So the Pledge of Allegiance is in the news again.

[vakkotaur]

Let's take a look at it in the original form from September 1892:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all. -- Reverend Francis Bellamy

That was it, short and to the point. I find two things interesting. The first is that the pledge is to "my Flag" which signifies a direct connection. It's not just a thing belonging to some collective entity, it is one's own thing and representation of oneself as well as one's country. The second thing is that there is no mention of God at all, despite the author being a Reverend. That's right, a Reverend didn't see fit to mention God in the Pledge that he himself wrote. He had a good reason. Church is church and state is state. The less business each has with the other, the better off they both are, and the better off everyone is.

Now, it's not that the Reverend left his work unaltered. Nope, he changed it. Here it is after an alteration in October 1892:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands; one Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

The change is fairly minor. He added the second instance of the word 'to' in this version. That was it. That was all the change he thought was needed.

Today's official Pledge looks a bit different. The other changes were done by other people. Or perhaps I should say were committed by committees.

Despite the Reverend's objection, a change was made in 1923:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The change from "my Flag" to "the Flag of the United States" was out of concern that immigrants might consider "my Flag" that of their country of origin. This had somehow not been much of a problem before, even during World War One. The change from U.S. to U.S.A. happened in 1924:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Things were left like that for a time, even through all of World War Two. It took the campaigning of the Knights of Columbus in the 1950s (gee, what was happening in the 1950s?) to add the words now causing contention:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

There are couple more items of interest. One is that the Pledge that Reverend Bellamy wrote was not the only choice. There was already another salute to the flag, written by George T. Balch:

The students in his New York Public Schools gave his "American Patriotic Salute" as follows: students touched first their foreheads, then their hearts, reciting, "We give our Heads - and our Hearts - to God and our Country." Then with a right arm outstretched and palms down in the direction of the flag, they competed the salute "One Country! One Language! One Flag!" (from Pledge Questions and Answers)

The other interesting item is that there are some state Pledges (so much for Balch's "One Flag") that are similar to the national Pledge, but do not include the words "under God." These states are Arkansas, Georgia and Texas. (from Pledge Questions and Answers)

Comments

[melskunk.livejournal.com]

The first is so perfectly elloquent. I always thought the pledge read rather clumsey. Covers all the bases: Republic, indivisible, liberty, justice. The rest is all frippery. Really glad they didn't go for the...um... slightly more fascist sounding one.

[nefaria.livejournal.com]

Regarding separation of church and state, I've found that many people who throw a fit when they find out a parochial school student is using a taxpayer-funded pencil have no problem when the government sues a Catholic parish into bankruptcy. They want a church-free state but have no problems with a state-subjugated church.

As for the Pledge, I'm not sure what its purpose is supposed to be. It makes sense for an immigrant to recite it when he reaches citizenship, and for elected officials when they start their job, but that's about it. It should not mention God, it should not be recited by school children on a daily basis, and it should not be overused by anyone. Once a year is quite sufficient.

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

I know I didn't fully understand the Pledge when I first was required to recite it each school morning. It was just a ritual that started the day, and not something with real meaning. I find it interesting and odd that around the time I really understood what it meant, the ritual was largely dispensed with.

As for things done on a daily basis, one interesting thing I happened across while looking around was that flag flying was a fairly rare thing before the 20th or very late 19th century. Flags were used on Naval vessels, military bases, and I assume some government buildings and that was pretty much it. The flag was a fairly special thing and if it was flown by others, it was generally only done on national holidays, such as Independence Day.

[kinkyturtle.livejournal.com]

I had to recite it daily when I was in school. What did I learn from this?
Well, I learned how to recite it as a mindless singsongy chant.

[stands up, puts hand on heart, and does a perfect imitation of a roomful of schoolkids saying something they neither understand nor give a damn about]

I pled aleeden
Tooda flag
udda United States of America.
Antooda repuddic
foritchistan
One naisha
Undagarr
Individible
Wiffibity anjustifferaw.

"Thank you. Please be seated."

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

The Republic of Foritchistan? I can just see that as a fictional setting for some story. Or at least as a NastionStates entity.

[nefaria.livejournal.com]

I have the same feeling about it.

What if we'd been prohibited from speaking it until graduation, wouldn't it have been much more exciting and meaningful then?

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I have always found the pledge of allegiance to be obnoxious and oppressive. It is a jingoistic practice that demands conformity and exacts a nasty penalty for refusal. This is utterly inappropriate. One can be loyal to the nation without committing idolatrous worship of a piece of red white and blue fabric. We owe no "allegiance" to a flag. The flag itself has never done anything for us.

As for the words "under God", of course those were a late addition during the McCarthy scare on "Godless communists." Separation of church and state should never have allowed them to be added, but the Supreme Court has settled for allowing anyone to decline the pledge on religious or ethical grounds. (As if there were anything right about forcing someone to say it whether they had religious objections or not...)

The thing that is always so amazing about these big brouhahas over nothing is the short memory of our people, both individually and collectively. History does not exist. "Those words have always been in there. The founding fathers intended them to be there. How dare you try to take them out." They may have always been in there during the living memory of the speaker, but they most decidedly were not there for the majority of the time the pledge was in existence, nor was the pledge itself in use for most of the lifetime of the US as a free nation.

[foolscap001.livejournal.com]

The bizarre part is that the people in a snit about the court decision would probably blow a gasket if they knew about the original author's socialist politics.