- This topic has 8 voices and 51 replies.
-
Posts
-
The Senate Rules Committee administers the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (JCCIC) website. Since about March 2007 the JCCIC website has been hosting a “So help me God” video featuring Beth Hahn, Historical Editor of the Senate Historical Office, asserting that President George Washington, during his first oath of office recitation, appended “So help me God and then kisses the bible and those are actually two traditions that carried on by future presidents, everyone has since said 'so help me God' at the end of the oath.” There is no known contemporaneous eyewitness account of that phrase being appended to any presidential oath of office recitation until at least the Civil War. Myself and others have consulted American presidential historians, examined the primary source documents, and published our findings on http://www.nonbeliever.org/commentary/inaugural_shmG.html. We have written to the Senate Historical Office and I personally spoke with Beth Hahn and with Matthew McGowan, Senate Rules Committee Professional Staff, on the telephone about this. The Senate Historical Office offers no evidence to support their claims about George Washington and all other presidents yet the video has neither been corrected nor removed. Professor J.C.A. Stagg, Corcoran Department of History, University of Virginia, who is the Editor in Chief of The Papers of James Madison confirms that there is no evidence that James Madison appended that phrase. The Director of the First Federal Congress Project at George Washington University, Charlene Bickford, and the Senior Editor of the Papers of George Washington, Philander D. Chase of the University of Virginia, both George Washington experts, confirm that there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that George Washington appended that phrase and furthermore they don't think he did. The Hoover library has an audio of Hoover's oath recitation that proves he did not append "so help me God". Some of the 18th and 19th century eyewitness accounts quote the oath recitation, some don't quote the oath recitation, yet there appears to be no contemporaneous eyewitness account of any president appending "so help me God" until the Civil War. Not one. Zero. How does the Senate Historical Office jump from the evidence showing no one appending that phrase to "everyone"?The lack of evidence for the video's claim and lack of response by the Senate Historical Office to our complaints about this lack of evidence suggests that the prestige of the U.S Senate is being misused by the Senate Historical Office to misrepresent ahistorical propaganda as historical fact.
The lack of evidence for the video's claim and lack of response by the Senate Historical Office to our complaints about this lack of evidence suggests that the prestige of the U.S Senate is being misused by the Senate Historical Office to misrepresent ahistorical propaganda as historical fact.
Well if it is, then it would hardly be the first time that history was used as a political tool. But perhaps your investigation should be directed at where the claims that the phrase has been attached originated. Do these claims also date to the 19th century?
Well if it is, then it would hardly be the first time that history was used as a political tool. But perhaps your investigation should be directed at where the claims that the phrase has been attached originated. Do these claims also date to the 19th century?
Yes. The first known claim that a president (in this case George Washington) appended that phrase to the oath of office originated with Washington Irving in the mid-1850's, over 60 years after the fact, and was first published by the Reverend Griswold who was a friend of Washington Irving. Washington Irving doesn't say how he came upon this detail. Again, the Senate Historical Office is claiming that all presidents (following George Washington's precedent) appended that phrase in the "so help me God" video on the Joint Congressional Committee for Inaugural Ceremonies web site. But George Washington couldn't have set a precedent for appending that phrase if the only known contemporaneous eyewitness account that quoted the oath as recited is correct. That is the account of the French foreign minister who stood on the balcony with George Washington and immediately reported the details of the oath recitation back to France in writing. According to Comte de Moustier, GW did not append "So help me God". Furthermore, no other contemporaneous eyewitness account of the oath recitation, including the account of Georege Washington's personal secretary Tobias Lear, the secretary of the Senate Samuel Otis, of Congress, of etc. depicts him appending that phrase.Again, as I said earlier, the other claims that a president appended that phrase first appear during the Civil War. Confederate Jefferson Davis was first. Arthur Chester may have been the first U.S. president to append that phrase. Arthur Chester as vice president would have taken the Civil War Iron Clad oath that had that phrase, so when he became president he may have just followed what he did when he recited the V.P. oath. The newspapers widely reported that he appended that phrase.
....Again, as I said earlier, the other claims that a president appended that phrase first appear during the Civil War. Confederate Jefferson Davis was first. Arthur Chester...
?
... may have been the first U.S. president to append that phrase. Arthur Chester as vice president would have taken the Civil War Iron Clad oath that had that phrase, so when he became president he may have just followed what he did when he recited the V.P. oath.
Assuming you mean Chester Arthur; he became VP in 1881 (after the the Oath had fallen out of favor) though he may have, at some point previously, taken it as it was favored by many Radical Republicans.
The newspapers widely reported that he appended that phrase.
Assuming you mean Chester Arthur; he became VP in 1881 (after the the Oath had fallen out of favor) though he may have, at some point previously, taken it as it was favored by many Radical Republicans.
Thank you for the name transposition correction. That newly added post-Civil War phrase was retained in the non-presidential oath law even after the bulk of the post-Civil War Iron Clad loyality oath was officially discarded in 1884. In addition to Chester Arthur, Howard Taft and Calvin Coolidge were reported to have appended that phrase. Calvind Coolidge would have also appended that phrase as Vice President. Taft had served as the Solicitor General of the United States, a federal judge, Governor-General of the Philippines, and Secretary of War and therfore would have taking the oath with that phrase before being elected President also. The long tradition of not adding that phrase to the presidential oath of office ended in 1933. Apparantly the introduction of radio, more than the Civil War, ended that tradition, although the Civil War motivated oath modification that added that phrase to the non-presidential oath of office (including the VP oath), which remains in the law to this day, clearly was an important influence here.
Yes. The first known claim that a president (in this case George Washington) appended that phrase to the oath of office originated with Washington Irving in the mid-1850's, over 60 years after the fact, and was first published by the Reverend Griswold who was a friend of Washington Irving. Washington Irving doesn't say how he came upon this detail.
Following the Wikipedia citations we can see that in Life of Washington Irving, pgs 208-209, Irving did his research at both D.C. and Mount Vernon. Where did he get his information from about George Washington? That seems to be the key issue, since it's the earliest reference to this, and only some 50 years or so after GW's death. I wonder if any other Washington biographers have come across Irving's source for this.
Following the Wikipedia citations we can see that in Life of Washington Irving, pgs 208-209, Irving did his research at both D.C. and Mount Vernon. Where did he get his information from about George Washington? That seems to be the key issue, since it's the earliest reference to this, and only some 50 years or so after GW's death. I wonder if any other Washington biographers have come across Irving's source for this.
First of all, I disagree that this is the key issue, since we have a first hand, eyewitness account in French from Comte de Moustier that GW did not append so help me God. Plus we have other first hand, eyewitness accounts of the oath ceremony that detail what was done and said after the oath was recited and none of them mention shmG. There is simply no reason to give Washington Irving's account precedence over the conflicting French Minister's account or over the other contemporaneous eyewitness accounts written by adult witnesses who stood on the balcony with GW. Washington Irving's account came over 60 years after the event, which is long after everyone who is known to have stood on that balcony with George Washington was dead. People didn't live to be 90 years old in those days. Rufus Griswold said of Washington Irving "He had watched the procession till the President entered Federal Hall, and from the corner of New street and Wall street had observed the subsequent proceedings in the balcony." Washington Irving was six years old at the time of George Washington's inauguration. The corner of New Street and Wall Street, where Washington Irving is also identified as claiming he witnessed the inaugural in Century Magazine, volume 37, issue 6, April 1889, page 828, footnote 1 "The Inauguration of Washington" by Winthrop Clarence Bowen, is about 200 feet away from Federal Hall.Secondly, Washington Irving doesn't say where he got his information about this detail. The reason that the other historical details of the inauguration appear to be mostly (not 100%) correct is that they were based on the previously published biography of George Washington by Mr. Sparks, from George Washington's manuscripts in the Department of State, and apparantly copied (without acknowledgement or permission) from Memoir of the life of Eliza S. M. Quincy, ed. E S Quincy, Boston [Printed by J. Wilson] 1861. But Mr. Sparks' biography, George Washington's manuscripts, and Eliza Quincy's Memoir all fail to support the claim that GW appended shmG. Thirdly, the Senate Historical Office "so help me God" video is saying that "everyone" has followed GW in appending that phrase to the presidential oath of office. They put out that video in March 2007, which was six months after Ray Soller corresponded with Donald A. Ritchie, Associate Historian at the Senate Historical Office, about the lack of primary source documentation showing that George Washington appended that phrase (August 28, 2006). The Senate Historical Office claim in the video that "everyone" appended "so help me God" is just complete nonsense for which there is no evidence whatsover. We know its false because of the Hoover audio recording (which also contradicts the JCCIC web site "Facts and Firsts" claim that Hoover affirmed his oath of office) and also because there appears to be no pre-Civil War claim of any other president adding those words to his oath of office (despite many eyewitness accounts). To put it crudely, the Senate Historical Office is pulling this out of their rear-end. The Senate Historical Office refuses to provide citations for their 'everyone said those words' claim. Matthew McGowan, Professional staff for the Senate Rules Committee, told me earlier this week that the Senate Historical Office works for the Senate, not the public, and they have no obligation to provide supporting citations to the public.
Not (I'm sure) our gov't has pulled something from their collective behind and likely not the last. Glad you've cleared this one up for us; I can now debunk another history myth for my students.Cheers,Wally
Not (I'm sure) our gov't has pulled something from their collective behind and likely not the last. Glad you've cleared this one up for us; I can now debunk another history myth for my students.
Many citizens, probably the large majority, consider the Congress to be an authoritative source of information on presidential inaugural history. I do not and will not accept this with equanimity, I am determined to expose it. Generally speaking, the JCCIC web site and the Senate Historical Office are in fact accurate, this is a major and unusually blatant exception. I think this illustrates a tendency for politics and religion to corrupt each other when they mix.Good for your students.
....I think this illustrates a tendency for politics and religion to corrupt each other when they mix.Good for your students.
Often the same for politics, in general, and any particular, closely held personal (or institutional) agenda, we shoose to examine, eh?Thank you, we try.
First of all, I disagree that this is the key issue, since we have a first hand, eyewitness account in French from Comte de Moustier that GW did not append so help me God. …..
NAProject, you make a good case for what you are stating. When it comes to battling historical sources, I'm not sure how it is settled. Is Irving held as a more trustworthy source than the Comte de Moustier? Or is it the other way around? Normally eye witness accounts would be considered to be more trustworthy. The question I have, then, is why Irving included it. I don't think that we can necessarily say that Irving had an "agenda" in saying what he did. Why, then, did he do it?I think that arguing with the Senate Historical Office might be an uphill battle, if only because of the bureaucratic nature of government. Think about people who might tell the SHO that the Sixteenth Amendment was never fully ratified, or something to that effect. The SHO might just dismiss them because it doesn't want to get into a battle over certain key events/decisions in history. For the case of the inaugural quote, I wonder if this is something that needs to be disclosed by historians in published books or journal articles before the SHO would be more open to modifying its position on the matter. Just a thought.
NAProject, you make a good case for what you are stating. When it comes to battling historical sources, I'm not sure how it is settled. Is Irving held as a more trustworthy source than the Comte de Moustier? Or is it the other way around? Normally eye witness accounts would be considered to be more trustworthy. The question I have, then, is why Irving included it. I don't think that we can necessarily say that Irving had an “agenda” in saying what he did. Why, then, did he do it?[/QUOTE]We don't know why Mr. Irving included that, just like we don't know why Mr. Irving wrote that the President's coach "was drawn by a single pair of horses" while the "New York Packet" of May 1, 1789, the day after the ceremony, said that "the President joined the procession in his carriage and four" or why Irving claimed that Columbus had difficulty obtaining support for his plan because Europeans believed that the earth was flat in his biography of Christopher Columbus. The better question is why so many historians all jumped on this bandwagon of claiming that George Washington appended so help me God on the basis of nothing more than an assertion in a book published in 1854 that cites Washington Irving as saying so. It is noteworthy that a few George Washington biographers continued the half century, pre-Washington Irving, tradition of not claiming that GW appended those words apparantly because they were committed to being carefull about following the evidence instead of just following the crowd. For example, Abridgment of the Debates of Congress from 1789 to 1856, Volume I, by Thomas Hart Benton, and Joseph Gales and William Winston Seaton and John C Rives, D. Appleton, New York, 1857 and Reminiscences of an Old New Yorker, by William A. Duer, 1867, W.L. Andrews, New York, pp. 68-70 and Washington and His Masonic Compeers, by Sidney Hayden, 1867, New York, Masonic publishing and manufacturing co., pages 124-5.
I think that arguing with the Senate Historical Office might be an uphill battle, if only because of the bureaucratic nature of government. Think about people who might tell the SHO that the Sixteenth Amendment was never fully ratified, or something to that effect. The SHO might just dismiss them because it doesn't want to get into a battle over certain key events/decisions in history. For the case of the inaugural quote, I wonder if this is something that needs to be disclosed by historians in published books or journal articles before the SHO would be more open to modifying its position on the matter. Just a thought.
The SHO are aware of this problem and have been for a long time. I believe that they could edit the video and remove the statement that "everyone has since said 'so help me God' at the end of the oath." relatively easily. The video with that assertion was placed on the JCCIC web site about six months after Raymond Soller corresponded with Donald A. Ritchie, Associate Historian, Senate Historical Office, several times on August 28, 2006 about the lack of evidence that George Washington appended that phrase. You keep focusing on George Washington and Washington Irving, but what about that assertion in the video? How about asking this question: Why does the SHO still have that nonsense in their historical video that they are clearly presenting as factual?
The SHO are aware of this problem and have been for a long time. I believe that they could edit the video and remove the statement that “everyone has since said 'so help me God' at the end of the oath.” relatively easily. The video with that assertion was placed on the JCCIC web site about six months after Raymond Soller corresponded with Donald A. Ritchie, Associate Historian, Senate Historical Office, several times on August 28, 2006 about the lack of evidence that George Washington appended that phrase. You keep focusing on George Washington and Washington Irving, but what about that assertion in the video? How about asking this question: Why does the SHO still have that nonsense in their historical video that they are clearly presenting as factual?
You are right - that is a good question, and as an outsider I really don't know the answer to why the SHO makes the claim in the video. If I focus on George Washington and Washington Irving it is because I find historical research and attempts at reconciling conflicting information interesting.
You are right – that is a good question, and as an outsider I really don't know the answer to why the SHO makes the claim in the video. If I focus on George Washington and Washington Irving it is because I find historical research and attempts at reconciling conflicting information interesting.
Conflicting information doesn't reconcile. The point here is that if we have information from multiple independent eyewitness accounts that is consistent then we can assert a historical fact. If we don't have such information then we don't have a historical fact and shouldn't claim otherwise as the JCCIC web site is incorrectly doing here. In this case, Washington Irving doesn't even qualify as an eyewitness to hearing the oath because he was physically too far away in a large crowd to hear it. Furthermore, a six year old witness is a dubious source particularly when he is first writing about the event over 60 years later. I think that is common sense. Does that answer your question?
