# Is there a President who refused to put his hand on the Bible(for the oath) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 24, 2005, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-president-who-refused-to-put-his-hand-on-the-bible-for-the-oath/300819 "2005-04-24T01:21:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-president-who-refused-to-put-his-hand-on-the-bible-for-the-oath/300819/1 "2005-04-24T01:21:35Z")
Pretty straight-forward. I thought I remember hearing that a President in the 1800’s had lost his child in a train accident(something like only his child died and he blamed God) so he refused to put his hand on the Bible. Is this true? ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-president-who-refused-to-put-his-hand-on-the-bible-for-the-oath/300819/2 "2005-04-24T01:27:11Z")
Several presidents _affirmed_ intread if swearing (which is allowed), and Theodore Roosevelt didn’t even use a Bible. BTW “So Help Me God” isn’t actually part of the oath. Washington adlibed it and every president since who’s sworn the oath (rather than affirming) has don so out of tradition. ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-president-who-refused-to-put-his-hand-on-the-bible-for-the-oath/300819/3 "2005-04-24T01:30:53Z")
Well it sounds like you must mean the President - [Franklin Pierce](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Pierce). His son was killed by a train in front of him and his wife. The Wikpedia entry linked to above says he chose to “affirm” the Presidential Oath rather than “swear” it. I don’t know that the two things were connected. I do know he was a rather tragic President. Not much was really accomplished in his term. He was also a Northerner who supported slavery apparently. He died in 1869 of cirrhosis of the liver. According to the above mentioned entry, > [@](#): > > After losing the Democratic nomination, Pierce reportedly quipped “there’s nothing left to do but get drunk”, which he apparently did frequently, once running down a pedestrian while drunk-driving a carriage. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-president-who-refused-to-put-his-hand-on-the-bible-for-the-oath/300819/4 "2005-04-24T04:20:32Z")
> [@Mahaloth](#): > > I thought I remember hearing that a President in the 1800’s had lost his child in a train accident(something like only his child died and he blamed God) so he refused to put his hand on the Bible. Is this true? To say that he “blamed God” might be putting it a bit harshly, since one seldom hears religious people speaking in such terms. According to the chief historian of the [United States Capitol Historical Society](http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/40871.htm), > [@](#): > > Now, Franklin Pierce is one of only two presidents who affirmed the Oath of Office, rather than swore the Oath of Office. He also canceled the inaugural balls and held a very simple inaugural ceremony. > And the reason he did so was because just a few months prior to becoming president, prior to his inauguration, he and his wife and his only surviving child, a son, had been in a train accident, and the father and mother had seen their eldest son perish in this train accident. His wife was still in mourning. She did not attend the inaugural ceremony, and because of that he canceled the ball. > > Now, why did he say affirm rather than swear? Well, he also was a very deeply religious person, coming from a Calvinistic background, and he believed that things don’t just happen by accident. He saw the hand of God in human events and he believed that the death of his son was, in some way, God’s judgment on him, so he felt unworthy of swearing the Oath of Office on a Bible. This was a very, very interesting ceremony. ---
**Author:** ![Crandolph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7cd45c/32.png) [@Crandolph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crandolph)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-president-who-refused-to-put-his-hand-on-the-bible-for-the-oath/300819/5 "2005-04-24T06:55:19Z")
Both Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon were raised as Friends (Quakers), apparently Hoover more strictly. Friends aren’t supposed to take oaths or swear, as one should always be telling the truth. My initial, half-assed research just now yielded a bunch of biographic sketches of both men which stated when they “took the oath of office,” which could be technically correct or could be shorthand for the two affirming their pledge t execute the duties of the office. Those two would be on my short list of presidents who might not have sworn per se. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-president-who-refused-to-put-his-hand-on-the-bible-for-the-oath/300819/6 "2005-04-24T15:43:29Z")
I know that Richard Nixon “swore”, because I’m old enough to remember! 😃 Concerning other affirmations, for a long time most sources said that Pierce was the only affirmer. However, in the linked interview, historian Kennon cites him as one _of two_. He doesn’t say who was the other one–I’m assuming Hoover because of his Quaker beliefs. From the tone of the interview, I get the impression that Kennon has looked into this a little more recently and more thoroughly than others, so I’m inclined to believe him. My book of famous New York Times front pages includes the Hoover inaugural and describes it in considerable detail, but makes no mention of an affimration. It may not have been considered terribly newsworthy. ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-president-who-refused-to-put-his-hand-on-the-bible-for-the-oath/300819/7 "2005-04-24T16:09:25Z")
There is some disagreement among usually reliable sources on this point. For example, [CNN](http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/01/20/notebook2/) says that “Franklin Pierce, in 1853, has been the only president to ‘affirm’ the oath, rather than ‘swear.’” And [The Old Farmers Almanac](http://www.almanac.com/inauguralanecdotes/swear.php) says that > [@](#): > > The only U.S. president ever to “affirm” (and not “swear to”) the oath of office was Franklin Pierce, 14th U.S. president, at his 1853 inauguration. Emotionally devastated after having witnessed the death of his young son in a train wreck, Pierce believed that his son’s death was punishment for his sins. This may explain why he refrained from swearing on the Bible as he took the oath and chose simply to raise his right hand and affirm his commitment. That choice of words is a milder but still ethically binding alternative to “swearing on” the Bible. Likewise, the [United States Senate](http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/art/common/slideshow/Inauguration_1853.jsp?Counter=2) says that “Pierce was the only president to ‘solemnly affirm’ rather than ‘solemnly swear’ his oath of office.” And the [National Endowment for the Humanities](http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=333) says, > [@](#): > > The Constitution offers a choice. Presidents may “swear” (on a Bible) or “affirm” their oath (on some other book). Two months before Franklin Pierce became President, his family – having already lost two children to typhus – was involved in a train wreck in which their only surviving child, thirteen-year-old Benjamin, was crushed to death. Jane Pierce believed the accident was a punishment from God for her husband’s acceptance of the presidency. As a result, Pierce chose to “affirm” his oath of office on a law book rather than the Bible… (All other presidents have elected to use the Bible in their inauguration.) But the [Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies](http://inaugural.senate.gov/history/factsandfirsts/) says that Franklin Pierce was the “[f]irst President to affirm the oath of office rather than swear it,” and that Herbert Hoover was the “[s]econd President to affirm rather than swear the oath of office.” [nitpick]When one _swears_ the statement, it is an _oath_. When one _affirms_, it is an _affirmation_. One cannot “affirm” an “oath.” Which is why the Constitution refers to an “oath or affirmation,” not an oath.[/nitpick] ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-president-who-refused-to-put-his-hand-on-the-bible-for-the-oath/300819/8 "2005-04-24T16:22:46Z")
> [@Freddy the Pig](#): > > Concerning other affirmations, for a long time most sources said that Pierce was the only affirmer. However, in the linked interview, historian Kennon cites him as one _of two_. He doesn’t say who was the other one–I’m assuming Hoover because of his Quaker beliefs. > > From the tone of the interview, I get the impression that Kennon has looked into this a little more recently and more thoroughly than others, so I’m inclined to believe him. My book of famous New York Times front pages includes the Hoover inaugural and describes it in considerable detail, but makes no mention of an affimration. It may not have been considered terribly newsworthy. Probably not Hoover. Note the [opening paragraph](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/hoover.htm) from his inaugural address: > [@](#): > > This occasion is not alone the administration of the most sacred oath which can be assumed by an American citizen. It is a dedication and consecration under God to the highest office in service of our people. I assume this trust in the humility of knowledge that only through the guidance of Almighty Providence can I hope to discharge its ever-increasing burdens. It seems unlikely that the meticulous Hoover would have referred to his statement as a “most sacred oath” if it had been not an oath but an affirmation. I do recall reading once that Hoover was the only president who did not recite the oath after the Chief Justice, but instead replied simply, “I do.” That difference, if my recollection is correct, may be the basis for the notion that Hoover affirmed rather than swore. (Perhaps Chief Justice Taft even said “swear or affirm” when he administered the words to Hoover, giving Hoover an option.) But I haven’t been able to track down a source that corroborates my recollection. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-president-who-refused-to-put-his-hand-on-the-bible-for-the-oath/300819/9 "2005-04-25T04:49:54Z")
I just read a _Washington Post_ article from a few days before Hoover’s inauguration, and it says the the White House had made a decision that Hoover would “swear” rather than “affirm.” ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-president-who-refused-to-put-his-hand-on-the-bible-for-the-oath/300819/10 "2005-04-25T05:08:16Z")
In the linked article, the Historian Kennon also said > [@](#): > > The Oath of Office, as I mentioned, is followed by the inaugural speeches. Let me just give you a couple of brief facts about that before I open up for questions. The longest inaugural speech came in 1841 when William Henry Harrison spoke for two hours, nearly a 9,000-word speech. At that time, inaugurals were held on March 4th. By April 4th, William Henry Harrison was dead. It was a bitterly cold day. \*\*He caught pneumonia and died as a result of this overexertion with the two-hour speech. \*\* Note–Bolding mine-sc Give me a break–He caught pneumonia and died because he made a two hour speech on a cold day? We’ve debunked this one before. Some historian this guy Kennon is. :rolleyes: I’m writing to him to ask who he thinks the “second” affirmer was. I don’t think there is/was one. My guess is he didn’t do the primary research himself and is just relying(wrongly IMO) on others.