Joseph McMillan;66567 wrote:

I don’t think membership in the Soc really qualifies as an honor at all, at least in my understanding of the word "honor." If every officer in the Continental Army was eligible, then membership wasn’t much more of an honor than being entitled to a campaign medal.

Well—as you can imagine—I would say a device honoring officers of the campaign that secured our freedom from tyranny is clearly a greater honor than a campaign ribbon from any subsequent war we’ve fought. FWIW, SoC membership was a tad more restrictive than you’re indicating—at least three years of service, killed in action, or in service at the close of hostilities—but I think this still meant most Continental Line officers were eligible.

Quote:

Given that the guidelines don’t endorse the armorial display of everything that can be worn on a military uniform, I don’t know that the uniform regs necessarily shed any light on the question at hand anyway.

The Guidelines speak of "decorations worn on a breast ribbon," the category in which the uniform regs place the SoC eagle, etc.

Perhaps we should be tying this discussion to the following section of the Guidelines, as well:

Quote:

2.2.3.3. In addition to those conferred by recognized heads of state, many orders of chivalry exist autonomously or are granted by former monarchs, former ruling families, and royal pretenders. Some of these are universally recognized as legitimate, while others are the subject of considerable controversy and still others are clearly fraudulent. It is not the business of the American Heraldry Society to adjudicate the claims of such bodies. Armigers are urged to consider carefully whether the display of their insignia is appropriate other than in connection with the affairs of the organization itself.

As Joe has noted, the SoC eagle was a de facto order in France under the ancien regime. Wouldn’t that militate in favor of explicitly characterizing its display in heraldry as a matter of prudential judgment for the armiger, as we seem to do with, say, the Austrian Order of the Golden Fleece (also chiefly given for reasons of heredity, I believe), the Bourbon-Two Sicilies orders, etc.? If it’s not our business to adjudicate the status of those gongs, why don’t we just abandon the debate on the status of the SoC?

I’m fascinated by the discussion. It would seem that the Cincinnati is a society of honour and not merely one of merit - (that is a society organized around principles or values that endure and are not merely an award for past service) but one that would unite individuals with a common bond of family service. It is also not merely a bond that exists for one lifetime only but a bond that should continue between lineages sharing a common and honourable heritage. Matters of enduring value should be a matter of intergenerational devotion as a call to service for subsequent generations.

I can see no reason why such a thing should not be included on an armorial achievement which is fundamentally a heritage. It is not different than other heritages marked on arms - whether through coronets, augmentations, certain quarterings, etc.

Membership in a chivalric order or in a society of honour should encourage not merely reward. The things that are merely awards for past service actually would seem to have less place on armorial bearings - although they have over the recent century crept in with the inclusion of decorations and awards for valour or gallantry - which not to deprecate those very precious merits which are already rewarded through the decoration. Armorial bearings are not a cv of accomplishments but always ought point to the man and the lineage - where the lineage has been and the man’s current honourable associations. Arms connect a man with his family heritage and also with his companions of honour.

This is not about creating an order of nobility - that would be un-American, nor an order of chivalry (which are not typically ennobling) but a society of honour - and there is nothing clearly un-American about the encouragement of honour in families with a common heritage.

Not all societies of honour would have badges appropriate to suspend from armorial bearings, nor would they be of a sort that would rise to the significance that they would merit such display or the history that would give a basis to such display… The Cincinnati are a clear example of one that has (notwithstanding the generous and broad qualification - the whole of the officer corps of the Revolutionary army) a sound basis for inclusion in arms - and has (on the continent where the culture and traditions of arms were better understood and applied) in fact been included in armorial displays.

Time to get over the nobility/hereditary thing. The Society is not nobillary, creates no particular hereditary privilege and simply is, like many things of enduring value, a cherished heritage and a worthy element to include in an armorial achievement.

How about adopting a distinct guideline reading thus?

Quote:

It bears reemphasizing that formal class distinctions are alien to the culture and legal system of the United States. Claims to inherited status may be seen as particularly objectionable by many in this country. Nonetheless, the historical achievements of their ancestors routinely offer a source of pride to Americans. This pride is widely expressed in the form of lineage societies, an almost uniquely American phenomenon. Such organizations frequently have membership insignia which resemble orders of chivalry. Consequently, armigers may be strongly tempted to display these insignia dependent from shields in full achievements of their arms. Where a historical precedent exists for this practice, it may be within the bounds of good taste. Where none exists, armigers are urged to refrain from it.

How about adopting a distinct guideline reading thus?

Quote:

It bears reemphasizing that formal class distinctions are alien to the culture and legal system of the United States. Claims to inherited status may be seen as particularly objectionable by many in this country. Nonetheless, the historical achievements of their ancestors routinely offer a source of pride to Americans. This pride is widely expressed in the form of lineage societies, an almost uniquely American phenomenon. Such organizations frequently have membership insignia which resemble orders of chivalry. Consequently, armigers may be strongly tempted to display these insignia dependent from shields in full achievements of their arms. Where a historical precedent exists for this practice, it may be within the bounds of good taste. Where none exists, armigers are urged to refrain from it.

George Lucki;66602 wrote:

... The Cincinnati are a clear example of one that has (notwithstanding the generous and broad qualification - the whole of the officer corps of the Revolutionary army) a sound basis for inclusion in arms - and has (on the continent where the culture and traditions of arms were better understood and applied) in fact been included in armorial displays.

One slight clarification. Only officers in the Continental Line were eligible, not militia officers (with rare exceptions).  In the South and more rural areas, there were far more of the latter than the former.

/Charles

Are we waiting for an oracular pronouncement from beyond our membership, just taking a breather, or giving up on this line of discussion?

Fred, I think we have simply reached broad agreement on the matter.:D

I’m not sure about that, George.  I’d say we haven’t reached consensus and the issue remains open.

Fred White;66703 wrote:

Are we waiting for an oracular pronouncement from beyond our membership, just taking a breather, or giving up on this line of discussion?

It should be obvious that I am one to sometimes disregard the society guidelines, with my various additaments, which I display from time to time.  So for me to say that I think it perfectly appropriate to suspend the Society of the Cincinnati eagle badge beneath the shield would probably lack force.

However, I think it is also perfectly appropriate for this society to make whatever guidelines it chooses, and I do not disagree with them. I simply realize they are not binding outside these electronic walls.

There remains the question, does the SOC insignia have sufficient status and historical precedence to justify a statement in the guidelines allowing it?

On this, my personal opinion is yes.  I do not think a broad statement about hereditary society insignia does the job, since the SOC is unique. I am a member of many of these societies, and I think what is already in 2.2.3.7 is sufficient for lineage societies in general.

However, due to the historical importance of the SOC in relation to the history of the founding of this country, I believe this society should recognize it.

I think a specific statement of exception, either to 2.2.3.7 or adding a .8 is appropriate.

As to actually making a change, I suspect it would be difficult to get a consensus, failing that pronouncement from above, to which you refer.

Kind regards,

Charles

Well, if the issue is still in play, what do we still need to discuss?

Charles E. Drake;66709 wrote:

However, due to the historical importance of the SOC in relation to the history of the founding of this country, I believe this society should recognize it.

I think a specific statement of exception, either to 2.2.3.7 or adding a .8 is appropriate.

There are many societies with historical/hereditary importance who maintain the ideals of the founders or revolutionary soldiers, and there is the little matter of the Civil War which preserved the country and the related historical/hereditary societies, and then there are the societies related to the first settlers at Plymouth, etc.  I think if "historical importance" or "philosophy" are criteria, then we have more spadework to do.

I, for one, say simply: if the historical/hereditary society itself takes the time to explain their gong policy in writing, then hang them, otherwise don’t.

There, it’s settled.

Although I am not a member of the Society and a foreigner and I was not asked at all… I am inclined to second Fred’s suggestion regarding the possible addition to the guidelines.

Absent a determination by the SoC that the armorial display of the insignia is appropriate, it hardly seem the place of the AHS to make that judgment.

And Mike Swanson’s point about other organizations is most definitely apposite. This goes back to a much earlier discussion. If we single out the SoC, why not the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States? If MOLLUS, why not the Aztec Club? If these, then surely the Legion of Valor, or whatever they call the society of Medal of Honor and DSC/NC/AFC recipients and their descendants. But then anyone knows the Colonial Dames, or at least some of their many schismatic factions, are more prestigious among the hereditary community than others.

And pretty soon we’re advising people that it’s in good taste to display the medals they won for All-State Band in high school (hey, at least those are earned and not inherited).

The more I think about it, the more I incline to simplifying rather than elaborating: "2.2.3.7. Awards and insignia of membership conferred by private organizations have not traditionally been depicted as part of armorial achievements in the United States."

This is a statement in factual form (there’s no "should" or "ought" in it) which is logically capable of being falsified by presentation evidence to the contrary. So far, I think we have two or three examples of "armorial achievements in the United States" in which the SoC eagle is displayed. I think one could fairly easily find hundreds of examples in which it isn’t, starting with George Washington.

And for those who wish to do so nevertheless, there’s always section 1.0.

At what level of the SoC would a determination of the sort Joe suggests be considered authoritative? President of a state society? The President General?

This discussion won’t advance any further, I don’t think, because the most vocal participants simply don’t agree on the premise that the SoC is different, in the heraldic view, from the Kiwanis Club or high school band. Some participants, however, seem less committed to one or the other view. Others, no doubt observing and maintaining a decorous silence, have the same say as the rest of us. So why don’t we simply put it to a vote?

"Should the AHS endorse the display of the SoC eagle in full achievements of arms?"

Like Charles, I am perfectly willing to accept any outcome.

Fred White;66729 wrote:

At what level of the SoC would a determination of the sort Joe suggests be considered authoritative? President of a state society? The President General?

I suppose the President General would do. It would be more authoritative if stated as society policy through whatever means the society’s constitution prescribes for such things.

Quote:

This discussion won’t advance any further, I don’t think, because the most vocal participants simply don’t agree on the premise that the SoC is different, in the heraldic view, from the Kiwanis Club or high school band.

I don’t think this is quite right. I can understand that the SoC is different from the high school band. I have more trouble understanding how it’s different from MOLLUS or the Aztec Club, and see no basis upon which the AHS, as an organization, can say that one can do something that the others should not.

And whether you or I can recognize distinctions between groups, I would assume that there are some people out there in the heraldic world who would not accept that one private voluntary organization to which they don’t belong should be treated better than others to which they do. The guidelines aren’t supposed to be for us; they’re supposed to be for them. 

Quote:

So why don’t we simply put it to a vote?

Because the guidelines are supposed to represent our collective judgment, as scholars of heraldry, of what constitutes good heraldic practice in the United States. That’s why, in developing them in the first place, we hashed and rehashed debated until we came to some semblance of a consensus on each of the elements. There’s a saying about the Supreme Court that hard cases make bad law. If we were just adopting a set of rules for the society itself, a simple vote would make sense, but I don’t think a 51%-49% vote one way or the other should suffice for what the guidelines are intended to accomplish.