United States: Presidents / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by .

Claim that all have sworn on a bible

Someone had claimed that all presidents had sworn on a Bible and said the words Washington added. I found a counterexample (Roosevelt) so I've revised the language here. I also added the Nixon reference about using two bibles and added a source in the See Also section for both of my claims. There are disagreemnts of the religion of several of the Presidents, and not all oaths were taken in public, so there are few witnesses to those occasions. For instance, Coolidge was sworn by his father (a notary public) in his father's house in Vermont. For many of the presidents who are attributed with swearing on bibles, nothing is known about those bibles, leading me to wonder whether they actually used a bible. --Dbackeberg

"as is customary in the united states"

I want to see a citation claiming that "so help me God" is "customary". I'm yanking the sentence that says "so help me God" wasn't something Washington just made up on the spot. --Dbackeberg

The claim that 'George Washington added the words "so help me God" at the end of the oath.' is false. GW did not append shmG in either his 1st or 2nd inauguration, nor did John Adams. Chester Arthur did but few if any presidents before him did. See http://www.nonbeliever.org/commentary/shmG.html

Unbiased, Objective, and Balanced Scholarship?

The biggest problem with Soller's insistence that Washington did not say "so help me God" is this: he's too ideologically motivated, too extreme, and does not qualify his assertions in the way that professional scholars generally are inclined to do.

Ideological Motivation

Soller's invocation of Mike Newdow speaks for itself. If one does not believe or know that Newdow is an atheist crusader who has a personal axe to grind with his "research," then one is clearly uninformed. Soller gives every indication that he too has some sort of personal project to accomplish with his "historical research." This project is not just to increase the body of knowledge among historians. He has some sort of political, religious, or ideological motivation at the root of his insistence that GW did not say "so help me God."

Too Extreme

The evidence that George Washington did or did not say "so help me God" is inconclusive. A case is made (by the likes of Dr. Church and Dr. Medhurst) that Irving's report is consonant with all the circumstantial evidence of the event, particularly the coronation features of the event. A case is made to the contrary on the grounds that there has yet to be found any contemporaneous verbatim report of the phrase being used by Washington at his inauguration. Neither side has the smoking gun: Irving doesn't suffice as such and neither does Count Moustier. Notice that scholars like Church and Medhurst, who are inclined to accept Irving's account, don't do so with the absolutist pronouncements that Soller and Newdow make. They don't say "Washington definitely said it." What they say is that their interpretation of the evidence inclines them to accept Irving's report.

Proper Qualification of Claims

If Soller were a trained and scholarly historian, he would speak with similar language. He would say something like "the evidence leads me to doubt Irving's report." Instead, he and Newdow come out with amateurish arrogant claims that Irving's report is categorically false. Soller is too extreme and reckless and as such has to be carefully watched in terms of his contribution to this article.

The fact that Soller claims that those who differ from him are somehow illegitimate "tresspassers" shows that he is far less interested in scholarly dialogue than ramrodding his ideology into the text of this encyclopedia.

prospective history

Reference 57 is a prospective report of what was planned to happen on 20 Jan 2013. I've recently seen multiple occurrences of people writing history on Wikipedia before it happens. The notation for "January 21, 2013 (upcoming)" is currently satisfactory and addresses the issue by flagging it as prospective. Eventually, future historians at Wikipedia will get bit.

1865 Inauguration

The claim that the Sacramento Daily Union is controverted by the New York Herald is disingenuous. The Sacramento paper gives the oath Lincoln took verbatim. The Herald simply says that the oath was administered. It doesn't give a version with our without So Help Me God. For the Wiki editor to say that the Herald omits the phrase is very misleading.Hilltoppers (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]