James A. Garfield

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
25 November 2007 01:18
 

http://americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/President/Garfield.pngHere’s another installment in the Presidential series, James A. Garfield. An interesting story, I thought, and a testimony to the value of Google Books. Enjoy!

http://americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=President.Garfield

 
James Dempster
 
Avatar
 
 
James Dempster
Total Posts:  602
Joined  20-05-2004
 
 
 
25 November 2007 03:06
 

As always a fascinating account. However I believe that President Garfield died at Franklyn Cottage, Elberon NJ rather than in the White House.

There is a long account of the President’s unsuccessful attempt at recovery from the wounds inflicted by Guiteau and his eventual death due to septicaemia in Sharon Hazard’s "Long Branch in the Golden Age".

 

Hazard, Sharon. Long Branch in the Golden Age Charleston: The History Press, 2007

 

Her sources appear to be

 

Ackerman, Kenneth. Dark House: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A Garfield. New York: Carroll & Graf, 2003

 

Leech, Margaret. The Garfield Orbit New York: Harper & Row, 1978

 

Taylor, John M. Garfield of Ohio: The Available Man New York: Norton, 1970

 

James

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
25 November 2007 08:13
 

Oops!  Yes, James, you are quite correct.  Revision in progress.

Thanks.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
27 November 2007 14:31
 

A very interesting account -

An alternative translation of the motto might be "I conquer through (by) the cross". It is actually a not uncommon motto. I recall this also as the motto of Bishop Strachan School in Toronto (a girl’s school and since I went to a boy’s school I was particularly interested in all such detail smile)

The sword in the crest is different than the heraldic sword - is it a specific sort of machete or naval sword? Whay is its significance?

 

Finally I was intrigued by your point about Garfield being able to lay claim to ancient usage in the 19th century - is more of his genealogy known? I assumed that ancient usage in the English tradition that Garfield seems to have appreciated still means the same thing at present as in the 17th century and takes things back to the era before the College of Arms (or the fiction of 1066) or something like that.

 

It is probably worth making the perhaps critical point that some US Presidents like Garfield were basically ignorant of the rules of heraldry and were content to assume arms of the name or something like that without regard to any potential infringement of the property or discourtesy to the armigers themselves. This is not surprising and no disrespect to Garfield is intended - it is simply a reflection of the times - and in his defence the United States provided no protection to such property nor regulation of its use. In England where there were rules bout such things it seems that thousands of new men who came from nowhere into wealth were simply content to assume or usurp arms much as they simply assumed social standing without any real concern about learning the honourable way of approaching matters armorial - genealogical research and petition. Again, this is simply a reflection of the times and the profound changes of a new economy and a changing society. Folks wanted the trappings of the former social order without taking the time to appreciate its ways.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
27 November 2007 16:40
 

George Lucki;51612 wrote:

The sword in the crest is different than the heraldic sword - is it a specific sort of machete or naval sword? Whay is its significance?


No idea.  I decided to follow the style of sword in the 19th century engraving, just as an artistic whim.


Quote:

Finally I was intrigued by your point about Garfield being able to lay claim to ancient usage in the 19th century - is more of his genealogy known? I assumed that ancient usage in the English tradition that Garfield seems to have appreciated still means the same thing at present as in the 17th century and takes things back to the era before the College of Arms (or the fiction of 1066) or something like that.


That’s what the Fox-Davieses of the world would have us believe, but it was not the standard used at the time in question (1663).  The following is quoted from Anthony Wagner on Francois Velde’s heraldica.org:  "The general principles must always have been the same but the only precise instructions I have found as to how the visiting heralds should assess the authenticity of arms claimed, belong to 1668. [...] Arms might be entered if ... it were made out and proved, either by some ancient monuments, glass windows, impressions of seals, or other credible testimony, that the same arms had been borne and used by the ancestors of the party claiming them for the space of 60 years at the least before the time of that his claim."  I’ve seen other references to the heralds during the mid-17th century allowing claims based on usage since the early part of the reign of Elizabeth I, which would be about 100 years.

 

My argument would be that (assuming a common ancestry, as seems probable, for James Garfield and the Benjamin Garfield who claimed the arms in 1663), the President’s use of the arms would establish a family history of usage of at least 200 years.  I have yet to see a persuasive justification for assuming that a standard for establishment of a prescriptive right to arms that was applied during the visitations was somehow invalidated when the visitations ended.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
27 November 2007 17:36
 

While the proofs required by heralds might have been lax particularly during the latter visitations - the standard was one of antiquity.

Even if we were to find apply a more flexible standard the right toa rms was established by recognition of these ancient arms by the heralds - never simply on the basis of usage itself. If one wishes to follow an English tradition the simple assumption of arms is incorrect. Yet such assumption is and has been for at least two centuries widely practiced. Let’s call it as it was though and if a genealogical connection is made Garfield’s arms are ones that failed to be properly verified and entered and failed to be properly petitioned and so were at the very least ‘illicit arms’. If no genealogical connection was made then they were ‘arms of the name’ bucket shop arms. To Jefferson’s credit he knew how things ought be done although he did not follow through. To Garfield’s credit he liked the idea of personal arms. That is at least something!

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
27 November 2007 17:49
 

George Lucki;51616 wrote:

While the proofs required by heralds might have been lax particularly during the latter visitations - the standard was one of antiquity.


I don’t know what you mean.  The quotation is from the 1668 instructions to the heralds conducting the visitations.  The standard was 60 years of proven use.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
27 November 2007 19:14
 

The only use of arms other than by a grant from the heralds foreseen in the law of arms is usage from time immemorial - and the law had a long memory -

There is a good outline of this in Noel Cox, in "Names and Arms clauses and the Law of Arms in the common law courts", Journal of The Heraldry Society, 1999, XIII(NS)188, 167-172 who notes:


Quote:

"The mere assumption of arms cannot itself establish a legally defensible title according to the laws of England.(10) Arms can only be validly borne if acquired by right of birth (from a grant, or user from before the time of legal memory),(11) or grant from the Crown.(12)"

(10) User since time immemorial also gives a good title, under civil law as under the common law. It has been suggested that it follows that prescription gives a right to arms; W Paley Baildon, "Herald’ College and Prescription" (1904) 8 The Ancestor 113; Anon, "The Prescriptive Usage of Arms" (1902) 2 The Ancestor 40, 47. Squibb has pointed to the flaws in these views. Use of arms never gave right, and was only ever evidence of immemorial use; George Squibb, The High Court of Chivalry (1959) 179-85.

 

(11) For the Law of Arms this was from 1066, rather than 1189, as for the common law; George Squibb, The High Court of Chivalry (1959) 180-1 fn 3. The Court was prepared however to accept that evidence of user from before the time of living memory raised a presumption that the user had continued for the necessary period; George Squibb, The High Court of Chivalry (1959) 183; cf Angus v Dalton (1877) 3 QBD 85, 89-90 per Lusk J.

 

(12) It has always been assumed that this is the prerogative of the English Crown; Strathmore Peerage Case (1821) 6 Pat 645, 655 (HL). This was argued by Dr William Oldys, King’s Advocate, in pleadings before the Court of Chivalry from 1687; George Squibb, The High Court of Chivalry (1959) 183-4.


Of course one problem is that time immemorial takes us to before the existence of heraldry smile so it is not surprising that evidence that is ‘incomplete’ would be accepted, but the standard would not set a moving target of living memory but rather a fixed historical one. In any case it would be up to the Earl Marshal to determine and the heralds to advise as to what proofs might be satisfactory at any point in time. The instructions given to heralds in 1668 can’t of course create any firm or binding precedent like a decision of higher common law courts might.

 

The point I’m getting at is that it is not correct to believe that merely using arms for several generations ever created a right to arms - however sloppy the instructions given to 17th century heralds. If the arms weren’t recorded earlier the mere passage of time does not create any right. Such a notion would undermine the basis for granted arms in the English tradition. I’ll have to check Fox-Davies because I don’t recall an argument for acquiring a right to arms in such a way from him although I think I’ve seen something akin to this in Crozier.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
27 November 2007 19:20
 

I just found this on Google - New York Times, September 23, 1899 dealing with ‘heraldic abuses’ just over a century ago - you may be aware of it -

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9905E1D91431E733A25750C2A96F9C94689ED7CF

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
27 November 2007 20:31
 

George Lucki;51612 wrote:

The sword in the crest is different than the heraldic sword - is it a specific sort of machete or naval sword? What is its significance?


Is this type of sword (with the addition of a rounded notch cut out of the back of the blade) not known in heraldry as a seaxe?

 


<div class=“bbcode_center” >
http://www.ruislip.co.uk/whatson/Seaxe.gif

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Flag_of_Essex.svg/450px-Flag_of_Essex.svg.png

 

Flag of Essex


</div>

 

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
27 November 2007 21:19
 

David thanks - this got me looking

In the arms and badge of the Earls of Dundee this sort of blade is blazoned a scimitar.

http://www.scrimgeour.co.uk/clan/scrim/scriminfo/heraldry/heraldpicsmall.jpg

The Earls are the hereditary banner bearers of Scotland hence the insignia of the royal banners.

The same occurs in the arms of the Perth and Kinross Area Council

http://heraldry-scotland.com/copgal/albums/userpics/10001/normal_perth_kinross.jpg

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
28 November 2007 23:19
 

I think Joe’s point is that the arms borne before the visitation, should be viewed as valid when used by relatives whose ancestors came to the colonies before the heralds made their visitation.  Or perhaps (as I would argue) for use here, the criteria used by the heralds for judging validity should be sufficient to justify use here, while their action in respiting the arms apparently based only on failure to pay the registration fees in the old country is of no effect here.  The principles of design & use, which we generally accept as good and useful, cross the waters, but the writ of the heralds—and their accounts payable—do not.

As to the use of those arms by President Garfield and his relatives, centuries after their immigrant ancestors crossed the pond with no apparent evidence of continuous useage—even if they just picked the arms out of a book, they appear to be the rare birds that stumbled on the "right" arms; and they’re entitled to them even if they only happened to be right by sheer lucky chance.

 

I think the above comments, if inelegantly stated, reflect—or at least hopefully do no violence to—the society’s "best practice" Guidelines.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
29 November 2007 00:04
 

Thanks, Mike.  That captures what I was trying to convey.

However, looking again at the way I phrased the issue in the article, I decided my reference to ancient user raised more questions than it answered and have therefore deleted it.  I judged that the controversy is one that is better hashed out here in the forum rather than having only one side presented on a finished article on the society’s public website.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
10 December 2007 19:50
 

George Lucki;51619 wrote:

The only use of arms other than by a grant from the heralds foreseen in the law of arms is usage from time immemorial - and the law had a long memory -

There is a good outline of this in Noel Cox, in "Names and Arms clauses and the Law of Arms in the common law courts", Journal of The Heraldry Society, 1999, XIII(NS)188, 167-172 who notes:

 

 

 

Of course one problem is that time immemorial takes us to before the existence of heraldry smile so it is not surprising that evidence that is ‘incomplete’ would be accepted, but the standard would not set a moving target of living memory but rather a fixed historical one. In any case it would be up to the Earl Marshal to determine and the heralds to advise as to what proofs might be satisfactory at any point in time. The instructions given to heralds in 1668 can’t of course create any firm or binding precedent like a decision of higher common law courts might.

 

The point I’m getting at is that it is not correct to believe that merely using arms for several generations ever created a right to arms - however sloppy the instructions given to 17th century heralds. If the arms weren’t recorded earlier the mere passage of time does not create any right. Such a notion would undermine the basis for granted arms in the English tradition. I’ll have to check Fox-Davies because I don’t recall an argument for acquiring a right to arms in such a way from him although I think I’ve seen something akin to this in Crozier.


I’ve been meaning to get back to this.

 

First, let me say that the cases before the Court of Chivalry in the time of Dr. Oldys (late 17th century) are quite problematic in establishing much of anything.  As a review of Squibb will show, before Oldys’ reign of terror, there are few if any cases of office in which someone was prosecuted for mere assumption of arms that didn’t belong to someone else.  Causes of office before this period mostly involved the conduct of an excessively or insufficiently grand heraldic funeral, or the painting of arms by someone other than a herald, etc.  It seems to me that it is bad scholarship to take a snapshot of the Court’s conduct at its most invasive and egregious and least typical period (a period in which similar abuses in other prerogative courts were shortly to lead to sweeping reform following on the Revolution of 1688), and then extrapolate that as if it were established law before and after that brief period.

 

Secondly, what Cox describes in his statement, "The Court was prepared however to accept that evidence of user from before the time of living memory raised a presumption that the user had continued for the necessary period," is exactly the same legal fiction that prevailed (and prevails) in the common law with respect to prescriptive rights to other incorporeal hereditaments (including, in English law, those dignities which, in the 1954 Manchester case, arms were said to resemble).  Fishing rights, easements, etc., are not technically established by long use of 20, 60, or however many years but by use since "time immemorial."  Of course, no one believes that anyone has been using whatever incorporeal hereditament is involved since 1189, any more than anyone believes that someone’s family has been using a particular coat of arms since 1066.  Rather, use for at least the specified period is taken as rebuttable evidence in support of the fiction that the person has been using the hereditament since time immemorial.

 

Perversely, a claim to an incorporeal hereditament based on ancient user was wrecked if the claimant could point to a specific date at which use of the privilege began.  Thus, one family could successfully defend a right to fish in some stream by showing that their ancestors had been fishing in that stream for 60 years, as long as they didn’t specify the date at which they started, while another family might be able to produce hard evidence pinpointing the date when an ancestor started fishing there 100 or 200 years earlier and, precisely because there was a fixed date, not succeed in establishing the claim.

 

The logic behind this somewhat absurd situation is that possession based on ancient user is justified based on the fiction of the "lost grant."  Everyone knows, of course, that whatever right is in question was never actually granted, but being able to show use for some specified period allowed everyone to accept conveniently the notion that there had been a grant and it had simply been lost.  In the armorial world, of course, this is particularly ridiculous, since the practice of granting arms in significant numbers only went back to about the beginning of the period required to establish a right by ancient user in the early days of the visitations.  In other words, in 1530, it would have been nonsense to postulate a lost grant from 1430 for most of the arms confirmed at that time, because there simply weren’t that many grants in the early 15th century—most arms before the mid-15th century, if not later, had originally been assumed.

 

My point is that the heralds at the visitations weren’t being sloppy or careless in setting 60 or 100 years as the period required to establish ancient user—they were following the same logic that governed similar issues in both the common and the civil law.  It is a travesty that somewhere along the line the English heralds took it on themselves, without any statutory authority, to move the goalposts that had been well established through the visitations for something like 150 years.