Sanctioned Heraldry

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
25 August 2009 00:53
 

Joseph McMillan;71176 wrote:

And, moreover, that the same continuity exists here as there, because heraldry was brought to North America by people for whom it was an element of the social milieu in the old country (whether the old country was in the British Isles, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, etc.).  Heraldry has been in continual use in one form or another in this country from the time the first Europeans arrived, and for exactly the same purposes that it was used in the countries from which they came.  Eighteenth century English gentlemen and those who aspired to be thought such used arms on the silverware, horse furniture, seals, bookplates, china, and tombstones, and their counterparts in North America did exactly the same thing.  It was as much a part of life in one place as the other.


"One form or another"...  That is quite an interesting thing to say, and also very revealing. Placing heraldic design on table ware etc is hardly a ‘pracice’.  There is no consistency with it in the US, and never has been.  The ancients who brought it over here made use of it in its full design.  When we formed our nation, and since, the uses have been poles apart with respect to its meaning and it’s display.  Moreover, the display has taken so many forms in the US and has been lent so much to commerical use, that not very many people in this country even know what heraldry is.

 

I think that based on these things, to say that there is a ‘practice’ in this country is a stretch at best.  Now, I think that organizations like this and the American College etc, are fine things and one can learn a reat deal and be entertained at no end with very interesting discussion like this one.  However, with respect to the history of heraldry and its use in this country, I think that it has been deomonstrated quite convincingly that the history of this country and our people show every intention of moving away from the practice and in fact not giving use to it in it’s customary way for reasons that have already been clearly shown.  This is very consistant no matter which way we turn the glass and it remains consistant throughout our country’s history.  This is of course not to say that heraldry has been driven underground etc, heraldry surfaces form time to time, but it is not consistant and does not remain at all faithful to its historic origins in any other matter except small ways by a a comparitively few people.  Where heraldry has a very common undterstood history in Europe, the attitude is quite different and heraldry its treated much differently.  Over here, heraldry has all but been forgotten, precisely because it was set aside so early on.

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
25 August 2009 00:56
 

David E. Cohen;71182 wrote:

The British were beaten on occasion, but mostly only when tactically surprised, or when the French were helping out.  The Continentals were beaten more often, especially when the fighting was head to head.  Fortunately for America, and in my opinion, the world, the British did not want to keep expending the blood and treasure it would have taken to continue.

The War of 1812 was, more or less a draw, which America was very fortunate to get—America did as well as it possibly could have, and things could easily have gone much worse.

 

As far As Scotland goes, first, it wasn’t taken by the Romans basically because it had nothing the Romans wanted.  They had better things to do with their legions.  The same was true of Ireland.  And unless all those maps are drawn incorrectly, Scotland and a chunk of Ireland are still part of the same country as England.


This is not the thread for historical debate on another subject.  Suffice it to say that your version has quite a few holes in it.

 

We can do this at another time and place of your chossing of you wish.

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
25 August 2009 01:12
 

Kenneth Mansfield;71173 wrote:

Hardly.


You did reverse yourself,

 


Quote:

And I maintain that those interested in heraldry in any country are in a minority.


That’s fine to.  That conclusion however does not change the facts as they have been revealed here:  The history of heraldry in this country is spotty - by design of the people of this country.  George Washington and other people like him were astute enough to be able to read the environment and the attiude and therefore chose to set heraldry aside as a customary practice and the non-status of heraldry has remained consistant through today.

 


Quote:

One might reasonably argue that in today’s world of paper heraldry, ALL heraldry is for aesthetics, even in countries where there is an authority, like England and Scotland. But there, I think you would argue, there is a history - a social custom that doesn’t exist here. And I think it’s safe to say that the numbers of people there participating in those customs are still in the minority, thus invalidating your argument that heraldry doesn’t exist as a custom here because it is practiced by a small minority.


Whether there is a minority in Europe who observe and practice, or a majority is irrelevent to to this discussion about the subject in this country.  In 1783, there were allot more people in Europe using heraldry than there were in this country and that is what set the tone of the history of it in this country.

 


Quote:

I think you’re reading too much into all of this.


I think perhaps that you take it too seriously: just a thought.

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
25 August 2009 01:14
 

Michael F. McCartney;71180 wrote:

Despite some of the sniping, this has been a most i nteresting thread.  I had seen Barton’s first letter & GW’s reply, but not the second Barton letter—I’ve printed it to read at greater leisure.

A point hinted at (or perhaps baldly stated—I’m skimming the thread fairly quickly) is that GW’s overriding concern wasn’t with heraldry per se - either pro or con, though he personally was apparently sympathetic to it—but rather the effect that publicly embracing the regulation of heraldry might have on the outcome of the Constitutional ratification process.

 

Fairly or not, opponents would make an issue of it, as they had done (also fairly or unfairly) with the Cincinnatti.  In hindsight we tend to view what "was" as inevitable or pre-ordained; but at the time the issue was in grave doubt, and it wouldn’t have taken much to swing a few key votes in a few key States to scuttle the whole deal.  Compared to that—i.e. the shaping or even the continued existence of a meaningful Federal government—heraldry was a relatively trivial matter, even to affecionados like GW.  Stated otherwise, Barton was a victim of poor timing.


Very well said.

 
WBHenry
 
Avatar
 
 
WBHenry
Total Posts:  1078
Joined  12-02-2007
 
 
 
25 August 2009 03:16
 

Greg;71189 wrote:

The history of heraldry in this country is spotty - by design of the people of this country.  George Washington and other people like him were astute enough to be able to read the environment and the attiude and therefore chose to set heraldry aside as a customary practice and the non-status of heraldry has remained consistant through today.


You need to read the letter from Washington again.  He was not indifferent to heraldry (as his interest continued until the end of his life) and he certainly did not choose to "set heraldry aside."  He was simply being "politically correct" for his time by not wishing to involve the government in anything that would actively promote heraldry.  Today, the government avoids all things that "actively promote" religion in this country.  Religion is hardly underground or barely existent.

 

Your argument is flawed.  I also suggest you read (or re-read) Eugene Zieber’s "Heraldry in America."  Seems to have wasted a lot of ink and paper if, as you say, there isn’t much to be found of heraldry in the American landscape.

 

And while we are at it:  I have read this thread three times today.  What exactly are you trying to prove here?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
25 August 2009 07:14
 

Greg, what would Americans in the early years after Independence have had to do to prove to you a "practice" of using heraldry? What do you think was being done heraldically in England in 1775-1800, other than regulation, that wasn’t being done in the United States?

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
25 August 2009 12:02
 

WBHenry;71192 wrote:

You need to read the letter from Washington again.  He was not indifferent to heraldry (as his interest continued until the end of his life) and he certainly did not choose to "set heraldry aside."  He was simply being "politically correct" for his time by not wishing to involve the government in anything that would actively promote heraldry.  Today, the government avoids all things that "actively promote" religion in this country.  Religion is hardly underground or barely existent.

Your argument is flawed.  I also suggest you read (or re-read) Eugene Zieber’s "Heraldry in America."  Seems to have wasted a lot of ink and paper if, as you say, there isn’t much to be found of heraldry in the American landscape.

 

And while we are at it:  I have read this thread three times today.  What exactly are you trying to prove here?


I never said that Washington was indifferent to heraldry.  I said he was astute enough to know that the practice would not go over very well with the new American public.  I believe that being a student of heraldry is a good thing, that’s why I like to discuss it.

 

And sir, if you read carefully, you would have noticed that I did indeed say that I’m not trying to prove anything.

 

My question was: why did the US never sanction heraldry?  what was about our history that has placed heraldry into a non-status?

 

It’s an historical topic and has turned in to a popular and interesting discussion: that’s what I was hoping for.

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
25 August 2009 12:30
 

Joseph McMillan;71201 wrote:

Greg, what would Americans in the early years after Independence have had to do to prove to you a "practice" of using heraldry? What do you think was being done heraldically in England in 1775-1800, other than regulation, that wasn’t being done in the United States?


I think that for one, heraldry might have been more public and reflected more personal status.  Government might have wanted to display the arms of office holders etc and perhaps included them in portraits and displayed arms more readily as in Europe, just as encouragement.

 

It didn’t go that way though for all the reasons that have been discussed in this thread.  The climate for heraldry did not exist at that time and as has been pointed out, Washington’s letter has been used by congress et al to defeat the possibility of government sanction.

 

I really wish joe, that you might not try and make of this something that it is not. This is an historical conversation that has shown a very interesting relationship between the founding of this country and a practice, that because of Constitutional guaruntees was left to its own devices and was for all intents and purposes separtated from a customary social practice.

 

Now, I like very much the idea that enthusiasts, for obvioulsy many years now, have enjoyed the study and dispaly of heraldry: I find it extremely important to understanding European history and excellent for genealogical purposes - you can’t beat it.  However what we find in exploring this subject is that indeed, 18th century Americans thought very differently about heraldry; because of their former connection to or under it.  Much has certainly been uncovered in 233 years, however the point is: it had to be uncovered, it wasn’t information that was centralized or readily traceable.  This is significant to the cause of American history and both contemoprary and modern attitudes toward social equality and a centralized power structure.  The Civil War was fought for the reasons that have been dsicussed in this thread.

 

So, what could have been done?  Anything I suppose.  What do you think could have been done to alter poeple’s perceptions and make heraldry more palitable?

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
25 August 2009 12:38
 

Greg, I understand your points - I think - but the main reason that we are at loggerheads is that your underlying premise is, at least as far as I am concerned, wrong.


Quote:

I never said that Washington was indifferent to heraldry. I said he was astute enough to know that the practice would not go over very well with the new American public.


You’ve missed the mark here and are twisting words around to make it seem like you have a point when you don’t. Washington was astute enough to know that the practice of governmental regulation of heraldry would not go over very well with the new American public because it might be seen as sanctioning, or at least recognizing, a class structure that the new republic had just fought to overthrow. A very different idea altogether.


Quote:

...what was about our history that has placed heraldry into a non-status?


Heraldry was never in non-status for everyone in either the colonies or the new United States of America. I suspect a great many of those who did not use or display arms here would not have done so in their country of origin or ancestry either, therefore there was no decision to discontinue the use of armorial insignia.

 
 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
25 August 2009 13:09
 

Greg;71209 wrote:

I think that for one, heraldry might have been more public and reflected more personal status. Government might have wanted to display the arms of office holders etc and perhaps included them in portraits and displayed arms more readily as in Europe, just as encouragement.

<snip>

 

So, what could have been done? Anything I suppose.


So other than officially displaying the arms of office holders or putting arms on office holders’ portraits, you can’t think of anything specific that early post-Independence Americans could have done to satisfy your criteria of heraldic practice, is that right?

 

Well, here’s a challenge.  Find us a portrait of one of the British prime ministers who served during the period we’re talking about, say 1775-1800, and point out the coat of arms.  That would be:

 

1.  Frederick North, 8th Baron North

2.  Charles Watson-Wentworth, 2nd Marquess of Rockingham

3.  William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne

4.  William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland

5.  William Pitt the younger

 

Alternatively, produce a contemporary official display of the arms of any of these gentlemen.  No arms on tombs and gravestones, now—that’s the kind of thing you told us doesn’t count.

 

This should be a piece of cake for you, given your extensive documentary research on the period.

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
25 August 2009 13:29
 

Kenneth Mansfield;71210 wrote:

Greg, I understand your points - I think - but the main reason that we are at loggerheads is that your underlying premise is, at least as far as I am concerned, wrong.

 

 

You’ve missed the mark here and are twisting words around to make it seem like you have a point when you don’t. Washington was astute enough to know that the practice of governmental regulation of heraldry would not go over very well with the new American public because it might be seen as sanctioning, or at least recognizing, a class structure that the new republic had just fought to overthrow. A very different idea altogether.


You are exactly right about Washington and regulation.  I didn’t make that part clear enough, and I apoligize for that.

 

 


Quote:

Heraldry was never in non-status for everyone in either the colonies or the new United States of America. I suspect a great many of those who did not use or display arms here would not have done so in their country of origin or ancestry either, therefore there was no decision to discontinue the use of armorial insignia.


Again, the non-status that I refer to is in this country alone.  The European model had been abandoned: sanctioned or not.  In this counrty, heraldry did not becomae a part of regular cultural or social expression for teh reasons that have ben outlined. There was however a consentrated decision to disreguard governemtn sanction on more than one occassion.  However, by teh guaruntee of freedom of expression, heraldry found it own way, much differently than European monarch countries did at the time.  There was a connection to the European model that was significantly and intentionally avoided at that time.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
25 August 2009 13:31
 

You might start, Greg, by putting your own arms up for us to identify you. I mean, if you really want to join us for enlightening discussion and lively debate, you really should get in the spirit of things. wink

A lovely emblazonment by the late Donald Smith with the MacGiboney tartan you helped design as a background.

 
 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
25 August 2009 13:32
 

Joseph McMillan;71212 wrote:

So other than officially displaying the arms of office holders or putting arms on office holders’ portraits, you can’t think of anything specific that early post-Independence Americans could have done to satisfy your criteria of heraldic practice, is that right?

Well, here’s a challenge.  Find us a portrait of one of the British prime ministers who served during the period we’re talking about, say 1775-1800, and point out the coat of arms.  That would be:

 

1.  Frederick North, 8th Baron North

2.  Charles Watson-Wentworth, 2nd Marquess of Rockingham

3.  William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne

4.  William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland

5.  William Pitt the younger

 

Alternatively, produce a contemporary official display of the arms of any of these gentlemen.  No arms on tombs and gravestones, now—that’s the kind of thing you told us doesn’t count.

 

This should be a piece of cake for you, given your extensive documentary research on the period.


You’re being flippant and rude again.  I’m not discussiing this with you until you change your tune.

 
Charles E. Drake
 
Avatar
 
 
Charles E. Drake
Total Posts:  553
Joined  27-05-2006
 
 
 
25 August 2009 13:33
 

This is an almost pointless discussion, for there is a disagreement over a basic premise.

There are at least two, and possibly more, definitions of the legitimacy of any activity or organization. One could be termed "a functional definition," and the other "an authoritative definition."

 

Take for example, religion. Some define religion or church in authoritative terms, that is, that the true religion is the one sanctioned by the proper authority. No matter how much evidence one produces that a certain group has services, sings, takes collections, preaches, etc., those holding to a definition based on authority would deny the "spiritual" legitimacy of that activity. Finding more evidence that the group functions like a religion would never change the opinion of someone committed to a definition based on authority.

 

American society, and our laws, on the other hand, have generally accepted a definition of religion that is functional. This allows us to live together without the necessity of killing each other. Most of our citizens, even when holding a personal conviction that is authority-based, have accepted a definition that is functionally-based for interactions at-large, in society. In other words, they accept the legal legitimacy of an activity that they hold lacks spiritual legitimacy.

 

Similar examples could be found for other disciplines.

 

In this case, Greg appears to hold to a definition that true heraldry is that which is sanctioned by the government. This is a definition based on authority, and no amount of argument from a functional standpoint can change that opinion, for it is an axiom.  This axiom, however, runs counter to the underlying premise of this society, which is that there is "American heraldry" and that the definition of heraldry is functionally based.

 

Inasmuch as there is a conflict between two underlying principles, I don’t see any chance of resolution save for a sort of "conversion" of one side or the other.  I would propose Greg accept the "corporate legitimacy" of American heraldry for the purpose of interaction within this society, and we just agree that he disagrees.

 

/Charles

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
25 August 2009 13:37
 

Kenneth Mansfield;71216 wrote:

You might start, Greg, by putting your own arms up for us to identify you. I mean, if you really want to join us for enlightening discussion and lively debate, you really should get in the spirit of things. wink

A lovely emblazonment by the late Donald Smith with the MacGiboney tartan you helped design as a background.


Thanks, I don’t use it publically anymore, because it’s been ripped off several times and I’m tired of arguing with thieves over it. I think, actually, that I put that design togther that you’re using.  I don’t remember Don doing that, although he might have.  Secondly, Don got the rose wrong.  I’m trying to find a style that I like best, and will probably have them painted and tricked again.