Did Geo Wa****ngton say SHMG
From the beginning:
(1) From: FirstAmend [Mike Newdow]
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:25:05 EST
Subject: Unbelievable!!!
To: jal
You're going to love this.
I just heard back from the First Federal Congress Project (do you know
them) regarding oaths. It turns out that the claims that Wa****ngton added
"... so help me God" to his first oath are uncorroborated, and probably
incorrect!
Were you aware of this?
I asked for some more do***entation.
- Mike
*******************************************************
(2) From: jal
To: Glen Goffin <buffip2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: A gift--I hope
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 06:14:16 -0500
Howdy
How ya doing?
I was thinking (always a scary undertaking grin)
This is Super Bowl Sunday and everyone should have something to get
excited
about
I hope I hadn't already sent this to you
*****************************************************************************************
To: me
Subject: Unbelievable!!!
From: Mike Newdow
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:25:05 EST
You're going to love this.
I just heard back from the First Federal Congress Project (do you know
them) regarding oaths. It turns out that the claims that Wa****ngton added
"... so help me God" to his first oath are uncorroborated, and probably
incorrect!
Were you aware of this?
I asked for some more do***entation.
- Mike
***************************************************************************
To: Me
Subject: Re: Unbelievable!!!
From: Mike Newdow
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:12:10 EST
>I do believe I have some primary source data here that says otherwise
According to them, the only contem****ary source is some Frenchman, who
said
nothing about "so help me God." They say the first thing stating otherwise
is a secondhand re****t from someone who was eight years old in 1789. (I
asked for the material.) What do you have that says otherwise?
As I wrote to her:
I've always wondered about that. Here's this fellow who - by all accounts
I've read - was very deliberate and rarely (if ever) spontaneous, who had
just presided over the Constitutional Convention. He was the guy in
charge
of the whole thing, who watched as they debated each and every clause. He
knows that 55 men agreed on the only oath in the do***ent - the oath he
was taking - and must have been aware of the fact that it didn't include
"... so help me God." Now he's going to alter that? It doesn't make sense
at all.
- M
**********************************************************************************
I met Mike yesterday for the first time. [We met in the Law Library of Pat
Roberston;s School of Law at His Regent U here in Va Beach]
First time in my life I ever went to meet someone and they put me to
work.
There was 4 of us and he had all four of us working on looking for more on
the above. hehehehehe It was different but actually quite fun as well.
He already had a good deal which he is going to email me back when he gets
home, hopefully later today. He should be flying out of Norfolk int in a
few minutes
Anyways, apparently there is no mention of "So help me God"
at the time, but only many years later in a tale to another.
I am really excited wanting to look over that stuff that he already
has.
If So hlep me God is another "urban ledgend" WOW!
jim
[Of course I sent this knowing enough about Glen to know he would want to
be involved. You note i didn't actually ask him if he wanted to be, I just
knew he would want to be]
**************************************************************
(3) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:53:52 -0500
To: jal
From: Glen Goffin <buffip2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: A gift--I hope
Damn you! :-) As if I didn't already have enough on my plate to
keep me researching into my grave. Now you have to tell me about this one
and get me wondering if I might be able to uncover something missed by all
you professional researchers. Not very likely, but what a lovely research
project for the "No God" Squad. ---Seriously, thanks for sharing that
info....I think. You know that the subject will continue to simmer in the
back of my mind until it finally boils over and I launch my own little
investigation. Naturally I no longer trust anything about Wa****ngton
related by Parson Weems or Jared Sparks.
I am just about to get comfortable in front of the boob tube and
see if this year's over-hyped Super Bowl measures up to the pre-game
hooplah. I doubt that it will, but hope runs eternal. --- I finally got to
see a picture of you at the site(s) you provided. (My very own "Hathaway
****rt" man.) :-)
Please take extra good care of yourself. Any additional info on
the skin issue?
Glen.
*********************************************************************
From there in Late 2004, early 2005
In Late 2005 early 2006 two otherts joined in the researching
Ray and Matt
Some progress, perhaps
[Originally posted on
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerard W Gawalt"
To: ray soller
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: Kranz video clip
Gawalt>We [Library of Congress] are working on the issue
From: Raymond Soller, 09/26/06 1:11 PM
To: Gerard W. Gawalt - Library of Congress, Manuscript Division
I just viewed the Dr. Marvin Kranz - LoC video clip posted at
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pivid01.html
.
In the last half-minute, I see a splice in the video, where, I do believe,
Kranz used to claim that GW said SHMG. Now, what happened to that gap? ;-)
I've been able to access America's Historical Newspapers - NewsBank and/or
the American Antiquarian Society, 2004, online database through the
library
at Emory University. It's contains a treasure trove of Presidential
Inaugural material. I've found articles for GW's 2nd, John Adams,
Jefferson, John Q Adams, Lincoln's 1st & 2nd, and more, where the
presidential oath is included with no mention of "So help me God." There's
even an 1852 rehearsal of GW's 1789 Inauguration with GW kissing the
Bible,
but no mention of SHMG.
- Ray Soller
*******************************************************************
From: "Ray
To: jal
Subject: History Channel
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 20:01:27 -0400
Jim,
I'd like to send A&E my comments about their show,
I would like to notify them that the educational websites sponsored by
White House Historical Association, U. S. Capitol Historical Society, and
the National Endowment for the Humanities that have in the past included
descriptions of GW saying SHMG have now removed that unsubstantiated piece
of information.
I'll also add the following:
The Grand Opening of the Donald W. Reynolds Museum and Education Center at
the Mount Vernon Estate and Gardens scheduled for 10/27/2006 should
attract
some attention ( http://www.mountvernon.org/visit/plan/index.cfm/pid/829/
). I'm told by Charlene Bickford, GWU, who consulted on the project, that
the life-sized vignette of GW taking his presidential oath
(http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1137834208798)
will not have Wa****ngton saying SHMG.
You could send this information on directly if you prefer.
- Ray
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ray
To: <jal
Subject: Fw: I Do Solemnly Swear
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:21:14 -0400
Jim,
Here's an exchange I had with Burton Caine. I thought you'd be interested
because of the piece you wrote, "A Lesson in Original Intent." As you'll
read you'll see Caine had no knowledge that Pauley had quoted his NYT
letter to the editor.
Do you know if your article had anything to do with Mike's initial inquiry
to Charlene Bickford?
What follows is arranged in chronological order.
- Ray
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---- Original message ----
>>Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 18:12:20 -0400
>>From: "Ray
>>Subject: I Do Solemnly Swear
>>To: <paul
>>Cc: <burton.
>>
>> Dr. Matthew A. Pauley,
>>
>> On pg. 109 of yor book, I Do Solemnly Swear - The
>> President's Constitutional Oath, you quote a section
>> from Michael Riccards' book, "A Republic If You Can
>> keep It," where Riccards gives a description of
>> George Wa****ngton swearing to his presidential oath.
>> Riccards claims that Wa****ngton added the words "So
>> help me God" to his oath, and "He then bent forward
>> and kissed the Bible before him."
>>
>> Please be advised that
>>
>> 1) there is no known firsthand account that
>> re****ts George Wa****ngton as concluding his oath
>> of office with "So help me God"
>> (see www.restorethepledge.com, select Past
>> Litigation, then The Bush Inaugural Prayer Lawsuit
>> #2 (2005)), and finally scroll down to Appendix G,
>> E-MAIL FROM CHARLENE BICKFORD, DIRECTOR, FIRST
>> FEDERAL CONGRESS PROJECT,
>> of the legal brief "Newdow v. Bush," ) ; and
>>
>> 2) the only contem****ary re****t saying that George
>> Wa****ngton kissed the Bible comes from a
>> single unidentified person, probably standing in
>> the crowd, who wrote a letter to a correspondent
>> in Philadelphia (see GAZETTE OF THE UNITED STATES;
>> Saturday May 9 to Wednesday May 13, 1789;
>> Philadelphia May 8; Extract of a letter from New
>> York, May 3). This "May 3rd" letter
>> was afterwards widely recirculated without any
>> further corroboration.
>>
>>
>> In the Notes to Chapter X, footnote 8, you take
>> Professor Burton Caine to task for not being aware
>> of the "fact that George Wa****ngton, the Father of
>> our Country, added the words, 'So help me God," when
>> he first took his oath." You really should have
>> checked out your facts before you challenged
>> Professor Caine.
>>
>> In the case of Riccards, he quotes Douglas Southall
>> Freeman (George Wa****ngton: A Biography), who, in
>> turn, seems to be quoting from a May 3rd, 1789,
>> [Tobias] "Lear letter" written to George Augustine
>> Wa****ngton, residing at Wa****ngton's Mount Vernon
>> estate, a copy of which currently resides at Duke
>> University. If you take the time, as I have, to
>> inquire after this source, you'll find out that it
>> does not contain any reference, at all, to George
>> Wa****ngton having said "So help me God."
>>
>> The first known (unsubstantiated)
>> re****t claiming that George Wa****ngton said "So help
>> me God" appears sixty-five years after the event.
>> The first established instance of a President using
>> the words "So help me God" occurs on September 20,
>> 1881, when Chester A. Arthur took his oath of office
>> after the death of President Garfield. Chief Justice
>> Edward D. White, appears to hold the honor of being
>> the first judicial officer who modified
>> the Presidential oath when he administered the oath
>> to Woodrow Wilson on March 5, 1917. The form of the
>> oath, with respect to the use of SHMG, appears to
>> have varied up until the time of FDR's first
>> Inauguration. All Presidents have recited their oath
>> of office in the same manner ever since that time.
>>
>> One might suggest that the President is free to add
>> SHMG to his oath, but, as has been explained by
>> Stephen Carter on the
>>
>> Paula Gordon Show
>> - http://www.paulagordon.com/shows/carter/
-
>> "What about "one nation, under God" in the Pledge
>> of Allegiance? Say it if you believe it, refrain
>> if not, you pick, advises Mr. Carter. But it's
>> very different and a serious problem when the
>> Chief Justice of the United States adds '...so
>> help me God' to the Presidential oath. That's not
>> optional and turns the oath into a religious test,
>> prohibited by the Constitution. George Wa****ngton
>> said it [RS - of course, we don't know that], but
>> the phrase should not be there." - Stephen Carter
>> Professor of Law, Yale University, and an author.
>> A former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Thurgood
>> Marshall, Mr. Carter is among the nation's leading
>> experts on constitutional law. Mr. Carter
>> confronts what he views as challenges to America's
>> democracy in his several books, including The
>> Culture of Disbelief, Civility, Integrity and
>> God's Name in Vain.
>>
>>
>> My best regards,
>> Ray
======================================
----- Original Message -----
From: <bcaine
To: "Ray
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: I Do Solemnly Swear
>I thank you for your e-mail. I am not aware that I am quoted
> or misquoted and would certainly like to see the passage
> attributed to me. I can ask the library to get me the book,
> but if you have it, or have the quote, that would expedite
> matters. You can call me at 215-204-8934.
>
> I appreciate your coming to my defense and I thank you .
>
> All the best,
>
> Burton Caine
>
=====================================
At 01:03 PM 9/7/2006, you wrote:
The information you requested follows:
I Do Solemnly Swear, Matthew A. Pauley
pg. 246, fn.8
In a letter to the New York Times (letter: Jan. 20, 1989; published:
Feb. 5,
1989), Burton Caine, a Professor of Law at Temple University, sharply
criticized George Bush's taking of the presidential oath: "Although
President Bush swore to preserve the Constitution, he did not obey its
precise command in taking the oath of office." Caine then quotes the
oath
and observes, quite correctly, that this "is the only place in the
Constitution
where quotation marks are used." The framers obviously intended,
Caine
goes on, that the President should "use the exact words, no more, no
less." But George Bush added "So help me God," and Caine asserts that
this is "unconstitutional." "The authors of Article II understood
that
an
oath traditionally could refer to a deity and, by providing the
precise
language and omitting such reference, clearly intended such words
should
not be said. I would implore our President not to take liberties with
the
Constitution, especially in the sensitive area of the separation of
church
and state. In a country with a population as diverse as ours, a
President
who wants to represent all the people must include deists and
nondeists.
The neutrality course prescribed by the Constitution is not only the
law,
[pg 247]
but it is also the best policy." Perhaps Professor Caine is unaware
of
the
fact that George Wa****ngton, Father of our Country, added the words
"So help me God," when he first took the oath.
My research, along with the research of Jim Allison and Matthew
Goldstein, has been a follow-up to Michael Newdow's comments saying that
GW
did not say SHMG. Rufus W. Griswold, in his book, "Republican Court, or
American Society in the Days of Wa****ngton" (pg 141), was the first person
to make this claim.
A gesture of the Chancellor arrested the attention of the im-
Page 141
mense assembly, and he pronounced slowly and distinctly the words of
the oath. The Bible was raised, and as the President bowed to kiss its
sacred pages, he said audibly, " I swear," and added, with fervor, his
eyes
closed, that his whole soul might be absorbed in the supplication, "So
help
me God!"
Then the Chancellor said, "It is done," and, turning to the multitude,
waved his hand, and with a loud voice exclaimed, "Long live George
Wa****ngton, President of the United States!"
No direct source is ever cited. The inference is that Griswold picked up
this piece of information from Wa****ngton Irving, who had rehearsed the
events of the GW's Inaugural Ceremony in a conversation between Griswold,
and a Dr. [John Wakefield] Francis. Wa****ngton Irving repeated the same
claim in his biography of GW, Vol IV (1857).
There is also some question as to whether GW actually kissed the Bible.
This firsthand claim is only sup****ted by a single unidentifiable re****t
that was picked up by a Philadelphia newspaper from an anonymous letter
addressed to a correspondent in Philadelphia. No close-up account sup****ts
either claim.
- Ray Soller
----- Original Message -----
From: Burton
To: Ray
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: I Do Solemnly Swear
I thank you again.
It is im****tant to take note that Art VI of the Constitution says,"no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or
public Trust under the United States." As Prof Carter says, when the Chief
Justice administers the oath with SHMG - as Rehnquist did - that violates
another provision of the Constitution. But more basically, Art II says
that
the President "shall take the following Oath" It is mandatory and there is
no ambiguity. Even if GW did violate that provision, that doesn't change
the do***ent. Presidents have violated the Constitution many times and the
response is to reprimand, enjoin, or invalidate. In the case of President
John Adams who signed the Alien and Sedition Act to curb criticism of the
government, the SC in 1964 held that it violated the First Amendment.
Keep me posted if there is anything you think would be of interest to me.
All the best,
Burt Caine
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v.
Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
|
