By Lieutenant Fleet Russell White, U.S. Navy
When an officer swears to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” he is assuming the most formidable obligation he will ever encounter in his life. Thousands upon thousands of men and women have died to preserve for him the opportunity to take such an oath.
– Admiral Arleigh Burke1
U.S. Navy/Brianna Jones
Because it establishes the hierarchy of an officer’s loyalties and a profound and sacred covenant with the American people, the oath of office is the defining standard for a naval officer in making leadership decisions throughout his or her naval career. Although the oath has endured several congressional revisions since its creation in 1789, it remains a testament to the American experiment in constitutional republicanism and civilian control of the military.2 The U.S. oath is unusual in the Western political and military tradition because, in contrast to those of other nations, it pledges martial obedience to a fundamental set of laws unencumbered by sworn loyalties to a monarch, potentate, religion, or dogma.
Modern Relevance
As a public trust, the U.S. military is responsible for upholding the Constitution, and the oath is the key expression of an officer’s covenant with the American people and the enlisted men and women under his or her command. Officers must conduct themselves in a manner that justifies the people’s trust. Because officers swear an oath to the Constitution, they must keep the Constitution as their highest loyalty when making difficult ethical decisions. This is particularly important because enlisted personnel have sworn an oath to follow their officers’ orders.
Officers, by contrast, have sworn an oath to the Constitution and therefore are expected to disobey unconstitutional orders. This can lead to disagreements between military officers and their civilian leaders because the oath does not specify how an officer is supposed to support and defend the Constitution. Rather, the officer is left to determine the constitutionality of a given situation based on his or her own values and ethical beliefs. This problem has led to confrontations between military officers and the President over matters of policy, such as those between General Douglas MacArthur and President Harry Truman and General Stanley McChrystal and President Barack Obama. These examples show the fragility of civil-military relations and underscore the importance of an officer’s ability to distinguish violations of the Constitution from disagreements over policy. The ability to discern such violations must be based on an understanding of the principles of constitutional republicanism and with deference to civilian control of the military as embodied in the oath of office. Thus, in terms of leadership with respect to the oath, character is the essential element of leadership at all levels of command.
As commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, George Washington prevented a potential military coup by reminding his men that their efforts were a direct reflection on republican government and freedom. At the end of the Revolutionary War in March 1783, officers of the Continental Army began to speak openly of mounting a military coup as they grew disenchanted with the Continental Congress, which had fallen behind in paying the troops and seemed to disregard the army’s wartime sacrifices.3 Where Napoleon had exploited such sentiments, Washington did not succumb to the temptation to hijack the republican fervor of the Revolution to wrest power from the legislature. Instead, he eloquently articulated to his officers the need to support Congress to show the world that the American military was committed to the success of republican government:
You will give one more distinguished proof of unexampled patriotism & patient virtue, rising superior to the pressure of the most complicated sufferings; And you will, by the dignity of your Conduct, afford occasion for Posterity to say, when speaking of the glorious example you have exhibited to man kind, “had this day been wanting, the World had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining.”4
His commitment to republicanism was motivated in part by his wish to fulfill his oath to obey the orders of the Continental Congress when he accepted his commission in 1775. Author Glenn Phelps explains, “As sympathetic as Washington was to the genuine sufferings of the army he could never condone using it to undermine republican government and the rule of law. This would be a betrayal of his oath to Congress and also of his own reasons for supporting the Revolution in 1775.”5 As heirs to his legacy, today’s naval officers must uphold Washington’s noble tradition by cherishing the oath to our founding document, particularly because today’s officer wields more power and influence than the founders could have imagined.
Officers should routinely reflect on their oath and employ the oath’s principles as a tool for motivating subordinates by reminding them they are an integral part of the American experiment in constitutional republicanism. In doing so, officers nurture the leadership the founders likely envisioned in a citizen-soldier. Then-Lieutenant James Stavridis wrote in the August 1983 Proceedings, “In the final analysis, the leader’s role in both peacetime and wartime is to make men larger than themselves, to give them the ability to transcend themselves, to do more and sacrifice more than they would ever believe they are capable of.”6 Officer and enlisted oaths of office, and the principle of constitutional republicanism they convey, are the key to inspiring sailors to transcend themselves.
In the 21st century, the oath is particularly relevant because officers today possess unprecedented power and responsibilities. Indeed, today’s naval division officers are charged with the operation of multibillion-dollar warships, aircraft, and nuclear submarines capable of tremendous destruction. The founders generally were wary of standing armies and, based on their experience in the Revolutionary War, believed warfare should be waged by citizen-soldiers who would return to civil life following their service. They could not have conceived of the emergence of a professional officer class at the head of a massive peacetime army. Given the global reach of today’s military, where a junior officer is expected to make complex decisions of unparalleled consequence often in distant lands, the oath is a source of certainty in an otherwise relativistic world. To ensure the American people’s continued trust in the military as an institution, officers must always cherish the oath and the tremendous responsibility it entails.
Conclusion
Throughout our country’s history, the oath of office has been an enduring confirmation of the U.S. military’s commitment to constitutional republicanism and civilian control of the military. It represents the naval officer’s sacred covenant with the American people and an acknowledgment of the paramount importance of the ideals written into our Constitution. In light of the United States’ evolution from colony to military superpower, the oath also should be seen as an expression of an officer’s duty to act as a defender of peace and basic human rights for the global community. As leaders of the world’s most powerful military, officers swear an oath to the Constitution because it is a safeguard against the corruption that results from pledging fealty to instruments of arbitrary power.
1. Arleigh Burke as quoted in Thomas Reese, “An Officer’s Oath,” Military Law Review, July 1964.
2. The current U.S. oath of office for military officers reads as follows: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
3. Gordon S. Wood, The American Revolution: A History (New York: The Modern Library, 2003), 147.
4. Edward G. Lengel, ed., This Glorious Struggle: George Washington’s Revolutionary War Letters (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2007), 270.
5. Glenn A. Phelps, George Washington and American Constitutionalism (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1993), 42.
6. James Stavridis, “Leadership Forum: War, Peace, and Leadership,” Proceedings 109, no. 8 (August 1983).
Lieutenant White graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 2012 with degrees in economics and history (honors). Following completion of submarine officer training, he reported to the USS Olympia (SSN-717) in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, completing a Western Pacific deployment and a Chief of Naval Operations docking selected restricted availability. He has served as the ship’s electrical assistant, chemistry and radiological assistant, and now as communications officer.
Oaths to Persons
Although France and Germany are constitutional republics today, both countries saw periods of totalitarian governments led by military figures who required oaths of loyalty to their person.
The French Revolution saw a desire to establish republican government, but the French experienced tremendous setbacks in that quest, which manifested in numerous convoluted constitutions and oaths. Initially, the revolutionary armies went to extremes to pledge loyalty to republicanism. During his conquest of Italy while still a general in the French Revolutionary Army, Napoleon told his troops they would return to France “to maintain the constitution, defend liberty, and protect the government and the republicans . . . let us swear on our colours, war against the enemies of the Republic and of the constitution of the year III!”1 Soldiers embraced Napoleon’s espoused radical republicanism and supported his rise to power; however, Napoleon’s republicanism eventually gave way to his assumption of dictatorial powers. Napoleon established a new military oath of office that included a pledge of loyalty to him as emperor.2
Following World War I, Germany’s Weimar Republic established an oath emulating that of the United States. The rise of Nazism in the 1930s, however, led to an oath pledging allegiance to Adolf Hitler. The German military oath from 1919 to 1933 read: “I swear loyalty to the Reich’s constitution and pledge that I as a courageous soldier always want to protect the German Reich and its legal institutions, (and) be obedient to the Reichspräsident and to my superiors.”3 By contrast, Hitler’s oath required the military to swear fealty to him.4
1. Somerset de Chair, ed., Napoleon’s Memoirs (New York: Howard Fertig, 1988), 244.
2. “I swear obedience to the constitutions of the Empire and fidelity to the Emperor.” Constitution of the Year XII, 18 May 1804, The Napoleon Series, http://www.napoleon- series.org/research/government/legislation/c_constitution12.html.
3. German Military Oath, 1919-1933 as quoted in Damon Armeni, “A Question of Legitimacy,” Small Wars Journal (16 December 2011).
4. “I swear: I shall be faithful and obedient to the Führer of the German Reich and People, Adolf Hitler; I shall observe the laws and fulfill my official duties conscientiously, so help me God.” As quoted in Peter Hoffman, Hitler’s Personal Security (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1979), 38.
Roots of the Oath
American colonists, as subjects of the British Empire, were bound by oath to support the monarch. Because oath-taking was considered a sacred act, the American Revolution’s defiance of the colonial oath to the British Crown held tremendous weight. By the second half of the 17th century, Europe was characterized by the rise of absolute monarchs who exploited their oath-bound subjects to sustain power.1
The American Revolution, in contrast, saw the creation of civil and military oaths that pledged allegiance to a fundamental set of laws, ultimately embodied in the Constitution. In Federalist 27, Alexander Hamilton lent his support to the proposed constitution and expressed his belief in the significance of swearing an oath to such a document. Echoing the language of the 13th-century English Magna Carta, he wrote that the laws of the proposed constitution would become the “SUPREME LAW of the land; to the observance of which all officers . . . will be bound by the sanctity of an oath.”2 In this way, the founders hoped to orient the loyalties of all federal officers to the Constitution, which would be consolidated in a single document instead of the common laws and customs that comprised English law.
The founders considered the Constitution the surest means to establish republican government that would promote popular sovereignty while guarding against tyrannical government, which they associated with standing armies loyal to the executive. In the Declaration of Independence, they cited the presence of King George III’s standing armies in the colonies as part of his design to place Americans “under absolute Despotism. . . . He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.”
As an indication of the importance they attached to the oath, the founders emerged from their initial U.S. congressional session with a law regulating administering of the oath. On 1 June 1789, the U.S. Congress passed its first law stipulating that every government official must take the following oath: “I, A.B. do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”3 This seemingly simple oath was significant because it represented a departure from oaths dating back to classical antiquity that pledged loyalty to a single individual or campaign.
In recognition of its status as a distinct institution within the federal government, the U.S. military was granted an oath for “non-commissioned officers and privates” with the passage of congressional legislation on 29 September 1789. Unlike the 1 June oath, the 29 September oath for enlisted servicemen did not mention the Constitution but required allegiance to the nation and obedience to the orders of the President and their respective officers. Congress revised this oath slightly on 30 April 1790, adding the caveat that service members obey orders “according to the articles of war.” This revision created a common oath for officers and enlisted members and, unlike the original 1 June oath, did not include a provision to support the Constitution. Thus, under the 1790 oath, service members were pledged to a relatively top-down system of loyalties that gave the President and his officers license to assume tremendous, and potentially unconstitutional, power.4#footnotes
Civil War Impact
During and following the Civil War, the oath assumed new importance to the survival of the Union and the Constitution by rooting out insurrectionists in the federal government. Historian Harold M. Hyman explained that oaths were not taken lightly at the time: “The conscientious individual with moral scruples pondered his words well before affixing his name to a loyalty oath. Many in the South excluded themselves from federal office rather than chance a lie.”5
In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln ordered all officers to renew their oaths, and Congress conducted “loyalty investigations” of the U.S. Naval Academy and U.S. Military Academy.6 To root out any rebels in the military and identify those who sympathized with the South, Congress created a new “Ironclad Test Oath” requiring service members not only to pledge current and future loyalty but also to acknowledge past allegiances.7
With the passage of a revised oath on 11 July 1868, Congress reinstated the Constitution in the military hierarchy of loyalties, and it remains the oath of office for officers to this day. Given the schismatic experience of civil war, the revised oath demonstrated Congress’s recognition of the Constitution’s power to ensure the survival of the republic and to nurture leadership in the ranks. The 1868 oath kept the pledge of present and future loyalty to the Constitution but did away with renouncing past transgressions. In contrast to the 1790 oath, the current oath allows officers to exercise their discretion with respect to their superiors by swearing them to “support and defend the Constitution.” Furthermore, the oath commits the officer to his or her pledge for perpetuity because it specifies no period of time, which likely explains why many former naval officers believe their oaths changed their lives, whether or not they continued in active service.
1. Gordon S. Wood, The American Revolution: A History (New York: The Modern Library, 2003), 61.
2. Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 27, 25 December 1787, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed27.asp, emphasis added.
3. U.S. Statutes at Large 1 (1789), 23, http://constitution.org/uslaw/sal/001_statutes_at_large.pdf.
4. U.S. Statutes at Large 1 (1789), 96, and (1790), 121.
5. Harold M. Hyman, Era of the Oath: Northern Loyalty Tests During the Civil War and Reconstruction (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1954), 76.
6. Hyman, Era of the Oath, 16.
7. “I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any officers whatever, under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.” U.S. Statutes at Large (1862), 503.