By Mathew Goldstein
Bloomberg View published a new article by Noah Feldman, a professor of law at Harvard University, titled "What 'So Help Me God' Meant to George Washington", that tries to defend the claim that George Washington ended his initial presidential oath of office with the words "So help me God". Mr. Feldman overlooks the fact that George Washington avoided using the word "God" in his speeches or in his public and private writing. He also fails to notice that the oaths that frequently concluded with SHMG were usually administered as religious loyalty test oaths. The Constitution, with GW’s signature at the top, made a radical break from earlier American history by proscribing religious test oaths. An example of GW’s attitude against religious test oaths is his May 7, 1778 General Orders that left the trailing SHMG outside of the quotation marks so that the printed oath certificates did not include SHMG.
Mr. Feldman cites David Barton's argument that GW said SHMG. Mr. Barton identifies various federal government authorities who asserted in the past that president George Washington appended "So help me God" to his first oath of office. That is exactly the problem. To make a positive factual historical claim requires supporting evidence. David Barton conveniently ignores that the federal authorities he listed have withdrawn this illegitimate factual assertion after it was pointed out that there is no such evidence.
The books that first claimed that the first president uttered that phrase, which were published over 60 years later, after the adult eyewitnesses were dead, fail to identify an eyewitness. Although the author of one of those books, Washington Irving, attended the ceremony in 1789 as a six year old child, he did not claim that he heard those words himself and from where he was standing at the time he would have been too far away to reliably hear anything that was spoken on the balcony. Instead, Mr. Irving copied into his book a not yet published eyewitness account of the oath ceremony written by someone else (Memoir of the life of Eliza S. M. Quincy, ed. E S Quincy, Boston [Printed by J. Wilson] 1861,) without acknowledging the original author. He then added the SHMG to that original account.
A detailed first hand account of the first presidential oath ceremony from the French ambassador, who was on the balcony with GW, quotes the words of the oath as he heard it (written in French). We also have a statement from Mr. Samuel Otis saying he lifted the bible towards the new president's head. Mr. Otis presumably did that because he knew they were following NY state law and kissing the bible was part of the usual mode of administering an oath in NY at that time. Appending the divine codicil was not part of the NY state oath procedure, unlike in NJ and several other states which, conversely, did not instruct the oath taker to kiss a bible.
There is no evidence for either a bible or a divine codicil during the second inauguration oath ceremony, which was the first presidential inauguration under federal law. Furthermore, contemporaneous eyewitness accounts consistently support the conclusion that no president appended this divine codicil until, at the earliest, maybe Lincoln during his second inauguration, although the evidence for this is thin and contradicted. It appears more likely that the first president to say SHMG was Chester Arthur in 1881, based on the newspaper reports. However, Chester Arthur did not recite the oath, he merely replied affirmatively to the Chief Justice's questioning if he agreed to the oath as recited by the Chief Justice. FDR was the first president who we know recited the oath with the divine codicil appended. No Chief Justice misrepresented the presidential oath by prompting for SHMG until the 20th century. Contrary to what Mr. Feldman claims, there is every reason to think that eyewitnesses who reported on the presence and use of a bible would have also reported on a divine codicil. That placing a hand on a bible and kissing a bible was standard practice did not discourage eyewitnesses from noting its use.
Mr. Feldman cites Mr. Barton as providing a counterargument to Professor Henriques who argues that we should stop declaring GW appended SHMG. Mr. Henriques is a professor emeritus of history with impeccable academic credentials and integrity (he wrote 'Realistic Visionary: A Portrait of George Washington'). Mr. Barton is a many times over discredited professional propagandist with a long and ignoble track record of consistently promoting a biased, distorted, and misleading historical revisionism for the obvious purpose of advancing the political agenda of the religious right. A little common sense is all that is needed to recognize whose argument merits be taking seriously and whose argument merits a large dose of skepticism. People like Mr. Feldman who fail to make this distinction are unworthy of being published in any newspaper or magazine that is worthy of being taken seriously. And the counterarguments appearing in the book by Mr. Church, who was not a historian and was also cited by Mr. Feldman, are mistaken. See http://www.nonbeliever.org/commentary/inaugural_shmG.html.
Mr. Feldman does not ask what should be an obvious question: Why would Washington add a personal statement to the Constitutional oath written at the Convention that he presided over? Congress had already decided to remove the SHMG phrase from the proposed executive and legislative branch oaths bill prior to the presidential oath ceremony. That the Chief Justice of the U.S. now makes SHMG part of the presidential oath when administered is an unconstitutional act because it takes it beyond being a personal statement on the part of the person being sworn in and makes it seem like it's part of the oath, which it is not.
Theism turns itself into a dependency and there are theists who think that good and pragmatic people everywhere recognize that dependency as being positive and want to nurture it in everyone. Noah Feldman appears to be arguing from that perspective. This perspective too often becomes a justification for the exclusion of non-theists from positions of authority or responsibility. Mr. Feldman argues that secular oaths were about accommodating Quakers. We agree that such accommodation played a significant role. However, there is evidence that civic equality for deists and atheists was on some people's minds even in the late 18th century. Thomas Jefferson said atheism harms no one and merited consideration.
As we learn more about how the universe functions we have a concomitant responsibility to apply that knowledge wherever it is relevant. Relying on history to justify freezing in place old prejudices built on old ignorance via the law is a misuse of history. Unfortunately, for people who are themselves still trapped in a prejudiced perspective, this can be difficult to understand. So we need to point this out.