“Major Popham served under General Washington during the Revolutionary War, and I believe he was brought as near to him as their difference of rank would admit, being himself a man of great respectability, and connected by marriage with the Morrises, one of the first families in the country. He has still an erect and military air, and a body but little broken at his advanced age. His memory does not seem to be impaired nor his mind to be enfeebled.”
To the above I can add my own testimony, having in different ways become acquainted with the character of Major Popham, and having visited him about the same time mentioned by Dr. Berrian.
Extract from Major Popham’s Letter to Mrs. Jane Washington, New York, March 14, 1839
My Dear Madam: —You will doubtless be not a little surprised at receiving a letter from an individual whose name may possibly never have reached you; but an accidental circumstance has given me the extreme pleasure of introducing myself to your notice. In a conversation with the Reverend Dr. Berrian a few day since, he informed me that he had lately paid a visit to Mount Vernon, and that Mrs. Washington had expressed a wish to have a doubt removed from her mind, which had long oppressed her, as to the certainty of the General’s having attended the Communion while residing in the city of New York subsequent to the Revolution. As nearly all the remnants of those days are now sleeping with their fathers, it is not very probable that at this late day an individual can be found who could satisfy this pious wish of your virtuous heart, except the writer. It was my great good fortune to have attended St. Paul’s Church in this city with the General during the whole period of his residence in New York as President of the United States. The pew of Chief-Justice Morris was situated next to that of the President, close to whom I constantly sat in Judge Morris’s pew, and I am as confident as a memory now labouring under the pressure of fourscore years and seven can make me, that the President had more than once – I believe I say often-attended at the sacramental table, at which I had the privilege and happiness to kneel with him. And I am aided in my associations by my elder daughter, who distinctly recollects her grandmamma – Mrs. Morris- often mention that fact with great pleasure. Indeed, I am further confirmed in my assurance by the perfect recollection of the President’s uniform deportment during divine service in church. The steady seriousness of his manner, the solemn, audible, but subdued tone of voice in which he read and repeated the responses, the Christian humility which overspread and adorned the native dignity of the saviour of his country, at once exhibited him a pattern to all who had the honour of access to him. It was my good fortune, my dear madam, to have had frequent intercourse with him. It is my pride and boast to have seen him various situations,—in the flush of victory, in the field and in the tent, - in the church and at the altar, always himself, ever the same.
12 Ibid., p 490-491.
13 Alfred Nevin, D.D., LL.D. Editor. Encyclopedia of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America: Including the Northern and Southern Assemblies (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Publishing Co., 1884.) p. 259-263.
14 Johnson, George Washington The Christian, p. 96, “In commemoration of this event the spot has been marked by a sundial, placed there by the Daughters of the American Revolution.”
15 J. I. Good, History of the German Reformed Church in the United States, 1725-1792 (Reading, Pennsylvania, 1899), pp. 616-617.
16 David Hosack, M.D., Memoir of DeWitt Clinton, 1859, p. 183. Johnson, Washington the Christian, p. 86.
17 Harper’s Magazine, 1859, vol. XVIII, p. 293.
18 The Presbyterian Magazine, ed. C. Van Rensselaer, Philadelphia, Pa. February, 1851, vol. 1, p. 71.
19 Andrew M. Sherman, Historic Morristown, New Jersey, 1905, p. 237.
20 M’Guire, Religious Opinions, p. 412.
21 Ibid., pp. 413-14.
22 Presbyterian Magazine, vol. I, p. 569.
23 Ibid., vol. I, p. 569.
24 Boller, George Washington & Religion, p. 14.
25 See www.answers.com/topic/oral-history. Columbia University Press
Oral history, compilation of historical data through interviews, usually tape-recorded and sometimes videotaped, with participants in, or observers of, significant events or times. Primitive societies have long relied on oral tradition to preserve a record of the past in the absence of written histories. In Western society, the use of oral material goes back to the early Greek historians Herodotus (in his history of the Persian Wars) and Thucydides (in his History of the Peloponnesian War), both of whom made extensive use of oral reports from witnesses. The modern concept of oral history was developed in the 1940s by Allan Nevins and his associates at Columbia Univ. In creating oral histories, interviews are conducted to obtain information from different perspectives, many of which are often unavailable from written sources. Such materials provide data on individuals, families, important events, or day-to-day life.
The discipline came into its own in the 1960s and early 70s when inexpensive tape recorders were available to document such rising social movements as civil rights, feminism, and anti–Vietnam War protest. ...By the end of the 20th cent. oral history had become a respected discipline in many colleges and universities. At that time the Italian historian Alessandro Portelli and his associates began to study the role that memory itself, whether accurate or faulty, plays in the themes and structures of oral history. Their published work has since become standard material in the field, and many oral historians now include in their research the study of the subjective memory of the persons they interview.
Bibliography. See S. Caunce, Oral History (1994); V. R. Yow, Recording Oral History (1994), R. Perks and A. Thomson, The Oral History Reader (repr. 1998).
Wikipedia oral history
Oral history is an account of something passed down by word of mouth from one generation to another. Oral history is considered by some historians to be an unreliable source for the study of history. However, oral history is a valid means for preserving and transmitting history. Experience within literate cultures indicates that each time anyone reconstructs a memory, there are changes in the memory, but the core of the story is usually retained. Over time, however, minor changes can accumulate until the story becomes unrecognizable.
A person within a literate culture thus has presuppositions that may falsely affect her judgement of the validity of oral history within preliterate cultures. In these cultures children are usually selected and specially trained for the role of historian, and develop extraordinary memory skills known as eidetic or photographic memory.
Before the development of written language in a given society, oral history is the primary means of conveying information from one generation to the next.
The most common form of this transmission is through storytelling and the recitation of epic poetry, with the stories and poems collectively known as the oral tradition of a people. The combination of this oral tradition with morals and rituals passed down by word of mouth is known as the folklore of a society. Although not as prevalent now as in the past, oral history is still very much alive among many North American native groups....
The most popular examples of oral history are the works of several authors that have, over the span of many hundred years BC, collected folklore which ultimately resulted in these works being included in a collective book known as the Old Testament, The New Testament was created by four different original authors whose slightly differing versions of many biblical events were combined. The Bible was therefore ‘nearly’ entirely created using oral history.
Contemporary oral history is much different. It involves recording or transcribing eyewitness accounts of historical events. ...
One of the most important rules for those collecting oral history is to avoid asking leading questions, for many people will tend to say what they think the historian wants them to say.
Oral historians attempt to record the memories of many different people when researching a given event. Since any given individual may misremember events or distort their account for personal reasons, the historical documentation is considered to reside in the points of agreement of many different sources, rather than the account of any one person.
26 Interestingly, these words at the taking of an oath were required and written for those taking oaths in Virginia during the colonial era as can be seen in Bishop William Meade, Old Churches and Families of Virginia, (Philadelphia: J.B.Lippincott & Co. 1857), vol. II, pp. 41-2. Washington took these vows for the first time when he became a public surveyor:
Oath of Allegiance
“I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty King George the Second, so help me God.
“Oath of Abjuration.
“I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position that Princes excommunicate or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declared that no foreign Prince, Prelate, Person, State, or Potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God. The test oath, however, did not conclude with “So help me God.” Apparently the very act of denying transubstantiation was a matter of witness before God:
“Test Oath
“I do declare that I do believe that there is not any transubstantiation in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, or in the Elements of bread and wine at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever.”
27 Encyclopedia oral history, compilation of historical data through interviews, usually tape-recorded and sometimes videotaped, with participants in, or observers of, significant events or times. Primitive societies have long relied on oral tradition to preserve a record of the past in the absence of written histories. In Western society, the use of oral material goes back to the early Greek historians Herodotus (in his history of the Persian Wars) and Thucydides (in his History of the Peloponnesian War), both of whom made extensive use of oral reports from witnesses. The modern concept of oral history was developed in the 1940s by Allan Nevins and his associates at Columbia Univ. In creating oral histories, interviews are conducted to obtain information from different perspectives, many of which are often unavailable from written sources. Such materials provide data on individuals, families, important events, or day-to-day life.
The discipline came into its own in the 1960s and early 70s when inexpensive tape recorders were available to document such rising social movements as civil rights, feminism, and anti–Vietnam War protest. Authors such as Studs Terkel, Alex Haley, and Oscar Lewis have employed oral history in their books, many of which are largely based on interviews. In another important example of the genre, a massive archive covering the oral history of American music has been compiled at the Yale School of Music. By the end of the 20th cent. oral history had become a respected discipline in many colleges and universities. At that time the Italian historian Alessandro Portelli and his associates began to study the role that memory itself, whether accurate or faulty, plays in the themes and structures of oral history. Their published work has since become standard material in the field, and many oral historians now include in their research the study of the subjective memory of the persons they interview.
Bibliography
