Including Society of the Cincinnati eagle

 
Dcgb7f
 
Avatar
 
 
Dcgb7f
Total Posts:  516
Joined  07-07-2007
 
 
 
08 September 2007 20:21
 

David Pritchard;49408 wrote:

To the best of my knowledge George Lucki holds a master’s degree not a doctoral degree. Not that this lessens the value of his learned opinions in any way.

My mistake. I was merely following Michael Swanson’s example.


Quote:

Perhaps it is worth noting, though, that members of the U.S. military are authorized to wear the SoC eagle on their dress uniforms, and that members of the SoC have a federal rank analagous to a junior commissioned officer or something. In the order of precedence for the U.S., the President of the SoC ranks alongside a lieutenant governor of a territory like Puerto Rico or Guam. The latter points are not true of any other lineage societies, though the insignia of two others—Aztec Club of 1847 and the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the U.S.—can be word on U.S. military uniforms. Like the SoC, the Aztec Club and MOLLUS are hereditary.

Well, knowing that about the SoC, Aztec Club, and MOLLUS, I guess you could make a case for their display. I still would be uncomfortable because it’s still just an association of people regardless of their priviledges. Maybe I can get my local city to recognize the Society of Montclair. raspberry For American heraldic practice, I prefer the display of insignia denoting some honor bestowed by the people through their government as this it more in keeping with this country’s non-aristocratic views. One could easily see an aristocracy as a selective association of people with priviledges.


Quote:

if not the SoC then surely not any other hereditary order

Fine by me… but that’s just me.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
08 September 2007 20:40
 

I’m not sure I would class the Aztec Club and MOLLUS with the SoC, first because both were founded in conscious imitation of the SoC, and second because they don’t confer anything more than membership, whereas the SoC confers a bit more from the government’s standpoint, even if the average member never has an occasion to experience deference of any sort simply because he’s a Cincinnatus.

But let me ask you something, Daniel. You’re a Roman Catholic seminarian if I read correctly. How do you reconcile your discomfort with the trappings of aristocracy with your vocation? My perception is that the church, in both reality and appearance, is quite aristocratic in its structure and practices. Liberation Theology and the "preferential option for the poor" rhetoric notwithstanding, being a practicing Catholic—much less an aspirant to Holy Orders—presumes a certain comfort level with that, doesn’t it?

 
Dcgb7f
 
Avatar
 
 
Dcgb7f
Total Posts:  516
Joined  07-07-2007
 
 
 
08 September 2007 20:51
 

First of all, I’m not going to answer that question here because it’ll be too theological of an answer for a forum interested in heraldry and consisting of members from disparate religious backgrounds. This is not the place to discuss that.

Secondly, I never said I was uncomfortable with the idea of aristocracy (and that has nothing to do with my Catholic beliefs). I said that the trappings of aristocracy are not in keeping with "this country’s non-aristocratic views." This country as a whole is uncomfortable with aristocracy

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
08 September 2007 22:11
 

I think many have tap danced around the point of the AHS guidelines on this topic.

To avoid disagreement about the guidelines, many have said they are only weakly suggestive—that they are rules of thumb regarding heraldic good taste.

 

I think there is a deeper connection between the goals of the society and the AHS guidelines.  If we really want a large segment of the population to embrace heraldry, then any stigma (and confusion) associated with bearing arms must be eliminated.

 

The stigma is created mainly by the British history of heraldry’s association with social status derived from birthright. The display of hereditary society insignia with coats of arms reinforces this public perception.

 

It is very exciting to belong to a hereditary society, and it is a source of pride (my son is a member of the CAR and my wife the DAR).  It makes history come alive, and it is fun to imagine that we have inherited the blood (now DNA) of important people in history.  It is also meritorious to help these societies achieve their historical, educational, and charitable goals.

 

But, as long as we publicly tie heraldry to hierarchical birthright, even indirectly through birth society decorations, our marketing of heraldry to the masses—as something that is American as apple pie—will be next to impossible.  That these insignia can be displayed on government uniforms I don’t think should be given any weight since the goals of the AHS are much different.

 

Some argue that we should be more liberal about this, and encourage the display of all sorts of insignia.  While that might encourage a small number of people to embrace heraldry, I think in the long run, this undercuts the educational goal of large-scale acceptance.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
08 September 2007 23:26
 

Dcgb7f;49412 wrote:

First of all, I’m not going to answer that question here because it’ll be too theological of an answer for a forum interested in heraldry and consisting of members from disparate religious backgrounds. This is not the place to discuss that.


Fair enough.


Dcgb7f;49412 wrote:

This country as a whole is uncomfortable with aristocracy


Our inheritance and tax laws certainly don’t reflect that, and for other reasons, too, I think the picture is more complex than that, whatever our official and sentimental republican pieties. But I respect your views and appreciate your sharing them so candidly.wink

 
Dcgb7f
 
Avatar
 
 
Dcgb7f
Total Posts:  516
Joined  07-07-2007
 
 
 
08 September 2007 23:57
 

fwhite;49417 wrote:

Our inheritance and tax laws certainly don’t reflect that, and for other reasons, too, I think the picture is more complex than that, whatever our official and sentimental republican pieties.

Well, I was narrowly defining aristocracy in the sense of a nobility that it is restricted to bloodlines. I’m fairly confident most of the American populace would be against an aristocratic nobility carried by bloodline. That definition certainly does not include America’s aristocracy that derives their status from money, and to which anyone fortunate enough to win the Power Ball or make it big on the next hot idea can become a member. A money aristocracy is well entrenched into the idea of the American dream and in American history as evidenced by figures like Rockefeller and Vanderbilt, so I would agree with you that that sort of aristocracy is accepted in the US.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
09 September 2007 02:07
 

Okay, but at the end of the day, isn’t this difference between the presence and absence of a titled nobility pretty superficial? And aren’t the American people alert enough to see that? The whole world is a great deal more complex now than it was when any titled nobility last held the reins of real political power, but America is especially so. It is therefore hard to compare our country at the present time with, say, 18th c. Great Britain, but I think it safe to assert that people here do inherit political power and economic power in scarcely less measure than their Old World counterparts, and that our taboo against noble titles is really not much more than a kind of quaint and romantic legacy of the Enlightenment, though it is definitely hard for me to imagine our supporting any change in the franchise—one adult/one vote. Look at all the people in any diocese who accept Papal knighthoods as a reward for charity; the people who seek membership in the Knights of Malta; the fascination with the British Royal family, the weird way we make proxy aristocrats of entertainers, etc., etc. What is any of this about if not nostalgia (conscious or no) for an explicitly aristocratic society?

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
09 September 2007 09:28
 

fwhite;49419 wrote:

Okay, but at the end of the day, isn’t this difference between the presence and absence of a titled nobility pretty superficial?


No.  What is at stake is the ideal that I am created morally equal to any man.  My moral worth is the same no matter who my parents are and no matter what I inherit financially.  It follows that every citizen may aspire to any station or office, is subject to the same laws, and suffers the same penalties for crimes.

 

You argue that since Americans are already stratified by privilege and practical limitation, we should formalize and entrench the stratification by giving those who are "winning the game" at the moment the trophy of noble titles.  I will grant that equal moral worth does not mean everyone will reap societal rewards; the barriers are related to one’s ambition, financial situation, and sadly, race, religion, non-religion, gender, and sexual orientation.  But to throw out the ideal of equal moral worth, or to confuse it with financial worth, is to make a category mistake.  Moreover, it is to throw out the founding principle of this country.

 

The ideal is a fragile one, as you point out.  There are enemies to this ideal who would like birthright to once again determine moral worth.  This old tribal idea, that some blood carries magical power that endows children with special abilities and moral worth is an ancient one, and is hard to shake off.  But we must.

 

That is why nobility, and its trappings, should be shunned, when marketing heraldry in America—for the sake of heraldry, and to help in some small way to preserve the fragile American principle of equal moral worth.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
09 September 2007 12:04
 

fwhite;49419 wrote:

Okay, but at the end of the day, isn’t this difference between the presence and absence of a titled nobility pretty superficial? And aren’t the American people alert enough to see that? The whole world is a great deal more complex now than it was when any titled nobility last held the reins of real political power, but America is especially so. It is therefore hard to compare our country at the present time with, say, 18th c. Great Britain, but I think it safe to assert that people here do inherit political power and economic power in scarcely less measure than their Old World counterparts, and that our taboo against noble titles is really not much more than a kind of quaint and romantic legacy of the Enlightenment, though it is definitely hard for me to imagine our supporting any change in the franchise—one adult/one vote. Look at all the people in any diocese who accept Papal knighthoods as a reward for charity; the people who seek membership in the Knights of Malta; the fascination with the British Royal family, the weird way we make proxy aristocrats of entertainers, etc., etc. What is any of this about if not nostalgia (conscious or no) for an explicitly aristocratic society?


I agree. Look at the way we’ve made the Kennedys (far from one of the wealthiest families in the country) into a kind of royal family. Look at the way people are falling over themselves to endorse Hillary Clinton for president because her past affiliation with the White House and presidency seem to make her the natural choice in their estimation (i.e. a "successor to her husband) as well as the many who did the same for the current president as following in the footsteps of his father. Look, too, at the fascination Americans had for Grace Kelly becoming a princess, etc., etc.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
09 September 2007 12:09
 

Thanks for weighing in, Michael. I’m a little unclear on what you mean by "morally equal," but I will assume that you are referring to equality before the law. This is a principle I absolutely embrace, and I do not think I’ve stated otherwise, though my sympathies undeniably tend somewhat to the patrician.


Michael Swanson;49422 wrote:

You argue that since Americans are already stratified by privilege and practical limitation, we should formalize and entrench the stratification by giving those who are "winning the game" at the moment the trophy of noble titles.


Do I? I certainly don’t advocate for the creation a national system of hereditary honors, much less awarding the oligarchy an organ of government like the old House of Lords, but neither do I believe the former, at least, is categorically bad. I believe I’m just saying that we obviously embrace the existence of privilege, and enshrine and mythologize the possibility of acquiring it (however remote). We also realize that privilege (not just wealth, but the myriad opportunities wealth creates) can be passed down through the generations and make no effort to curb that. Our current President is a perfect illustration of this. I’m also pointing out that even in countries where there was, historically, a hereditary elite, the doors to this elite were generally quite open to the best and the brightest. It’s hard to generalize, in a way, because a British peerage was a very different thing from a Continental title, and within the Continent, what privileges a title did or didn’t bestow varied an awful lot from time to time and place to place. But even in England, a peerage was no airtight guarantee of status or material well-being for an indefinite number of generations—no more than a railroad or an oil fortune is here. The doors swung both ways. New titles were created and old ones fell into abeyance for all the reasons that life often doesn’t go as hoped. We republicans tend to overlook that when assessing the relative importance of the existence or non-existence of a formal aristocracy.

 

But we are not deciding matters of state. The bottom line is that there may be perfectly good reasons not to include emblems of hereditary distinctions on full achievements of arms, but I don’t think we’ve adduced one so far. Some Americans may have an instinct to object to such badges, but this might be viewed as hypocrisy on the part of most.


Michael Swanson;49422 wrote:

This old tribal idea, that some blood carries magical power that endows children with special abilities and moral worth is an ancient one, and is hard to shake off.  But we must.


In fact, it would seem "blood" (DNA) determines a heck of a lot, and that there is no magic to it at all. I do not think the advantages blood confers should be augmented by special legal protections (because they don’t need to be), and I do not think they even need to be remarked upon unless one’s interlocutor is trying to argue that they don’t exist.


Michael Swanson;49422 wrote:

That is why nobility, and its trappings, should be shunned, when marketing heraldry in America—for the sake of heraldry, and to help in some small way to preserve the fragile American principle of equal moral worth.


I sense that you’re conflating equality of outcomes with equality before the law in this notion of "moral equality," but by all means disambiguate that if you care to.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
09 September 2007 12:19
 

Michael Swanson;49422 wrote:

No.  What is at stake is the ideal that I am created morally equal to any man.  My moral worth is the same no matter who my parents are and no matter what I inherit financially.  It follows that every citizen may aspire to any station or office, is subject to the same laws, and suffers the same penalties for crimes.


I think this country let go of that ideal a long time ago.

 

A truly egalitarian view of heraldry would allow for the display of those ornaments that each individual would desire. Otherwise it becomes conformist and oppressive. If you legislate that all display of arms must be done equally not only might it undercut the very nature of heraldry but it then limits freedom of expression. Often the insignia which people wish to display are not given them by right of birth or wealth. They are often well-deserved rewards representing a great deal of work and/or personal sacrifice. Why should they be forbidden to display them? Is it just so that those who haven’t earned them will feel better about themselves because their coat of arms will look equal? Are we after the mere appearance of equality?

 

The equal value of every human person is a truth enshrined in the objective natural law (as well as the doctrines of many of the worlds religious systems and the basic tenets of most ethically aware people) as a concept. Manipulating the display of heraldry as a means to communicate that will not bring it about. It is too contrived a method. It is far more important for us to educate the public that the equality lies in that all people may have a coat of arms ( as opposed to only the chosen few) rather than that all coats of arms must appear equal.

 

If, as Americans, we were to eschew all trappings that alluded to nobility, aristocracy, or class distinctions then all of you who currently employ a helm, mantle, torse and crest should remove them from your arms because those are the trappings of knighthood: a class distinction within medieval European society that very few of you possess. A truly egalitarian "American" display of heraldry would consist, then, of simply a shield and motto.

 
Joe123
 
Avatar
 
 
Joe123
Total Posts:  82
Joined  02-08-2007
 
 
 
09 September 2007 12:55
 

Gentlemen, I happened on this discussion this morning and could not help replying; I offer these comments:

It really is the "idea" that matters…  I think Micheal is dead-on with his comment: "What is at stake is the ideal that I am created morally equal to any man. My moral worth is the same no matter who my parents are and no matter what I inherit financially. It follows that every citizen may aspire to any station or office, is subject to the same laws, and suffers the same penalties for crimes."  This is precisely the idea that others die for everyday in their attempt to merely have the CHANCE to participate in it.

 

This "belief" is all we have - if people simply cease to honestly "believe" this in their hearts - what we have here is all over.  Our country is truely founded, quite simply, on that wispy "idea" - so light and ephemoral, yet so profound in it’s implications.  It’s fragile, it’s fleeting, and it’s like a whiff smoke.  It has to be guarded jealously and directly addressed with the people who seek to destroy it (and there are many, many of these).

 

In 21 years of service in squalid countries ("addressing" those same nere-do-wells) where we hoped to pacify things enough so that the ideals of our country could somehow bring a bit of improvement to theirs, I met not one person who did not instinctively know America was a place of opportunity and fairness. This is demonstrated as our armies seek to set the conditions so that the environment is conducive to the "whole" being elevated through the empowerment of the individual - regardless of that individuals origin.

 

In every single case, every single country, and with everyone I’ve met - they all simply wanted a chance to live in a society where they would be on equal footing, with at least the "chance" to better their lives and those of their family’s; regardless of tribe, religion, or family.

 

Regarding hereditary entitlement and the attendent priviledged class it spawns, well, this is nothing new in America.  What should be bothering this country is the simply enourmous amount of wealth a small group is accruing - it is not simply very wealthy people who live a luxurious life, but a cadre of business people and investors who accrue and wield fortunes which exceed the GDP of most small countries.  This gives them tremendous power here and abroad…  all of which will transfer to their children should they care to assume the mantle - all of which translates to untitled nobility.  Omninus in a bad way for our country, and what we were founded on.

 

So here we have it, THE BIG CONTRADICTION, yet, at the very same time, the crux of our "idea" as Americans.  ...One should try to achieve as much as humanly possible, but, when is that too much?  As long as we argue this topic as a society, and don’t solve it with torches and pitchforks while storming the capitol, I think we are on the right track.  When our citizenry speaks of storming the "bastilles" of the super wealthy, we should all pay attention, as it’s a sign of deep unrest and corrosive morale which might not serve the continued existence of this "experiment" we call America.

 

So, how does that effect how we display arms, which in my opinion are ruthlessly exclusive by nature? Well, I don’t see to many problems with it - we are a society of "look what I have done" and "look at all my accomplishments"... we celebrate that, and elevate those who prove it.  That is who we are, and an off-shoot of the "you can achieve whatever you want attitude" that should continue to be nurtured.  Heraldic displays are yet another way to communicate that - and the bearer should be proud to show those things to others.

 

If you want to let everybody know you are from some society, or some type of "special" organization, or that your dear grandad was the Grand Most High Potentate of the Most Religious and Exhalted Republic of Shalaga in 1810, that’s terrific, celebrate it, show it off, you should be proud…  just don’t expect any special priviledge or treatment because of it.

 

For what it’s worth….

 

Joe

 
Andrew J Vidal
 
Avatar
 
 
Andrew J Vidal
Total Posts:  567
Joined  13-10-2006
 
 
 
09 September 2007 13:48
 

Very well stated Joe!

I’ll throw my two cents into the ring for what it’s worth.  I personally feel that if you’re inducted into a chivalric order or if you’ve been awarded special recognition by any government, you should display those awards/insignia in your achievement if it pleases you.  I don’t see anything aristocratic about it at all.  Even if the award/order is inherited, be proud of your father’s, grand father’s or great grand father’s accomplishments and strive to reach that level of greatness or surpass it.

 
Guy Power
 
Avatar
 
 
Guy Power
Total Posts:  1576
Joined  05-01-2006
 
 
 
09 September 2007 13:57
 

fwhite;49407 wrote:

...Perhaps it is worth noting, though, that members of the U.S. military are authorized to wear the SoC eagle on their dress uniforms,...


I wish to address an apparent fiction that has been circulating for some time in the heraldry/chivalry circles—(I’m not directing this to you, fwhite; you only provided the opportunity).  That fiction implies that one may wear the SoC eagle on the US Army dress uniform.  This misinformation is probably attributable to Guy Stair Sainty who makes the claim in his well-researched book, The Orders of St. John.  However, I think that GSS was given incomplete information.

 

I have just read through Army Regulation 670-1 Wear and Appearance of the Army Uniforms and Insignia (HERE), and AR 600-8-22 Military Awards (HERE) and can find no mention that private society awards are authorized for wear on the US Army uniform.  Certain National Guard awards are authorized at NG functions.

 

I faintly recall reading one regulation extract some years back that (if I recall correctly) allowed private society items such as the SoC eagle to be worn on the dress uniform at the function only, not enroute to nor returning from the function.

 

If anyone has a source, I would appreciate a citation to any current US Army Regulation (or other military regulation) that permits wear of the SoC eagle either with or without condition.

 

BTW, Lafayette in America (A. Levasseur, Philadelphia 1839), p90 (HERE), states:
Quote:

...As to the ribband and badge of the society, it is only regarded as an ornament which the members wear exclusively on public occasions, and not as a decoration authorized or sanctioned by the government…


Regards,

—Guy

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
09 September 2007 14:11
 

To Guy’s point, I definitely picked up the army uniforms contention from a secondary source, and I am grateful for the clarification, but I don’t gather this is supposed to speak to the substance of my argument. Also, I don’t think I’ve said anything to suggest that the SoC confuses the eagle with a U.S. government decoration.