Society of the Cincinnati

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
09 February 2009 08:45
 

In the past, we’ve had a number of discussions about whether it’s appropriate to display the medal-like badges of hereditary societies with personal arms in the US, and I’ve always defended the view expressed in the AHS guidelines:


Quote:

2.2.3.7. Awards and insignia of membership conferred by private organizations, including lineage societies, professional associations of a military character, and Scouting or similar groups, are not customarily depicted as part of armorial achievements in the United States, unless the rules of the organization concerned expressly provide for such display. In that case, they are normally used only in the context of the organization’s activities.


Nathaniel Taylor, a regular participant in rec.heraldry, recently posted a very interesting article on the heraldic activities of Brig. Gen. John Delafield (1875-1964) on his blog, "A Genealogist’s Sketchbook:

 

http://nltaylor.net/sketchbook/archives/220#more-220

 

Delafield was a prominent figure in US heraldic circles in the early 20th century.

 

One of the particularly interesting things Nat includes in his article is this picture of Delafield’s bookplate:

 

http://nltaylor.net/sketchbook/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/bookplate5.jpg

 

Now one swallow doesn’t make a spring, and one bookplate doesn’t establish the existence of a custom, but having argued that I’d never seen the Cincinnati badge displayed with personal arms, I feel obliged to point out this example.

 

Is anyone aware of other examples of the display of such badges in historic American heraldic practice?

 
Alexander Liptak
 
Avatar
 
 
Alexander Liptak
Total Posts:  846
Joined  06-06-2008
 
 
 
09 February 2009 10:17
 

Being a bookplate that includes numerous items not part of the heraldic achievement itself, yet rather artistic license, would this be even a definitive example of using the Cincinnati used heraldicly or as embellishment as the sky and seascapes are, the sword, thistles and so on?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
09 February 2009 10:47
 

In my opinion, attaching it below the shield alongside real orders and decorations (the French Legion of Honor and the US Army Distinguished Service Medal) makes it part of the achievement.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
09 February 2009 12:18
 

Joseph McMillan;66427 wrote:

Is anyone aware of other examples of the display of such badges in historic American heraldic practice?


The operative term, I take it, is "historic". The man to ask would be Henry Beckwith, who is a member of the SoC in Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations, in addition to being the NEHGSCoH’s eminence grise. I believe I noted once before that Henry characterized the eagle as "an honor," and therefore suitable for display in this fashion.

 

In terms of contemporary examples, see this emblazonment on Andrew S. Jamieson’s website:

http://www.medieval-arts.co.uk/Ludwig 11.jpg

 

Whatever the availability of images of the eagle being included in emblazonments, I think it’s safe to say there is a strong tradition of SoC members understanding it to be something more than a sign of club membership. The attitudes of original members are probably best illustrated by portraits of Kosciuszko, who was clearly quite proud of his eagle, insofar as he seems often to have been represented wearing it (alongside some order or award that one of us might be able to identify):

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Tadeusz_Kosciuszko_by_Barwicki.jpg

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc122/fwhiteiv/koscius1.jpg

 

In France, the Ordre des Cincinnati was awarded/processed/conferred—insert appropriate wording—by Louis XVI, in a manner not unlike the Order of St. Louis. The king wasn’t exactly the fons honorum for Cincinnati purposes, but his imprimatur was required for admission of members to the French Society. Is that relevant?

 

I guess what I’m getting at is, if original members displayed the eagle as an order of chivalry, and the eagle is heritable, does that not yield the inference that individuals inheriting the eagle are justified in displaying it like an order of chivalry in the heraldic context?

 

I thank Joe for his gracious reintroduction of this topic, BTW.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
09 February 2009 14:30
 

Here’s another exhibit with some bearing upon the discussion—http://cincinnati-france.org/AlbumsPhotos/BalCin2008/index.html—a slideshow from the French Society’s 2008 ball. If you scroll through, you will see members wearing the eagle alongside military decorations, the Order of Malta, etc.

I’ve seen the same thing done at events here. Invitations always say "black tie or white tie with decorations," the eagle implicitly being among the options for decorations.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
09 February 2009 15:09
 

Fred White;66431 wrote:

I guess what I’m getting at is, if original members displayed the eagle as an order of chivalry, and the eagle is heritable, does that not yield the inference that individuals inheriting the eagle are justified in displaying it like an order of chivalry in the heraldic context?


On the other hand, however they wore it, didn’t the founding members insist that it wasn’t intended to be an order of chivalry?  As for entitlement being inherited, the same can be said of scores of hereditary societies—I don’t think that necessarily offers a firm footing for deciding what should or shouldn’t (note everyone:  I didn’t say "can or can’t"!) be displayed heraldically.  I’m more comfortable with trying to discern what is customary or not.  If SoC members since Delafield (or before, of course) have begun routinely displaying the badge with their arms, I find that more persuasive than an argument from first principles trying to equate the society with orders of chivalry.

 

(Also, note that membership in orders is rarely hereditary, so in fact the hereditary nature of the SoC could be taken as an argument against treating it as an order.  But, as I say, I don’t think the case for or against should be based on such issues anyway.)

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
09 February 2009 15:17
 

Fred White;66431 wrote:

...Kosciuszko, who was clearly quite proud of his eagle, insofar as he seems often to have been represented wearing it (alongside some order or award that one of us might be able to identify)...


"One of us" presumably being George Lucki, but I’m going to hazard a guess that this is the Order "Virtuti Militari," which Kosciuszko did hold.

 

A personal thought:  I find it somewhat easier to think of the Cincinnati eagle as equivalent to an order when worn by an original member who actually served in the war.  It is less easy for me to equate with an order or decoration when worn by someone who is entitled to it solely by virtue of being born.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
09 February 2009 16:00
 

Quote:

On the other hand, however they wore it, didn’t the founding members insist that it wasn’t intended to be an order of chivalry?


Well, my perception is that they did believe it was something like an order of chivalry—equal in prestige—while nonetheless being sui generis. Remember, in France, it was (as is still popularly) called the Order of the Cincinnati. My copy of the history of the Cincinnati from a Virginian point of view is where I get my info about the original members perceiving a rough equivalency there. I do get the impression that, ultimately, the original members felt obliged to minimize their fondness for the Society because of the uproar it caused. But I believe they were changing their skies and not their souls, as it were.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
09 February 2009 16:05
 

It is the Virtuti. He was one of the first recipients. From later images it is clear he wore regularly both the orders of the Cincinnati and the Virtuti Militari. The Cincinnati in my view is very much like an order of chivalry (although it is not one) with a quasi-nobilliary requirement. It requires descent froman American elite and is a society of honour.

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
09 February 2009 17:17
 

I have heard that member’s of the Society of the Cincinnati has an honorary rank of some sort in the US government.  Can anyone expand on this?  To me, this sets is apart from other civilian groups where membership confers nothing but membership.

One issue about the Society that has confused me is that it seemed to function more like an old-boys’ network, and undercut George Washington’s ideal represented in Cincinnatus—that the strength of a country comes from the self-sacrifice of the common man.  Following Cincinnatus’s example, a common man should leave the fields to serve his country temporarily and then return to the fields, perhaps having lost everything because of his service.  I take it that Thomas Jefferson objected to the Society’s primogeniture because membership seemed to create a permanent social structure which cut out the common man from service opportunities. (I may have this wrong.)

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
09 February 2009 17:35
 

Michael Swanson;66448 wrote:

I have heard that member’s of the Society of the Cincinnati has an honorary rank of some sort in the US government. Can anyone expand on this?


Oh, yeah. It’s wishful thinking trending toward nonsense, covered in a previous iteration of this issue in September 2007. Fred had posted the prevailing wisdom within the Society:


Fred White wrote:

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.


To which I responded:


Quote:

... the Wikipedia article on the Cincinnati ... asserts that "Full members of the Society of the Cincinnati are the only United States citizens to hold a Federal civil rank, equivalent to just under that of a commissioned officer. The President General of the Society of The Cincinnati (General Society), who is elected to a three year term of office, holds a civil rank equivalent to a Federal territorial lieutenant governor. The basis for this is Congressional Order of January 29, 1885, which was necessary to determine protocol and seating arrangements at official diplomatic functions."


And then, after a bit more digging:


Quote:

The only problem is that the "Congressional Order" of January 29, 1885, was not issued to determine protocol at official diplomatic functions. For Congress to have regulated diplomatic protocol would have been a usurpation of the President’s authority over the conduct of foreign relations. In fact, the document concerned was merely the order of precedence issued by the Congressional committee charged with arrangements for the dedication of the Washington Monument. In other words, a directive as to who would stand and sit where at one particular event, one time.

One might as well look at the seating chart for a state dinner and deduce that Academy award winning actors or professional golfers have permanent fixed places in the official order of precedence.

 

The claim that members of the society rank just after commissioned officers would seem to come from the same event. The report of the procession to the dedication ceremony (http://www.nps.gov/archive/wamo/history/appe.htm) has the members of the SoC collectively marching just after "officers of the Army and Navy" and before the Masonic grand lodge of the District of Columbia. To extrapolate this into a claim of permanent personal precedence or "civil rank" would require likewise according "civil rank" to the Masons, not to mention giving members of the carpenters’ union precedence over DC firefighters but behind journeymen stonecutters, based on the order of march.


(By the way, as I mentioned during the same time frame, the oft-cited Congressional enactment that’s supposed to constitute unique recognition of the society in terms of the right to wear it on the uniform actually groups it in with a number of other groups, and arguably doesn’t extend to those who hold membership in right of an ancestor: "Resolve, That the distinctive badges adopted by military societies of men who served in the armies and navies of the United States in the war of the Revolution, the war of eighteen hundred and twelve, the Mexican war, and the war of the rebellion respectively, may be worn upon all occasions of ceremony by officers and enlisted men of the Army and Navy of the United States, who are members of said organizations in their own right." (Joint Resolution, 25 September 1890 (26 Stat. 681))

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
09 February 2009 18:31
 

Joseph McMillan;66449 wrote:

Oh, yeah. It’s wishful thinking trending toward nonsense, covered in a previous iteration of this issue in September 2007. Fred had posted the prevailing wisdom within the Society


I won’t opine further, other than to say I’m almost certain that whatever is on Wikipedia is taken from some Society publication which probably did represent the prevailing wisdom in the Society at some time—most likely the late 19th c., when lineage societies were being founded left and right and it would have been natural for the older ones to assert superiority to the others. I have no basis for generalizing about the prevailing wisdom on this question now.

 

Ultimately, I think Joe is right in suggesting that a discussion based on historic heraldic practice is the most constructive for our purposes, but since choices to display this or that additament are guided by circumstances external to heraldry itself, I think some evaluation of the reasons why an armiger like Delafield might find it appropriate to suspend his eagle from his shield is worthwhile. Since these reasons have to do with the status of the SoC, an exchange of opinions and information about that status isn’t a bad idea, but I doubt we’re going to reach any consensus, because this line of discussion inevitably raises emotive questions.

 

RE: Thomas Jefferson’s objections to the Society, Michael is exactly right. And Jefferson was joined by Adams and several other worthies. See the tract by Aedanus Burke for more insight into their thinking.

 

For a view also mentioned in the discussion a year and a half ago, see Guy Stair Sainty’s writeup about the SoC in his opus on world orders of chivalry. It basically parallels what George said—a distinction with a chivalric and nobiliary character, but neither an order of chivalry or a noble title, a unique American phenomenon.

 

Whatever it is, there seems to be a fair amount of weight behind the idea that the SoC is not simply a lineage society.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
09 February 2009 18:39
 

Michael Swanson;66448 wrote:

I take it that Thomas Jefferson objected to the Society’s primogeniture because membership seemed to create a permanent social structure which cut out the common man from service opportunities. (I may have this wrong.)


I will note that "seemed" here deserves special emphasis, because the Society never sought to deprive anyone of opportunities and does celebrate the example of Cincinnatus. As an old boys’ network, it really doesn’t amount to much, I can assure you.

 
Robert Tucker
 
Avatar
 
 
Robert Tucker
Total Posts:  255
Joined  06-01-2009
 
 
 
09 February 2009 19:34
 

I am new to this, but I desire to learn.  I am a simple man, and as such beg forgiveness if I overstep scholarly bounds, but I can’t help digging into something that piques my interest.  wink

I found this here:
Quote:

To perpetuate, therefore, as well the remembrance of this vast event, as the mutual friendships which have been formed, under the pressure of common danger, and in many instances cemented by the blood of the parties, the officers of the American army do hereby in the most solemn manner, associate, constitute and combine themselves into one SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, to endure so long as they shall endure, or any of their eldest male posterity, and in failure thereof, the collateral branches, who may be judged worthy of becoming its supporters and Members.


This may shed some light on Joseph’s earlier question about the society’s intent about this being an "order of chivalry".  The words that stuck with me, were of course "Society of Friends" and the "judged worthy…" lines.  The requirements are later spelled out.  Also of note is the passage about "Honorary Members":
Quote:

And as there are, and will at all times be, men in the respective States eminent for their abilities and patriotism, whose views may be directed to the same laudable objects with those of the Cincinnati, it shall be a rule to admit such characters, as Honorary Members of the Society, for their own lives only: Provided always, That the number of Honorary Members, in each State, does not exceed a ratio of one to four of the officers or their descendants.


Now, this suggests to me that yes, there is a "chivalric" component needed in a prospective member who was not already under the blanket of military service so clearly defined in the document.

 

The last paragraph of the document reads:
Quote:

The society shall have an order, by which its members shall be known and distinguished, which shall be a medal of gold, of a proper size to receive the emblems, and be suspended by a deep blue ribbon, two inches wide, edged with white, descriptive of the union of France and America.


If the placement of this paragraph in the document means anything, I think that the "order" was more of a sign of membership and not an Order, as in a group of people (or the insignia they wear) that is conferred some honor for achievement by a government or sovereign… as this was a Society of Friends as those founders put it.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
09 February 2009 20:04
 

Joseph McMillan;66449 wrote:

(By the way . . . the oft-cited Congressional enactment that’s supposed to constitute unique recognition of the society in terms of the right to wear it on the uniform actually groups it in with a number of other groups, and arguably doesn’t extend to those who hold membership in right of an ancestor: "Resolve, That the distinctive badges adopted by military societies of men who served in the armies and navies of the United States in the war of the Revolution, the war of eighteen hundred and twelve, the Mexican war, and the war of the rebellion respectively, may be worn upon all occasions of ceremony by officers and enlisted men of the Army and Navy of the United States, who are members of said organizations in their own right." (Joint Resolution, 25 September 1890 (26 Stat. 681))


My understanding is that the "number of other groups" covered by the enactment totals four: the SoC, the Military Society of the War of 1812, the Aztec Club, and the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the U.S.

 

I’m not sure I see the argument for saying the enactment applies only to veterans of the relevant wars.

 

Whatever it says, the situation on the ground is that SoC members in uniform do wear the eagle with their uniforms on SoC occasions, and that veterans in the SoC routinely include the eagle with their other decorations when they wear black or white tie. The French Society link I posted shows represententative cases.

 

I belong to the Aztec Club, but I haven’t ever been to any of their events, so I can’t speak to what they, the 1812, or MOLLUS do.

 

I will say that I’ve never seen the gongs for those (self-consciously SoC-inspired, BTW) organizations included in a full achievement of arms.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
09 February 2009 21:25
 

Fred White;66454 wrote:

My understanding is that the "number of other groups" covered by the enactment totals four: the SoC, the Military Society of the War of 1812, the Aztec Club, and the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the U.S.


Those are societies of officers, but the resolution referred to officers and [enlisted] men.  Thus the General Society of the War of 1812 and the Grand Army of the Republic were also included, and a few others as well, I believe.  In addition, the law was later amended to include the Spanish-American War, as I recall.


Quote:

I’m not sure I see the argument for saying the enactment applies only to veterans of the relevant wars.


It would be based on the words "in their own right."  If the act applied to all veterans of these wars, what purpose would those words serve?  It would end after "...who are members of said organizations."


Quote:

Whatever it says, the situation on the ground is that SoC members in uniform do wear the eagle with their uniforms on SoC occasions


Yes; the military uniform regulations are actually written more broadly than the statute that originally authorized the wear of these badges.  They also apply to a number of additional organizations, such as the Army and Navy Union, the Military Order of the Carabao, the Daedalians, and others.