Kansas agitator. [volume] (Garnett, Kan.) 1890-1905, 1897-08-20
AMERICANS WHO swoRE.
Now . Common Habit, but Distin guished
Precedents Are Disputed.

Procod0nts are disputed.
From the Hartford Courant: The fly
and the mosquito season, unusually
ripe, suggests the subject of profanity.
Not that the subject is dependent upon
any season, only there are times when
some of us are more or less Indifferent
to 1t. A large portion Of the words we
oxerhear as we pass along the streets,
in summer or winter, are oaths, COM
by boys and men and coming to fall al
most unheeded on the ears of the lis
tener. They are more plentiful than
the lies they frequently are intended to
ornament; from being the mere decora-
ton they have become the superstruc-
ture, the lie meanwhile maintaining its
original proportions. Debating socie
ties which continue to discuss, rs a lie
ever justifiable?" never take up the
same question for swear words. 1t
would be waste Of time. View it as
we may, from the aesthetic or the moral
standpoint, oaths have passed into the
every minute language of large per
cent Of the male population. 1t would
be necessary to modify the question for
debate so as to read this way: Can
an oath under certain conditions be
pardonable?" Then the conditions
might be such as are suggested by the
MOSQUITO season, typographical errors,
slump In the market, legislative inter-
ference with the states well being,
teaching billiards Greek or rowing and
the like. In all debates of the kind, II
our memory serves us, the argument
is clinched by going into history and
hunting out presidents. Thus, the
father Of his country, who never told
lie, Is on traditions record as having
uttered an oath. AS we look around
we find that We have to stick pretty
closely to American history for our
precedents inasmuch as Mon Dieu,"
"Gott in Himmel" and "sacristi' across
the water are considered not to count.
Passing, then, through the sulphurous
atmosphere which is said to have sur
rounded "Old Hickory" we come down
to modern times without many anthem
ticated cases. The civil war was pro-
life, however. 1t furnished two. One
was when Gen. Sherman was called for
ward to see personally what it was that
obstructed the path of his army. He
had discountenanced profanity in gen.
eral. When he reached the spot in
question he found team of obstinate
army mules, their driver not using "cuss
words" because within the hearing of
the general, and they themselves firm
as the everlasting hills. After an aid
to swear. The mules Immediately re-
sumed their journey and from that time
the general is said to have believed Sc
we're language was a necessary part OF
muleteer's equipment. That's the
story The other instance is preserved
In an immortal poem, "Sheridan's
Ride" How the declaiming schoolboy
will forever ring out these words, HE
dashed down the line with terrible
OATH" Sheridan was inspiring whole
army, he was turning crushing defeat
into famous victory, he was winning
undying fame. Many an otherwise
clean-mouthed officer or trainer has
said that in emergencies good oath"
is all that will bring men to their
senses. But here comes Gen. George
4. Forsyth in the July Harper's and
l>its Poet Read in the class of fiction
writer's. AS a young aid, General For
syth was with General Sheridan most
of the time on that memorable day at
Cedar Creek. He was close to him as
he dashed down the reformed line and
he takes occasion to say emphatically
that there was no terrible oath" or any
other kind of OATH Sheridan had q
word of cheer for officers and men here
and there and they were inspired to
their heroic deeds by the very sight of
their leader.
So it may be that the story of Wash
ington's oath is hypocritical, Jackson
may have INDUCED in sulphur and
Sherman may never have given his
sanction to language prescribed in de-
cent society. And thus, therefore, it
may be that just as much can be ac-
complished with mosquitoes or men or
type or legislatures without profanity,
and the conditions under which 1t is
admissible may exist only in the fancy
OF the benighted.