Common Sense as a Source of the Presidential Oath in the United
States of America
Klara Rukshina
[July 2005]
"
I do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will faithfully execute
the office of the President of the United States, and will to the
best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of
the United States." [The Constitution of the United
States of America. Article II (The executive branch). Section 1,
Clause 8]
The author is
most grateful to Donald Fanger and to Peter Lubin for editorial
advice and generous encouragement.
… There is something unique about
this solemn inaugural oath taken by the President of the United
States. No President of any other democratic country has ever been
required to take such an oath, where neither the People, nor the
Rights of the People, nor the Country are the objects of the
allegiance that is sworn, but the Constitution alone. To "preserve,
protect and defend" the Constitution, that is, to serve it, is
evidently the most solemn duty of the President. It sounds as if the
Constitution were a kind of Monarch, a King, pledged to with an oath
of fidelity. It has been justly remarked by many scholars and
foreign visitors that for the Americans, their Constitution is as
sacred as a King is for the inhabitants of a monarchical country.
The aim of this article is to consider Common Sense as a
potential ideological source for the Presidential oath with its
original approach towards the American Constitution.[1]
… To the best of my knowledge,
the relation between Paine's famous pamphlet and the Presidential
oath has never before been the object of consideration by scholars.
A most detailed and thorough study dedicated to the Presidential
oath, the recently published book by Matthew A. Pauley, I Do
Solemnly Swear. The President's Constitutional Oath. Its Meaning and
Importance in the History of Oaths, does not handle the
problem.[2]
… What is known about the history
of the President's Constitutional oath? The oath of the Executive
was discussed and accepted at the Constitutional Convention -- at
the time called the Federal Convention -- in 1787. The Convention
officially opened on May 25, in Philadelphia. On June 18, Alexander
Hamilton presented to the Convention his "Plan for the Election
of the President," with his own version of a Presidential oath.
It is well known that Hamilton, like John Adams, regarded the
Executive as an elective monarch and the Constitution, consequently,
as that of a monarchical country. As Adams put it: "Let us now
consider what our constitution is and see whether any other name can
with propriety be given it, than that of a monarchical republic, or
if you will, a limited monarchy." Although Hamilton's "Plan,"
as a whole, did not have any influence upon the core of the American
Constitution, his version of the Presidential oath seemingly was of
some effect. It reads: "The President before he shall enter
upon the execution of his office shall take an oath or affirmation,
faithfully to execute the same, and to the utmost of his judgment
and power to protect the rights of the people, and preserve the
Constitution inviolate."[3]
… One of the first versions of
the Presidential oath was stated at the Constitutional Convention,
in the Report of the Committee of Detail, on August 5: "1
solemnly swear -- or affirm -- that I will faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States of America." This
early form did not contain any phrase about preserving, protecting
and defending the Constitution. It was James Madison and George
Mason of Virginia, who, on August 27, 1787, moved to add that phrase
to the oath to be taken by the President, before he should enter
into the duties of the Executive: 'and will to the best of my
judgment and power preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of
the United States.' The motion was accepted. No special debates on
the subject were noted and by September 12, 1787, the Committee of
Style reported the oath 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 judgment
and power, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the
United States." This came quite close to the final version.[4]
… It is useful to compare the
version of Hamilton with that of Mason and Madison, in order to
throw some light on the extent of the influence of Common Sense
upon the wording of the Presidential oath:
Mason and Madison: "I solemnly swear -- or affirm --
that I will faithfully execute the office of President of
the United States of America, and will to the best of my
judgment and power preserve, protect and defend the Constitution
of the United States."
Alexander Hamilton: "The President before he shall
enter upon the execution of his office shall take an oath or
affirmation, faithfully to execute the same and to the
utmost of his Judgment and power to protect the rights of the
people, and preserve the Constitution inviolate." (Italics
are mine.--K.R.)
The words in italics are common to both versions and demonstrate
without any doubt that Hamilton's form laid the foundation of the
final Presidential oath. But the change in the final wording is most
significant. In Hamilton's version, "the rights of the people"
precedes "the Constitution," which has the second place in
the list of the highest political and civil values. The great
republicans Mason and Madison, by leaving out the phrase "the
rights of the people," advanced to the forefront "the
Constitution" as the Supreme Law. It might be considered as a
rebuff to Hamilton's idea of a limited monarchy and an elective
monarch, for by placing the Constitution alone, Madison and Mason
made certain that the Constitution permanently usurped the place
that might have been claimed for a monarch.
… Since then, the written
Constitution, worked out by a specially convened Assembly, the
Constitutional Convention, has been fixed, by the solemn oath of the
President of the USA, as the Supreme Law, that, in a way,
substitutes for a King in a monarchical state. All these concepts
were first laid out in Common Sense, eleven years before.
… The very idea of the solemn
Oath of the Chief Executive is rooted in English tradition. The
Coronation Oath in England, so familiar to the former colonists as
recent subjects of Great Britain, may be considered the apparent
model for the Presidential Oath. It is instructive to juxtapose the
American Presidential Oath with its most obvious antecedent, the
Coronation Oath in England. Both the texts, and the rituals may be
contrasted. The juxtaposition of the English and American oaths
throws some additional light on the problem of this article.
… Although the coronation
ceremony in England has remained essentially the same for over a
thousand years, the wording of the Coronation Oath had been changed
continually before the Act Establishing the Coronation Oath in
1688.Queen Mary and King William were the first to utter it. Since
then the wording has not been modified for more than three hundred
years. It runs as follows:
"The Archbishop or bishop shall say, "Will you
solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this Kingdom of
England, and the dominions thereto belonging, according to the
statutes in Parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the
same?"
The King and Queen shall say, "I solemnly promise so to
do."
Archbishop or bishop, "Will you to your power cause law
and justice in mercy to be executed in all your judgments?"
King and Queen, "I will."
Archbishop or bishop, "Will you to the utmost of your
power maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the gospel
and the Protestant reformed religion established by law, and will
you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this Realm, and to the
churches committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges
as by law do or shall appertain unto them, or any of them?"
King and Queen, "All this I promise to do."
After this, the King and Queen laying his and her hand upon the
holy Gospels, shall say, King and Queen, "The things
which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep: So help
me God."
Then the King and Queen shall kiss the book."
… As is obvious, the texts of the
oaths compared have very little in common.
… The procedures demonstrate both
deep differences and some overlapping features. The English King
swears "to govern ... according to the statutes in Parliament
agreed on, and the laws and customs" of the country. Inthe
American Presidential Oath, on behalf of "the People of the
United States," a written Constitution takes the place of the
English king. The American President swears not to govern but to "preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Thus it seems that the Constitution itself, behind the President,
will be doing the governing.
… The Coronation Oath of Great
Britain defines the United Kingdom as a Christian country. More
specifically, the monarch swears allegiance to "the Protestant
reformed religion," and gives a solemn pledge to preserve all
the institutions concerned. The ceremony is assisted by the
Archbishop. The text of the American Presidential Oath is entirely
without any religious allusion, to promote the separation of church
and state. In contrast to the English rituals, American Presidents
have been sworn-in by the Chief Justice.[5]
… Some similarities are shared in
the American ritual, not required by the Constitution. According to
tradition, the Presidential Oath has a physical aspect,
characteristic for the so-called corporal oaths.[6] The American
President takes his oath while keeping his hand on the Bible. It is
a ritual from the British Coronation Oath, but not required by the
law, though all Presidents since Washington have done it. With time,
the custom of kissing the Bible, after the oath is taken, was
dropped. "So help me, God," the familiar ending to the
Presidential oath, is also not required by the Constitution. At the
first inaugural George Washington spontaneously added the phrase
that echoes the final sentence in the Coronation Oath. Since then,
every subsequent president has said it.
… From the point of view of our
investigation the following radically new ideas of the author of
Common Sense are of the greatest importance: a written
Constitution; a special Assembly convened to work it out, or Constitutional
Convention; and the way of treating the Constitution as the
King is treated in a strictly monarchical country.
… Paine argues for a
representative republic and offers, as he puts it, "hints"
of the federated system of state power in an independent America. He
insists: "Always remembering, that our strength is continental,
not provincial." Paine proposes "to frame a Continental
Charter, or Charter of the United Colonies; (answering to what is
called the Magna Charta of England) fixing the number and manner of
choosing Members of Congress, Members of Assembly, with their date
of sitting;" draw "the line of business and jurisdiction
between them," and secure "freedom and property to all
men."[7] Evidently, the "charter" should imply both:
a Bill of Rights for individuals, and a setting forth of the
Structure, Powers and the terms of government offices. Before these
ideas were incorporated in the Constitution of the United States,
they had been embodied in state constitutions.
… Paine's idea of a written
Constitution is contrasted to the "unwritten" constitution
of England. In fact, until the American state and national
constitutions, no country had been known to possess a written
constitution. As Matthew A. Pauley states: "When George
Washington first took [the] oath on April 30, 1789, he made the
written Constitution a living reality." [8] Since then the
constitutions of many democratic countries have been built on the
same model.
… The author of Common Sense
insisted on the unique opportunity for the Americans "to begin
government at the right end," that is "the articles or
charter of government should be formed first, and men delegated to
execute them afterwards."[9] The Constitution should "come
from some intermediate body between the governed and the governors,
that is between the Congress and the people," in the form of "a
continental conference" convened for that purpose.[10] The
idea was first successfully realized when the Pennsylvania
Constitution was being elaborated in 1776. The representatives for a
constitutional Convention were elected, with Benjamin Franklin as
its president. After finishing the task, the Convention
dissolved.[11] The American Constitutional Convention, in 1787,
served as a precedent for the National Constituent Assembly during
the French revolution, and then later for some other countries --
Russia, in 1918, among them, -- even to the present day.
… In his Common Sense
Paine convincingly proves there is no room for a monarch in a
republic, defined as a political body of free people. Nonetheless, a
throne, empty of its king, may well be filled to the advantage of
humanity. Paine suggests that the Charter, the written Constitution
as the Supreme Law, should replace the king.
… F.A. Hayek, who does not
consider Paine's inheritance, explores the origin of the notion "rule
of law" and the phrase ""aw is king." He states:
"By the end of the fourth century b.c. ( in Ancient Greece. --
K.R.) it had come to be necessary to emphasize that 'in a democracy
the laws should be masters' ..... The phrase about the law being
king (nomos basileus) already occurs much earlier."[12] In my
opinion, Thomas Paine gives the last phrase an absolutely original
meaning.
… Paine's phrase "the
law is King,"[13] so often cited, is strangely
misinterpreted as "the rule of law" even by Paine's
biographers. In fact, Paine never praised "the rule of law."
Moreover, it was an idea about which Paine expressed skepticism.
When John Adams defined a republic as "an empire of laws and
not of men," Paine retorted: "As laws may be bad as well
as good, an empire of laws may be the best of all governments or the
worst of all tyrannies."(Italics. -- Paine)[14]
… To my mind, what Paine actually
means by his "the law is King" is a totally original idea:
a written Constitution ("a Charter," or "a
Constitution," as Paine called it) should become a kind of
King, the Supreme Authority, in a republican America. Let us refer
to the corresponding extract to verify such an interpretation. The
passage comes after the description of the contents of the "charter,"
and the way it should be framed by the "Continental Conference."
… But where,
say some, is the king of America? I'll tell you, friend, he reigns
above, and does not make havoc on mankind like the royal brute of
Great Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in
earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming
the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine
law, the Word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the
world may know,that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in
America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the
king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and
there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards
arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be
demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is. A
government of our own is our natural right: and when a man
seriously reflects on the precariousness of human affairs, he will
become convinced, that it is infinitely wiser and safer, to form
a Constitution of our own in a cool deliberate manner,
while we have it in our power, than to trust such an interesting
event to time and chance. (Emphasis is mine -- K.R.). [15]
… In my opinion, it is most
likely that what Paine means by his phrase "in America the law
is King" is that the law in the form of "the charter,"
or the written "Constitution" of a representative
republic, is to be treated as monarchs in some traditionally
monarchial countries: above the ordinary laws, a kind of Supreme
Law. Without this understanding, the proper sense of the phrase is
likely to be perverted. Here is an example among many others. A. O.
Aldridge in his Thomas Paine's American Ideology comments on
the passage: "In order to join celebration of the continental
charter with homage to the deity, Paine proposes a day to be set
apart for proclaiming the charter or constitution. The solemn
ceremony he prescribes consists in depositing the charter on the
Bible and then placing a crown on the charter. This symbolizes that,
for America, the law is king." Because Aldridge does not
specify that "law" in Paine's text is equal to "charter"
or "Constitution," he makes the mistake that seems to be
common: law is taken in its general sense. The genuine meaning of
Paine's phrase escaped his notice.[16]
… It is significant that the
chief political ceremony of the American polity -- the swearing-in
of the chief executive, the President -- involves some of the
elements pointed out by Paine, which are in accord with British
customs. A born Englishman, Paine was well aware of English
tradition and retained some elements of the English coronation
procedure. A day, Inauguration Day, is "solemnly set apart;"
"the divine law, the Word of God" (that is, the Bible)
mentioned by Paine appears in this political ritual, for the
President takes his oath with one hand on the Bible. But the sense
of the ceremony has been changed utterly as demonstrated above. The
American President, assuming his mantle of office, swears faithfully
to uphold the Constitution of the United States. It actually means
that each Presidential inauguration involves a rededication to the
rule of the Constitution, our "charter," as the Supreme
Law. That is, in my opinion, the real meaning of "the law is
king" in the United States.
… Thus Paine eulogized the
Charter as the Supreme Law and suggested that it be respected like a
King, retain a royal aura by inspiring reverence and awe. This idea
first proclaimed in Common Sense and perfectly understood
and imbibed by the Founders of the American Constitution, has been
most influential for the future development of the American state
system: America took the English respect for law one step further.
In England, whatever Parliament passes becomes the law without
further review. In America, all laws must meet the requirement that
they be "constitutional" -- that is, not be in conflict
with the Constitution. One might suppose that the Constitution has
become the true "King" of the United States.
… How could it happen that these
ideas articulated in Common Sense were incorporated into the
Presidential oath, while the author was never referred to in
connection with its formation? Let us examine some aspects of the
history of the famous pamphlet.
… It is well known that the
circulation and popularity of Common Sense were
unprecedented: according to some scholars, about half-a-million
copies of Common Sense were sold in 1776. The pamphlet was
reprinted only in 1791.[17] It was distributed either free or for a
very low price: "Common Sense for eighteen pence"
was quite common at the time. The ideas of Common Sense fell
on fertile ground and were absorbed avidly that very year, 1776, and
reflected in both the Declaration of Independence and some
state constitutions, laying a foundation for the future democratic
republican structure of this country.
… An astute anonymous
correspondent from the Constitutional Gazette (February 24,
1776) predicted: "This animated piece (Common Sense --
K.R.) dispels, with irresistible energy, the prejudice of the mind
against the doctrine of independence, and pours in upon it such an
inundation of light and truth, as will produce an instantaneous and
marvelous change in the temper - in the views and feelings of an
American. The ineffable delight with which it is perused, and its
doctrines imbibed, is a demonstration that the seeds of
independence, will grow surprisingly with proper cultivation in the
fields of America."[18] The half-million copies sold mostly in
America, in 1776, may well be responsible for the change of opinion
of the people.
… Here is the testimony of
another of Paine's contemporaries, David Ramsey, a most valuable
one, as he was the author of the first history of the American
Revolution, published in 1789. In his Preface, Ramsey informs the
reader that as a member of Congress "in the year 1781, 1783,
1785, and 1786," he "had access to all the official papers
of the United States;" and that he writes "about recent
events, known to thousands as well as myself." Ramsey states: "Some
of the popular leaders may have secretly wished for independence
from the beginning of the controversy, but their number was small
and their sentiments were not generally known. While the public mind
was balancing on this eventful subject, several writers placed the
advantages of independence in various points of view. Among these
Thomas Paine in a pamphlet, under the signature of Common Sense,
held the most distinguishing rank. ……In union with the
feelings and sentiments of the people, it produced surprising
effects. Many thousands were convinced, and were led to approve and
long for a separation from the Mother Country. Though that measure,
a few months before, was not only foreign from their wishes, but the
object of their abhorrence, the current suddenly became so strong in
its favour, that it bore down all opposition. . . The great bulk of
the people, and especially of the spirited and independent part of
the community, came with surprising unanimity into the project of
independence."[19] We see from Ramsey's remarks that Paine's
contribution to the "events" was well remembered at the
time of the Constitutional Convention.
… It is strange that Paine is not
given -- not only in world history, but even in American history
--the place he seems to deserve. Let us turn to the opinions of some
well-known modern scholars.
… The works of Bernard Bailyn are
among the classic contributions to the study of the ideology and
history of the American Revolution. Bailyn asserts that even at the
height of Common Sense's success, its influence upon
Congress from May to July 1776, at the time when the Declaration of
Independence had been worked out, and solemnly announced, is not
evident. According to this scholar: "Thomas Paine's Common
Sense is the most brilliant pamphlet written during the American
Revolution, and one of the most brilliant pamphlets ever written in
the English language .... For it is a work of genius." But "the
closer we look at the details of what happened in Congress in early
1776 the less important Common Sense appears to have been."[20]
Most likely, Bailyn means that Paine's name was not heard at any
official discussion or debate, and that is true.
… The observation of Pauline
Maier is close to Bailyn's. No obvious evidence of Paine's influence
is seen: "State and local resolutions on Independence said
nothing about the flaws of the British constitution, or the future
of mankind, or the birthday of a new world. They suggest, in fact,
that Paine's influence was more modest than he claimed and than his
more enthusiastic admirers assume."[21] The statements of fact
are historically accurate but the opinion about Paine's rather "modest"
effect on the events is open to dispute. The impact of some ideas
might be immense, but, for a variety of reasons, the source of those
ideas may not be so obvious to be identified.[22]
… One more example may illustrate
the attitude towards Paine among some outstanding modern scholars.
Gordon S. Wood in his The Radicalism of the American Revolution
claims: "There is a time for understanding the particular, and
there is a time for understanding the whole." Three consequent
parts of the research -- Monarchy, Republicanism, Democracy --
present a profound generalization of the data, collected by scholars
inspecific fields of the history of the Revolution. Wood notes:
"Americans had become, almost overnight, the most
liberal, the most democratic, the most commercially minded, and
the most modern people of the world;" "the Revolution
was the most radical and most far-reaching event in American
history."[23]
And yet, there is nothing about Paine's ideological contribution to
such an immense leap in American history.
… If at the peak of the stunning
success of Common Sense, Paine's name was never mentioned at
official public events and in state documents, small wonder the
author was not referred to eleven years later, at the Constitutional
Convention, and not given his due in some modern studies on the
American Revolution.
… Why should this be so? In my
opinion, the principal reason derives from the fact, which scholars
have failed to take into account: Common Sense had been
published anonymously. Only in the new edition of 1791 was
Paine at long last identified as the author.[24] I have no evidence
that Paine's authorship was known in the years between 1776 and 1791
in America, or in Europe, except to the leaders of the American
Revolution and to a few others with whom he had dealings. The group
might count some 2-3 thousand, the deputies of the Continental and
provincial Congresses, their families, friends and surroundings
included. The population of the colonies was about three million,
that of England was about seven million. Common Sense was
read in continental Europe as well. The readers might amount to
several million. They suspected the author to be Franklin, John
Adams, Samuel Adams, Washington, Jefferson, Benjamin Rush,
Dickinson, Otis. All of these names were suggested and mentioned at
the time. It's a common delusion to believe that Paine was
known "to everyone" then.
… To question this statement one
should present any article, book or official document, published in
the period from 1776 to 1791, in which Paine was named as the author
of Common Sense, for everyone to know. Surely Paine was
mentioned in private letters and diaries that were written by those
who belonged to the "small" group to which I have referred
previously. Does it mean, as the delusion runs, that it did not take
very long for everyone to know who its author was? How could
the "large" group get to know the name of the author, if
Common Sense was published anonymously in 1776 and never
republished until 1791? As far as I know, Paine as the author was
not mentioned at that period in any official document, article, or
book. The only exception, to the best of my knowledge, is the fact
that David Ramsey named Paine as the author of Common Sense
in his The History of the American Revolution, in 1789.[25]
… There might be several reasons
for Paine's preferring to remain unknown. One of them is that Paine
was ambitious in a most peculiar way:his principles should be put
forward, but never his personality. He published
anonymously, or under various pseudonyms but mostly as "Common
Sense," all of his more than forty works written between
1775-1791 (except for three "Letters" on the Affair of
Silas Deane). His explanation helps to understand his motives: "In
a great affair where the happiness of man is at stake, I love to
work for nothing, and so fully am I under the influence of this
principle that I should lose the spirit, the pleasure, and the pride
of it, were I conscious that I looked for reward."[26] Paine
did not seek any pecuniary interest from his literary works, and
whatever money he did receive, he did not spend on himself, but on
causes he believed in. The "reward" he objected to surely
includes not only money, but personal glory as well. And Paine
never claimed his authorship publicly then. Paine obstinately
insisted on keeping a low profile. He grumbled that he "did
not like to be always the proposer of new things, [as]it would have
too assuming an appearance; and besides,[he] did not think the
country was quite wrong enough to be put right." (emphasis. --
Paine).[27]
… To the best of my knowledge,
the fact of the pamphlet having been published anonymously and its
effects, have never been subjected to thorough investigation and
consideration.[28] But only by taking this circumstance into account
one can grasp why Paine as the creator of novel ideas, vitally
significant for the birth and development of this country, was never
mentioned at the Constitutional Convention, or at least in its
published records.
… In my opinion, the very
popularity and omnipresence of the anonymous Common Sense
which was mostly spread in 1776, might well have created the feeling
that its contents were somehow part of the atmosphere, "in the
air," the emanation of some collective common sense. Paine's
thoughts were assumed to be those of ordinary common sense that
everyone, obviously, is sure to possess. It seems to be true even
with the members of the Constitutional Convention, who obviously
belonged to the "small" group and knew the author of Common
Sense. Eleven years had passed since the pamphlet had been
published, and as Paine had never claimed his authorship openly then
they might have felt free not to bother about the origin of the
ideas we are concerned with in this paper. When Paine's name became
widely known in the 1790s, the American Revolution had already been
won. The concepts of the famous pamphlet intended for its initial,
pre-independence period, had already been thoroughly assimilated by
the society. Those ideas seemed to have come somehow from the air,
to such an extent that they were not, could not, be associated with
any particular writer, but, rather, with everyone's own common
sense. That might be the main cause of Paine going without
mention: his ideas were deeply absorbed without identification of
the author's name. Paine's goal had been attained: principles, not
his personal fame as the author of renowned works, were what
mattered for him then.
… Thus it happened historically,
that in accordance with the desire of its author, the gigantic
influence of the famous pamphlet Common Sense on the
American people -- on the architects of the American Constitution
and of the Presidential oath among them -- occurred without its
anonymous author being identified.
… The aspiration for an ideal
form of government, based on law, had been expressed by many
thinkers long before the Age of the Democratic Revolutions. It had
been found Utopian, unrealizable. Rousseau stated the thought in a
most expressive way: "the great problem in politics, that I
compare to squaring the circle in geometry, [is] to find a form of
government which places the law above men."[29] Common
Sense seems to offer an answer to the apparently solution-proof
problem. The author delineates a new type of state heretofore
unknown to human history: a democratic, representative republic
based on a written Constitution, as the Supreme Law, that ascribes
the highest value to individual human rights.
… At least two of Paine's
contemporaries appreciated the contribution as a discovery of
tremendous importance for humanity: an anonymous correspondent of
The Constitutional Gazette, (New York, New York) in February
24, 1776, and Alexander Radishchev (1749-1802), the first Russian
radical, in the early 1780s.
… An unidentified correspondent
from Hartford in his letter to the New York popular newspaper, dated
February 19 (that is, only forty days after the famous pamphlet was
first published), states: "The pamphlet entitled "Common
Sense," is indeed a wonderful production .... The author
introduces a new system of politics, as widely different from the
old, as the Copernican system is from the Ptolemaic .... This
extraordinary performance .... contains as surprising a discovery in
politics as the works of Sir Isaac Newton do in philosophy."
[30] For the Russian writer, the author of Common Sense towered over
all his contemporaries. Radishchev considered him the discoverer of
truths so important for humanity, that he likened the impact of his
ideas to the act of divine creation.[31]
… Some modern scholars assume
Paine's contribution to the problem. John Keane, Paine's biographer,
states that Paine proclaimed "the new principle of
representative democratic government, which Paine's good friend
Thomas Jefferson later remarked, 'rendered useless almost everything
written before on the structures of government'. "[32] Pauline
Maier (I sense she is not a Paine admirer!) makes a remark: "It
was in opening up new areas of discussion that Paine made his main
contribution: Common Sense prodded debate from the then-exhausted
themes of Britain, her King, and institutions, toward a new
controversy over the internal structure of republican government."[33]
She obviously meant the debate concerning the form of the
government.
… The evolution of the attitude
towards Paine's discoveries is in three stages, which are common, I
suggest, to the reception of almost any discovery. First,
the belief that it cannot be true. Second, people say: well,
perhaps there is something in it, after all. The last stage
is: it is obvious, everyone knows it. 34] This third stage came for
many Americans unbelievably quickly, in 1776, and has lasted until
now. And as Paine's ideas have been so thoroughly imbibed without
his name being connected, his contribution has been underestimated.
… To be historically precise, one
should distinguish between the original inventors or discoverers in
some field, and those who improve upon the original. In his Common
Sense, while introducing his ideas about a republican
Constitution, Paine states: "If there is any true cause of fear
respecting independence, it is because no plan is yet laid
down. Men do not see their way out. Wherefore, as an opening into
that business I offer the following hints; at the same time
modestly affirming, that I have no other opinion of them myself,
than that they may be the means of giving rise to something better.
Could the straggling thoughts of individuals be collected, they
would frequently form materials for wise and able men to improve
into useful matter."[35]
… In 1790 Edmund Burke expressed
a similar idea in a more general way, using the same words "plan"and
"business," in an inadvertent verbal echo of Paine
in that passage: "in my course I have known, and, according to
my measure, have co-operated with great men: and I have never yet
seen any plan which has not been mended by the observations
of those who were much inferior in understanding to the person
who took the lead in the business."36] The "plan"
is set out by one definite original author; then developing it into
practical "business" requires the effort of many
other people who follow the original thinker.
… Is it not much more common to
improve upon "plans" than to create them, to follow along
a path already laid down by one trail-blazing political thinker? It,
very likely, was Thomas Paine's "plan" in Common
Sense that started the "business" of the
American constitutional system. Many investigate the deeds and
writings of those who improved Paine's "plan," but as a
review of the scholarly literature suggests, despite the volume of
writings on Paine, there is a palpable reluctance to investigate
Paine's unprecedented role in furnishing the ideological
basis for the American state structure based on the written
Constitution. And probably the principal reason is that Paine's
ideas were absorbed without identification of the author's name, or,
more curiously, without attention to the matter.
… The inscription on Thomas
Paine's headstone in New Rochelle was engraved according to his
will: "Thomas Paine (1737-1809), Author of Common Sense."
Why did he not specify other works, such as Rights of Man,
nearly one million copies of which were published during Paine's
life?
… In 1805 Paine gave the reason
for his preference: "The independence of America would have
added but little to her own happiness, and been of no benefit to the
world, if her government had been formed on the corrupt models
of the old world. It was the opportunity of beginning the
world anew, as it were; and of bringing forward a new system of
government in which the rights of all men should be preserved that
gave value to independence. The pamphlet Common Sense ....
embraced both those objects. Mere independence might at some future
time, have been effected and established by arms, without
principle, but a just system of government could not. In
short, it was the principle, at that time, that produced the
independence; for until the principle spread itself abroad among the
people, independence was not thought of, and America was fighting
without an object. Those who know the circumstances of the times I
speak of, know this to be true." (Italics - Paine)[37] Here
Paine formulates the "principle" that makes the core of
modern democracies: "a new system of government in
which the rights of all men should be preserved" and
proclaims himself the forerunner of the "system" that
begins "the world anew.
… According to Pauley's apt
observation, the American President's oath is "the true
crown of American constitutionalism."38] As is shown above,
the Constitutional oath of President of the United States embodies
the fundamental concept of Paine's "new system of government"
as it is presented in Common Sense: the written Constitution
of a democratic republic, as the Supreme Law, worked out by the
Constitutional Convention, is to be the true King of this country.
In my opinion, the contents of the Presidential oath, its history,
and the very manner of its taking -- all testify to the fact that
Common Sense, more than any other source, is its true
ideological foundation.
The author holds the copyright on this
article. Permission to reprint in whole or part must be
requested of the author. Footnotes and references to this
article are omitted and should be obtained from the author.
Klara Rukshina is a historian, Thomas Paine scholar, author of
works on P aine's contribution to the origin of modern
democracies and his influence on social and political thought.
Her degrees include Ph.D., History, Academy of Science of the
USSR, Moscow, and M.A., Philology, LeningradUniversity , USSR.
In 1993- 94 she was supported by a grant from IREX (The
International Research and Exchanges Board) at the History
Department of Harvard University to continue her studies on
Thomas Paine. She is a former professor in the Department of
Theory and History of Culture at Minsk State Linguistic
University (Belarus).
Klara Rukshina is the author of Thomas Paine, Historic
Portrait; Mary Wollstonecraft on the Rights of Woman; Mary
Wollstonecraft and the French Revolution; Dostoevsky and
Edmund Burke; Radishchev and the American Revolution; N.M.
Karamzin and the English Democratic Literature, among the
works published in journals of the Academy of Sciences of the
USSR (Moscow). In the USA she published: Thomas Paine and the
First Russian Radical, Alexander Radishchev; Common Sense as a
Source of the Presidential Oath in the United States of
America; An Early Comment on Paine's Common Sense; On the
Origin of the Presidential Oath in the United States. She now
lives in Cambridge, MA, and is currently working on her
monograph, Thomas Paine and the Origin of Modern Democracies.
|
POINT OF CLARIFICATION BY MR. RAY SOLLER (received March
2013):
Dear Webmaster,
The Klara Rukshina essay, Common Sense as a Source of the
Presidential Oath in the United States of America, states:
At the first inaugural George Washington
spontaneously added the phrase [So help me God] that echoes the
final sentence in the Coronation Oath. Since then, every
subsequent president has said it.
The current state of scholarly awareness acknowledges the fact
that there is no contemporary evidence to support the notion of
George Washington having added "So help me God" to his
presidential oath. See "I Do Solemnly Swear . . .”
George Washington Takes the First Oath of Office, 1789 by Dr.
Donald Kennon, Chief Historian of the U.S. Capitol Historical
Society.
Up until recently, historians’ accounts of Washington ’s
first inaugural included the claim that at the conclusion of the
oath Washington added the phrase, “so help me God.” No
contemporary accounts of the inauguration made reference to the
phrase, and the first time the claim appeared in print was some 60
years later. Most scholars now accept that there is no credible
evidence that Washington said “so help me God.” That,
however, doesn’t mean that the oath itself lacked a religious
connotation. It was taken on a Bible and, moreover, the wording of
the oath, “I do solemnly swear,” was a clear and
forceful reference to the religious sanction given to the oath.
The word “solemn,” derived from the Latin solemnis
(consecrated, holy) carried a stronger religious connotation in
the late 18th century than it does today when to most it simply
means “grave, serious, or somber.”
When it comes to "every subsequent president" having
said "So help me God" that extra-constitutional practice
did not take hold until FDR's March 4, 1933 first inaugural
ceremony. Herbert Hoover is that last president who is known not
to have included those words while swearing his oath of office.
(Actually, most presidents are not known to have added the now
familiar religious codicil to their presidential oath.)
I suggest, in respectful memory of Klara Rukshina, that an
editorial footnote be added to her excellent essay for the purpose
of bringing her work up to date with current scholarly awareness.
|
|
