought to record such a commonplace as worthy of note, than that Washington purposefully omitted the phrase, and that no one mentioned that omission. Otherwise, why would he kiss the Bible?
So, clearly, it is possible, that Washington said “so help me God,” and with the circumstantial evidence, it is probably likely, although not certain, that he said it.
But you are correct, in saying that the tradition of saying “so help me God,” in presidential oaths (unlike in congressionally mandated oaths), did not begin with Washington, but developed later, unlike the tradition of taking the oath on a Bible, which did originate with our first president.
[end of e-mail exchange]

Two things should be noted about Dr. Beuttler's answer to Mr. A. P. of the Netherlands: first off, Dr. Beuttler never actually answered the question as to why the the Vice-President's oath is much longer than the president's oath, and secondly, after my first e-mail to Dr. Beuttler, he, to his credit, modified his response shown on the internet so that it now reads:

When George Washington was inaugurated as the first President of the United States on 30 April 1789 in New York City, he probably [my italics] added the phrase, “So help me God” at the end of the oath of office. It has been added by most presidents in the past century.

As for Dr. Beuttler's response to me regarding the notion that Washington brought a Bible to his oath ceremony, that is not substantiated by anything in the historical record, and it is this fact that needs to be addressed before anyone can properly understand why Washington placed his hand on the Bible and after the oath was completed bowed down to kiss the Bible.

Even with Dr. Beuttler's bible gaff, he still tries to build his case for Washington having probably concluded his oath with "So help me God" by asking the question, "Now, why would he do that [bow down and kiss the bible]?," and then he continues by answering his own question with the following:

What Washington was most likely doing was following the custom of English monarchs, who in the eighteenth century, and even now, take their oath of office (including the phrase “so help me God”), and then bow down and kiss the Bible.

Dr. Beuttler is not the first one to suggest the possiblility that Washington followed the custom set by the coronation of English kings and queens. In August of 1980, Martin Jay Medhurst stressed this possiblility in his dissertation, ’God Bless the President’: The Rhetoric of Inaugural Prayer (See "A Ceremonial Pattern," pgs 61-62.)

Another possible model, much closer to Washington's personal experiences, is that of the oaths taken during Masonic initiatory rituals. Though rarely considered, this could be a possibility.

A central problem with either of these possibilities is that Washington was known as a festidious planner and was not known to leave any loose ends which would need resolution at the last minute, such as locating a Bible for his swearing-in ceremony. In addition, it's been noted by respectable historians that it would be very unlike Washington to take it upon himself to modify the text for the presidential oath as prescribed by Article II, Section 1.8 of the United States Constitution:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Forrest Church: So help me God & The First Great Battle

My first encounter with Forrest Church's book, So help me God: The Founding Fathers and The First Great Battle Over Church and State, was when I read a July 03, 2006, preview article, This Year, Lots of Fireworks Over The Founders' Faith, by G. Jeffrey MacDonald, correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor. As soon as I finished reading the article, I shot off an e-mail to Jeffrey MacDonald explaining:

I hope Rev. Forrest Church, author of the forthcoming So Help Me God: Presidential Faith and Religious Politics in the Early Republic ... , will find a new title to his book, because none of the Founding Fathers, who were elected President, are known to have used the words, "So help me God," when they were inaugurated.

When Forrest Church's book was finally published, the title did change, but the So-help-me-God part stayed the same, and, for good measure, I found out that Church included an Appendix in his book with the subtitle Did George Washington say "So help me God"? Needless to say, given the title of his book, Church defends the tradition where Washington is thought of having added a "sacred codicil" to his presidential oath.

I ordered the book, read the book, listened to several promotional interviews, and engaged Forrest Church in a discussion regarding what actually took place during Washington's first inauguration, which the author considers to be something of a minor skirmish in The First Great Battle Over Church and State. (You can find a published edition of Church's book here.) Several interesting promotional interviews are available. My selection for the best one was broadcast on The Tavis Smiley Show. Here's a snippet:

Tavis: . . . Tell me about this title, "So Help Me, God." We hear that phrase all the time. Why it as the title of the text?

Church: Well, in the oath of office, the inaugural oath of office that's set in the Constitution, it's a purely secular oath. And when George Washington was inaugurated the first time, when he got done with the oath as it was presented to him, he added the words "so help me, God."

Tavis: Impromptu.

Church: Impromptu, although I think he was scripted by his managers at that point. But that has become part of the presidential - it's a mantra.

I recently happened across an online article, Defining the moving line between church and state, March 9, 2008, by Howard Barnes (a professor of history at Winston-Salem State University) in the Winston-Salem Journal that summarized Forrest Church's book. I sent Professor Barnes an e-mail because his article had repeated Church's position regarding Washington having said "So help me God." Howard Barnes told me that he appreciated the information I had sent, and wished he had this information when he had written his article. He went on to indicate that he "wouldn't mind" if I added my "correction" as a Comment. I jumped at the opportunity, only to find out that the comment window was limited to 3,000 characters. (For best results, the reader should, at least, skim through Church's Appendix before continuing.) After much cutting back here's the final result:

Readers Comments

Posted by (raySoller) on June 6, 2008

In reviewing Forrest Church's book Professor Barnes writes:

According to several eyewitnesses (which the author affirms to be reliable), Washington not only ended his first inauguration ceremony with an oath on a borrowed Bible, but also added "so help me God" and bent down and reverently kissed the Bible.

Please note, two different issues are at stake. The first is whether Washington kissed the Bible, and the second is whether Washington added "So help me God."

There are four known firsthand accounts for Washington having kissed the Bible, but there are no known firsthand accounts saying that Washington added "So help me God" to his oath. Consequently, the first issue is not in doubt.

However, when it comes to the Appendix, where Forrest Church defends the notion that Washington added a sacred codicil to his oath, this is a very different matter. First off, Washington Irving was not the first person who claimed that Washington said "So help me God." This notion made its debut in 1854 when Rufus W. Griswold wrote his book, Republican Court. Many feel that Griswold used Washington Irving as his source, but that hardly matters, since Irving is not a reliable source.

According to Griswold, Washington Irving (age six) was not in a position to have reliably seen or heard what took place on the balcony some 200 feet away. Regardless, this didn't stop Griswold from saying that Washington had his "eyes closed" when he swore his oath, and it didn't stop Irving from having to refresh his "memory" by plagiarizing from the Memoirs of Eliza S. Morton Quincy.

Another problem relates to Church's misleading description of the oath that was approved for federal employees. There is no record that the God acknowledgements in the ad hoc House oath of April 6, 1789 were ever treated as part of the formal oath that was signed into law. In fact, from April 23rd, the day Washington arrived in New York, through to May 22nd, the date Congress submitted the bill to the President, there was no mention of any congressional disagreement when it came to the wording of the oath.

Of all the problems in Church's Appendix the most serious one stems from a bad case of mistaken identity. The "David Humphreys" of the Pennsylvania Mercury article has absolutely no connection to Washington's principal aide. He is actually Daniel Humphreys the newspaper editor, and the article is only a snippet selected from a very lengthy letter to the editor, Mr. Humphreys, that was serialized for nearly a month. Finally, on May 9th it is signed by Apocalypsophilos.

Forrest Church has acknowledged his error by saying, "I needn't have included that piece to begin with, and it doesn't change my sense that Washington is more likely than not to have said "So help me God" when he was inaugurated, though you will note that I nowhere claim that we can be certain about this." My response is, "Why does one prefix a title with an uncertainty?"

I just can't understand why Forrest Church chose to start the title of his book with an uncertainty. I couldn't understand why he did this when I first read the Christian Science Monitor article by Jeffrey MacDonald, and I can't do any better today.

George Washington, the Oath of Office, and So Help Me God

At the request of Barack Obama, Chief Justice John Roberts today added the words "So Help Me God" to the presidential oath, continuing a tradition that -- at least -- dates back to Chester A. Arthur and may go back even further.

The Debate Over Four Simple Words

Objections to adding "So Help Me God" have intensified in recent years, due to activists such as Michael Newdow and American Creation's very own Ray Soller. They contend that prompting an incoming President to say "so help me God" amounts to a "religious test" (which, of course, is expressly forbidden by our Constitution) and that it's not reflective of the will of the Founders. This latter point is in dispute, as historical tradition generally holds that "so help me God" was added by our first President, the Father of our Country, George Washington.

Here is where the debate gets intense. The secularists (for lack of a better term) insist that there's no direct, eyewitness testimony to place "so help me God" on the lips of President Washington at his inauguration. They contend it's a historical "legend" fostered by Washington Irving. Since Washington didn't say the words, they contend, modern Presidents should not either.

Unraveling the Real Agenda Against "So Help Me God"

There are several fundamental flaws with the secularist argument:

1. Not all "legends" are false. There are many things in history we call "legend" and which we do NOT know to be false. In other words, the jury is out on some of them. In some cases, the legend may, in fact, be true (or at least close to the truth). And, in the cases where it's not true, it may still be partly true or at least be based on true events.

2. Assertion isn't reality. Secularists can't have it both ways. On the one hand, they claim that the oft-repeated tradition that Washington added "so help me God" shouldn't be believed, simply because it's been repeated over the years. Okay. Fine. If that's the case, then let's apply the same logic the other way. Just because secularists are now calling Washington's "so help me God" addition a "myth" doesn't make it a myth. The truth (the real truth) stands apart from our assertions - regardless of which side we're on.

3. There is a difference between "oral tradition" and a "legend" or "myth." By calling an event or claim of history a "legend," one automatically calls it into question. This is the power of language. Yet, if we analyze this issue carefully, it's more appropriate to call Washington Irving's recollection of George Washington's inaugural swearing-in "oral tradition" and not a "legend." And oral tradition carries weight in historical circles (or at least it used to).

4. The absence of direct evidence doesn't automatically overturn historical tradition, which itself is bolstered by indirect evidence. The best way to illustrate this point is by example. How early did people celebrate Christmas? The earliest known reference to the celebration of Christmas (as an official feast or celebration on December 25) is in the mid-4th century. Does that mean that this was the earliest Christmas was celebrated? Not necessarily. It only means that we lack documentary proof of Christmas celebrations prior to the mid-4th century. Likewise, the ONLY thing that Mr. Soller, Mr. Newdow, and others have established (and that Mount Vernon and the Library of Congress have conceded) is that there's no direct, documentary evidence to prove that Washington said "so help me God." Forgive the double negative here, but this does NOT automatically or necessarily prove that Washington didn't say the words.

5. Secularists argue that George Washington was a stickler for rule and detail, and that it would have been "uncharacteristic" for him to add "so help me God" to the presidential oath. This is another example of the secularists picking and choosing their facts. The argument that it would have been uncharacteristic for Washington to add "so help me God" is one of the most foolish contentions made in this debate. One only needs to read Washington's First Inaugural Address to see that our first President intentionally and emphatically made God a part of the proceedings.

"...it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either...."

Now read this next part VERY CAREFULLY....

"... You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence."

George Washington makes it clear (for those willing to see clearly, that is) that the "proceedings" of the inauguration of the new government - the one over which Washington would preside - should be "commenced" with "fervent supplications to the Almighty Being who rules over the universe." And that the American people should obey and adore the "Invisible Hand" (see the full text of the speech) that providentially guides the nation.

You're going to tell me that it would have been UNCHARACTERISTIC for George Washington (after saying all the above - and more - about God) to have said (even if it were only a whisper) "so help me God" at the end of the oath!!!????

*****

To hear me interviewed on this subject, visit "Why The Controversy Over Religion at the Inaugural?" over at the "American Revolution & Founding Era" blog.

*****

6. If Washington said "so help me God" at the end of the oath, it was probably uttered as a personal sentiment (from his standpoint) and not as part of any official oath. I believe Washington would AGREE with the argument that a Chief Justice shouldn't require an incoming President to say "so help me God." For that matter, I agree with that point. The Constitution is clear that no religious test can be forced on a federal official, but....

The Constitution is also clear that we have the right to the "free exercise" of our religion. And, quite frankly, that includes incoming Presidents.

As to whether a President should have to opt-IN as opposed to opting OUT of saying the words, let me simply point to a few democratic realities. Depending on what poll you read, 85-95% of the American people believe in God. Similar polls have shown that the American people overwhelmingly want their President to be a person of faith. Given this reality, it's clear that the culture (and that includes inaugural ceremonies) will reflect the majority will of the people.

7. The First Amendment doesn't protect anyone from being offended or uncomfortable. This idea that our public square has to be free from all religious verbage or symbolism because it makes some people feel "uncomfortable" or it "offends" them is, frankly, a pile of what old farmers call fertilizer. Now, I don't mean to be impolite here, but this really gets me frustrated. I remember a few years ago, students in a public school voted something like 490 to 96 to have STUDENT-led prayer over the loudspeaker in the mornings. Well, some folks on the losing side of that vote do what many liberal activists do when they can't win at the ballot box - they sued in court. And the courts, typical of liberal judicial activism, ruled against those 490 students!

This is the same thing - only at a bigger level. You've got, what, 10% or (I'll be generous) 20% of the American people who want a 100% secular public square (with no mention of God whatsoever), and they are trying to force that into reality via the court system.

For one thing, a 100% secular public square (with no mention of God) is nowhere near what the Founding Fathers envisioned! And for another, it's not what an overwhelming majority of the American people want.

I appreciate the time and scholarship that many people, including our own Mr. Soller, have put into this issue. And I always appreciate it when people engage in civic participation.

But, in my opinion, this issue has been blown way out of proportion. The phrase "much adoo about nothing" comes to mind!

If the American people ever elect an atheist President, THEN and ONLY THEN will secularists like Messrs. Newdow and Soller have a case to make. But the day Americans vote in an atheist for President is probably a long way off - and, in my opinion, I'm glad for that. And I'm sure the Founders would be as well.

So help me, "G W" --- The Library of Congress, they just don't get it!

In a Baptist Press February 7, 2005, article, Sekulow debates Newdow on church and state relationship, author Michael Foust reported the highlights of a radio program that had taken place three days earlier. One of the featured moments in which Washington's inaugural oath was mentioned follows:

The two men even disagreed as to whether George Washington added the phrase "so help me God" to the oath of office when sworn in.

"It turns out, that ... at least in my research, nobody has been able to verify that George Washington said, 'so help me God,'" Newdow said. "I'm already up to James Monroe, and nobody has ever been able to say that any of those presidents have ever said, 'so help me God.'"

Sekulow countered: "I've got some history books I'll show you that will help."

According to the Library of Congress Sekulow was right. The library's website says that Washington added the phrase "so help me God," and other presidents -- including Bush -- have done so, too.

After the Jay Sekulow and Michael Newdow debate, sideline spectators have been quoting the Library of Congress as if it were the final authority on this issue. Somehow, it seemed like if someone cited the Library of Congress it was just like quoting scripture from the Bible. However, anyone, who at that time would ask the Library of Congress as to what was their primary source for claiming that George Washington had added "So help me God" to his oath, would invariably meet up with either Dr. Marvin Kranz, or Gerry Gawalt. (Marvin Kranz was already on record as saying that Washington had added a religious codicil to his oath - see Jan 20, 2005, CBS article, The Evolution Of The Inauguration by Bill Plante).
As a result of a communication I had with Michael Newdow, I started sending queries to the Library of Congress. In early November 2005 I received my first response from the LOC Digital Reference Team. It explained:

Librarian 1: We apologize for not updating you on the status of your question. We have heard back from the staff in charge of the "'I Do Solemnly Swear . . .': Presidential Inaugurations" collection. They contacted Gerry Gawalt, a specialist in the Library's Manuscript Division, about your question. After speaking with him, they forwarded us the following response:

"[Gerry Gawalt says] that Douglas S. Freeman, Washington's preeminent biographer, cites a Tobis [sp. Tobias] Lear letter of May 3, 1789, to George A. Washington as evidence that Washington added "So Help Me God." While we don't have that letter, Gerry is willing to accept Freeman's work."

If you would like to follow up on this this response, you can contact the Manuscript Division directly, addressing your message to Gerry Gawalt, using the web form at: Ask a Librarian.

Later, as a result of contacting Gawalt, he told me that his information had been passed down from Dr. Marvin Kranz, who had recently retired.

I was soon able to meet up with Freeman's Oath - reference. When actually reading the document, as anyone can see, there's no reference to Washington adding a religious codicil to his oath. I then notified Gerry Gawalt that Freeman's cited reference to the Lear letter did not support LOC's claim that Washington had established a tradition by saying "So help me God."

As a result of this new information, some changes have taken place at the Library of Congress as illustrated by an e-mail exchange between Miss Elementary History Teacher and the Library of Congress. See History Is Elementary blog, May 18, 2006, Myth busting 'So help me God'

My email [from Elementary History Teacher] to the Library of Congress reads as follows:

Our students have been researching various presidents over the last few days. We have found several different Internet sites regarding the inauguration of George Washington and the words "so help me God". Many people have quoted the Library of Congress as their source for stating that GW did add those words to the end of his oath of office. What is the definitive answer to this question? We have
found other Internet postings and sites that report there are no primary sources
that state GW stated "so help me God". Thanks for your help.

Librarian Number 3 of the American Memory Team responded:

I am afraid there is no definitive answer to that question. Some testify that he did, others are silent.

As one student said, “Well, that was a lot of help!”

In contrast, here's a more candid instance where LOC shows some recognition that the notion of having Washington add "so help me God" to his "oath is not supported by any eyewitness accounts." It shows up in a Sept/Oct 2006 e-mail exchange between Barbara Clark Smith (Curator, Politics and Reform, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution), and Jurretta Heckscher (Research Specialist, Digital Reference Team, The Library of Congress). The background story as to just how these parties came in possession of the material they cited is the subject of a future blog.

No matter, even with this new information in hands of personnel at the Library of Congress, it hasn't made a noticeable difference. Whatever the facts, the Library of Congress continues to display the same information at their website, Inaugurals of Presidents of the United States: Some Precedents and Notable Events.

So help me, "G W" --- The Library of Congress, they just don't get it!

1789 - "So help me God" Goes AWOL & the Bickford E-mail

In my previous post, 2001 - Thundering on the Metroliner with Washington's Inaugural Bible, June 18, 2008, I noted how Philander Chase responded to WP reporter, Phil McCombs, by saying, "Whether Washington actually added 'So help me God' to the oath is not supported by any eyewitness accounts." Unfortunately, over the next few years Chase’s "newsflash" just slipped away without gaining any suitable recognition.

However, in June 2004, Charles P. Riley, the Director of Education at the White House Historical Association, sent an e-mail with an inquiry to Charlene B. Bickford, Director of the Documentary History of the First Federal Congress Project at George Washington University. (Riley was gathering background information for the planned exhibit at the White House Visitor Center, as part of the upcoming 2005 Presidential Inauguration.) The e-mail asked, “What is the source for the ‘fact’ that Washington added ‘So help me God’ to the end of the Constitutionally required oath at his inauguration?”

Bickford then consulted with several colleagues, one of whom turned out to be Philander D. Chase. Bickford and Chase both conducted a thorough review through all of the available firsthand historical material, and found no evidence to support the claim that George Washington had added "So help me God" to his presidential oath. In addition, the editors of other presidential papers (John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison) were consulted, and they, likewise, could find no proof that these early founders had said “So help me God” at their respective inaugural ceremonies. In particular, Barbara Oberg of the Papers of Thomas Jefferson responded with an emphatic, “TJ, no way Jose!”

As a result, Bickford replied to the Riley e-mail by explaining how they were unable to locate any contemporary account that could substantiate whether George Washington had concluded his oath of office with those words. (The impact of Bickford's reply can be seen at WHHA Online Shows - I Do Solemnly Swear. Please notice how the unsubstantiated "So help me God" is missing.)

In November, 2004, Michael Newdow, the legal and research-minded egalitarian, while poring through the Annals of the First Congressional Congress to find additional material for his Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit, discovered that the ad hoc oath administered to the House members present on April 8, 1789, concluded with the words, "So help me God." Suprisingly, though, Newdow also learned while examining the very first bill passed by Congress, An Act to regulate the Time and Manner of administering certain Oaths, that "So help me God" had apparently gone absent without leave. This prompted him to send an e-mail to the Director of the First Federal Congress Project at George Washington University to see whether he could find anything more about what had happened.

Consequently, near the end of November, Charlene Bickford received an inquiry from Michael Newdow concerning what was known about the congressional oath of office for the House members of the First Congressional Congress. A copy of the reply appears in Appendix G of the legal brief “Newdow v. Bush - The Inaugural Case (See U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia; Bush Inaugural Prayer Lawsuit #1 (2005); EXHIBIT B - H, 2005-01-16 and scroll down to Appendix G). An edited transcription of Bickford's actual reply follows [text inserted within brackets is for the sake of clarity]:

Appendix G

E-MAIL FROM CHARLENE BICKFORD
DIRECTOR, FIRST FEDERAL CONGRESS PROJECT
[George Washington University]
Subj: Re: God and First Congress
Date: 11/29/04 12:47:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: Charlene Bickford
To: Michael Newdow
Dear Mike,
Interestingly this issue of oaths has come up in another context recently. The [Education] director of the White House Historical Society [Charles P. Riley] asked what was the source for the "fact" that Washington added "So help me God" to the end of the Constitutionally required oath at his inauguration. After much back and forth with the editors of the "Papers of George Washington" [namely, Senior Editor Philander D. Chase, University of Virginia] and research in the sources [Documentary History of the First Federal Congress] that we have here, we were unable to locate any contemporary account [among the many eyewitness & newspaper accounts] that reported that he said those words. In fact, the only contemporary account that repeats the oath, a letter of the French consul, Comte de Moustier, states only the constitutional oath [DHFFC," Vol. 15, pages 404-405. (See Comment listed below)]. We now believe that Washington consciously (he rarely did something that wasn't very calculated) repeated only the prescribed oath with no reference to God to show strict adherence to the Constitution. The first report [written 65 years later, The Republican Court: or American Society in the Days of Washington, pg. 141, Rufus W. Griswold, 1854] that we have located that says he concluded with "So help me God" is secondhand from someone [probably Washington Irving] who would have been about eight years old [actually six-years old] when he attended the inauguration.
[end of e-mail]

It is relatively easy to conjure up the notion in which Washington can be seen as having added "So help me God" to his oath of office, but, in contrast, it is abundantly clear from what is documented by the historical record from the time of Washington's Inauguration up until the Civil War that for all oaths (except for oaths inside the courtroom) administered to federal civil servants "So help me God" had gone AWOL.

Noah Feldman Responds to a Ray Soller E-mail

This is the September 6, 2015 e-mail Ray Soller sent to BloombergView columnist, Noah Feldman, to which he referred in his 9/11/2015 column, What ‘So Help Me God’ Meant to George Washington.

Dear Prof. Feldman,

 In your 9/3/2015 BlombergView article [What the Oath of Office Means to a Kentucky Clerk] you wrote:

Of course, the oath of office prescribed by the U.S. Constitution doesn’t include those words [So help me God]. George Washington famously added them after taking the oath of office as president, and  tradition has maintained them.

 dot - dot - dot

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with doing like Washington and adding God to the oath. But the key point is that doing so is a personal decision -- not an official or professional one. And the consequence of that distinction is all-important.

 It would have been a big help to your article, if you had been aware that GW did not add a religious tagline to the end of his presidential oath. Please check out the article, “So help Me God”: A George Washington Myth That Should be Discarded, by Peter Henriques. 

Chester A. Arthur is the first president who is reliably known to have inflated his oath of office by the four extra-constitutional, non-biblical  words, “So help me God.” Herbert Hoover is the last president who is known not to have uttered them. It’s only since FDR’s 1933 inauguration  that tradition has maintained them as a part of each following inaugural ceremony.

Even when it comes to whether Washington swore his oath on a Bible as a matter of personal choice that can’t be ascertained with any assurance, because no one knows exactly why a Bible was included as part of our first president’s inaugural ceremony on April 30, 1789. We do know that Chancellor Robert Livingston administered Washington’s oath of office in a manner that was completely consistent with the New York State Usual Mode of Administering an Oath. (In contrast, from what we know, a Bible was neither planned for nor included at GW’s second inauguration.)

At first Noah Feldman responded with an ever-so-short message that said, “Thank you for this reference. – NRF”

Soon after, on 9/11/2015, NRF posted another column to the internet that led off with the ambitious title, What ‘So Help Me God’ Meant to George Washington. The first paragraph mentions my 9/6/2015 e-mail and gets to the point by saying:

Did George Washington add the words “so help me God” to the constitutionally prescribed oath of office when he was sworn in as president on April 30, 1789? I’ve always thought so, and when discussing Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s misinterpretation of her oath of office last week, I wrote that the U.S. Constitution doesn't include the words but that Washington “famously added them.” Immediately I received an e-mail [from American Creation blogger, Ray Soller,] citing an essay [by Peter Henriques] that claims this widely held view was in fact a myth, unsubstantiated by contemporary historical evidence and derived from a doubtful childhood memory by Washington Irving. I read the essay, and then found counterarguments [mainly by David Barton] on the web and in a good old-fashioned book [by Forrest Church].

For those who care to look at a critique of the David Barton argument see here, and for those who care to pursue an examination of the old-fashioned “book,” So help me God, The First Great Battle - Appendix by Forrest Church see here.

NRF then, very lawyer like, cherry-picks through the internet to answer the question, So what is the truth?, regarding whether GW said SHMG. To no surprise NRF comes up with this meandering conclusion:

Given this context [concerning how oaths were presumably administered during Washington’s lifetime], it seems more likely than not both that Washington, who was no Quaker, and swore rather than affirming, would have added the words in his oath, and that the fact wouldn't have been especially noteworthy. Conceivably, however, he didn’t say them -- although given the 18th century context, you’d think that the omission would have been noteworthy as well.

There are, unfortunately, two serious gaffs that occur in the effort to support his conclusion, mainly:

·      The statement, “Such a kiss [as occurred at GW’s 1^st inaugural ceremony] was a ritual that at the time generally accompanied the saying of ‘so help me God,’” is unsubstantiated. Outside of references to English coronation ceremonies, and Masonic ritual, I am not aware of any state that administered an oath of office to a public official by having the oath-taker both kiss the Bible and pronounce the words “So help me God.” In the particular case of New York State statute, there was only one of two possibilities, where 1) a person would swear (there was no affirm option) by the usual “book-oath” method, that is by placing one’s hand on the Bible and kissing it at the conclusion of the oath, or, 2) provided the oath-taker was a person who held “conscientious scruples,” that person could, with uplifted hand, “swear by the everliving God.” The notion that so help me God  “generally accompanied” a book-oath does not hold up.

·      In the way of an afterthought, NRF quotes a line from Washington’s Farewell Address as saying, “Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths”? This line, as presented, has been edited without any notice to the reader. Instead, the quote, as cited, should be completed to include the clause, “which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice.” In this instance, President Washington is not trying to promote a comprehensive endorsement of  a religious codicil. He is, however, validating his signature of the Judiciary Act of 1789 on September 24, which contrasted with “The First Act of the First Congress” --signed into law by him on June 1, 1789— where the congressional oath, without a religious codicil, simply reads: “I, A.B. do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

Most seriously, NRF is asking the wrong question. He, instead, should be asking, “What the presidential oath of office meant to George Washington”? That question can be answered succinctly by reading Washington’s second inaugural address.

Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.