Today, we take "President of the United States" for granted. When the position was fresh, before the White House (another name we take for granted!) was even completed, when Washington was beginning to set his precedents, there was great debate over a proper title for the head of the United States of America.
John Adams, then Vice President, was a fan of more royalistic and fancy titles. "His Majesty the President" or "His High Mightiness" were two possibilities coming from him.
At this point, I want you all to imagine referring to "His High Mightiness George W. Bush."
You now appreciate this title not taking root.
There was also suggestion of "His Elective Majesty." While this title has that democratic ring to it, I want to know who exactly came up with this one and what drug they were on. That sounds like a horrible title. It's not my bias against calling the president Majesty in any form, it's just that title has no flow at all.
Now, the best suggestion of the time was "His Highness the President of the United States of America and Protector of the Rights of the Same."
I find the use of "of the Same" to be rather tacky, and think perhaps "His Highness the President of the United States of America and Protector of the Rights of the United States of America" would have been a more elegant suggestion.
Despite all this lively debate about a simple title, we know today that "President of the United States" won the debate. Why? All of this took place in the Senate. The House of Representatives quickly decided to use this title, and the Senate eventually decided to just agree with them.
While John Adams was arguably the main catalyst for this debate, the Vice President had no such debate over titles. Benjamin Franklin suggested "His Superfluous Excellency."
While he was being sarcastic, we should adopt this title ASAP.
President of the United States Barack Obama and His Superfluous Excellency Joe Biden!
Showing posts with label George Washington. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Washington. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Presidents' Day
...is quite possibly the most worthless holiday we have in the United States.
It sprung from celebrations of Lincoln's Birthday (on February 12) and Washington's Birthday (on February 22) and so now Presidents' Day is celebrated on a Monday in February, I suppose the third Monday, and we all get a three-day weekend instead of two days off.
But this is not my problem with the upcoming holiday. My problem is people don't celebrate the presidents. Not once have I heard of someone preaching about the greatness of Abraham Lincoln on this holiday. Nor have I seen someone wearing a George Washington t-shirt.
If we're getting this day off, why aren't people celebrating even these greatest presidents?
But in addition, people further shun the lesser presidents. Maybe they'll think of Washington and Lincoln, maybe even the Roosevelts. But what about the Millard Fillmores and the William McKinleys and the Benjamin Harrisons of our land? Isn't it their holiday too?
But people don't celebrate any of this. So why should this holiday still exist?
That being said, on Monday I'm wearing a Chester Arthur t-shirt and posting multiple blogs about some of the presidents who get no love.
It sprung from celebrations of Lincoln's Birthday (on February 12) and Washington's Birthday (on February 22) and so now Presidents' Day is celebrated on a Monday in February, I suppose the third Monday, and we all get a three-day weekend instead of two days off.
But this is not my problem with the upcoming holiday. My problem is people don't celebrate the presidents. Not once have I heard of someone preaching about the greatness of Abraham Lincoln on this holiday. Nor have I seen someone wearing a George Washington t-shirt.
If we're getting this day off, why aren't people celebrating even these greatest presidents?
But in addition, people further shun the lesser presidents. Maybe they'll think of Washington and Lincoln, maybe even the Roosevelts. But what about the Millard Fillmores and the William McKinleys and the Benjamin Harrisons of our land? Isn't it their holiday too?
But people don't celebrate any of this. So why should this holiday still exist?
That being said, on Monday I'm wearing a Chester Arthur t-shirt and posting multiple blogs about some of the presidents who get no love.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Strong or Weak?
George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt have what in common?
They are all strong presidents who followed generally weaker presidents.
Washington followed the Articles of Confederation, which had a president, but of Congress, not an executive. His term built the presidency. Lincoln followed James Buchanan who basically did nothing about seceding states, because he didn't think he had the right. At the same time, he didn't think they had the right to secede. Lincoln then saved the Union. Roosevelt followed Hoover, who is blamed for the Great Depression and failed to do much to make it better.
Roosevelt had great popularity because he wasn't Hoover. Washington was successful because the Constitution was fresh and he could interpret it however he wished. Lincoln was successful because most of his opposition seceded from the nation, and he forced himself into emergency powers.
When I consider these cases, I find it difficult not to draw a parallel to Barack Obama. George Bush isn't exactly a weak president, as he did get a lot done, but he was probably a poor one, like Buchanan and Hoover.
Unlike these cases however, Obama does not yet seem to be very successful. Perhaps he just needs his full term and maybe a second to prove his worth.
But what if Congress stays deadlocked?
Could Barack not follow these three examples and instead shift federal politics to be more like those of the Gilded Age?
The Gilded Age is notable for Congress' domination of politics. That, in turn, echoed of the presidents from Taylor to Buchanan. Is it perhaps time for the executive branch to become weaker again?
There's one major problem with weak presidents now that was not apparent last time. When the Gilded Age ended, expansionism began. The United States became firmly, and stays today, involved in the politics of the world. If the single man (or maybe woman) leading the executive branch is not strong, then the country will become weaker on the international field.
That singular leader is needed to be the representative of the United States. And he cannot be a pushover that the world takes advantage of, he needs to be strong but fair.
Thus, we must hope that Obama does follow the scheme of Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt. Because a Congress overtaking the president again could be bad for America.
They are all strong presidents who followed generally weaker presidents.
Washington followed the Articles of Confederation, which had a president, but of Congress, not an executive. His term built the presidency. Lincoln followed James Buchanan who basically did nothing about seceding states, because he didn't think he had the right. At the same time, he didn't think they had the right to secede. Lincoln then saved the Union. Roosevelt followed Hoover, who is blamed for the Great Depression and failed to do much to make it better.
Roosevelt had great popularity because he wasn't Hoover. Washington was successful because the Constitution was fresh and he could interpret it however he wished. Lincoln was successful because most of his opposition seceded from the nation, and he forced himself into emergency powers.
When I consider these cases, I find it difficult not to draw a parallel to Barack Obama. George Bush isn't exactly a weak president, as he did get a lot done, but he was probably a poor one, like Buchanan and Hoover.
Unlike these cases however, Obama does not yet seem to be very successful. Perhaps he just needs his full term and maybe a second to prove his worth.
But what if Congress stays deadlocked?
Could Barack not follow these three examples and instead shift federal politics to be more like those of the Gilded Age?
The Gilded Age is notable for Congress' domination of politics. That, in turn, echoed of the presidents from Taylor to Buchanan. Is it perhaps time for the executive branch to become weaker again?
There's one major problem with weak presidents now that was not apparent last time. When the Gilded Age ended, expansionism began. The United States became firmly, and stays today, involved in the politics of the world. If the single man (or maybe woman) leading the executive branch is not strong, then the country will become weaker on the international field.
That singular leader is needed to be the representative of the United States. And he cannot be a pushover that the world takes advantage of, he needs to be strong but fair.
Thus, we must hope that Obama does follow the scheme of Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt. Because a Congress overtaking the president again could be bad for America.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
"Fact" Book
Today I borrowed a Presidential Fact Book, as the title says, from a US History teacher. I basicially orgasmed when I initially saw it. It was as thick as Harry Potter, but it wasn't about fictional boys saving the world as they go through puberty, it was about something almost as irrelevant to my life but three hundred times as interesting, the presidents of days past!
Excited, I read the chapter on George Washington once I got home with the monster of a book. The first thing I noticed was that in the quick facts at the beginning, it listed Washington as a member of the Federalist Party. This bothered me, as Washington was not officially in any party and is well known for saying we should avoid political parties in his farewell address. But I shrugged this off, because he honestly did prefer the views of the Federalists.
However, later in the chapter, there was a "fact" I could not forgive. It said that Washington's precedent of bowing out after two terms was not broken until FDR was elected to his third term in 1940.
This certainly isn't true.
The book makes the assumption that because FDR is the only president to be elected to more than two terms that he is the only person to break this precedent. However, in order to break the precedent, all that a person would have to do is be elected to two terms and run for a third.
Ulysses S. Grant was president for two terms, then Rutherford B. Hayes succeeded him. Hayes faught corruption, the spoils system, and the political machine in his term. So in 1880, Grant was the Stalwart faction of the Republican Party favorite to be nominated for president. He failed to be nominated because of the rift between the Stalwarts and Half-Breeds, but the point stands that there was effort to get him a third term.
The other Roosevelt, Theodore, ran for a third term in 1912, when he was dissatisfied with the way his handpicked successor was running the show. He failed to get the Republican nomination, but ran under his own new party, the Progressive (Bull Moose) Party.
So the real fact in this matter is that George Washington's precedent of leaving the office of president voluntarily and forever after two terms was broken in our nation's history, and not only by FDR.
Excited, I read the chapter on George Washington once I got home with the monster of a book. The first thing I noticed was that in the quick facts at the beginning, it listed Washington as a member of the Federalist Party. This bothered me, as Washington was not officially in any party and is well known for saying we should avoid political parties in his farewell address. But I shrugged this off, because he honestly did prefer the views of the Federalists.
However, later in the chapter, there was a "fact" I could not forgive. It said that Washington's precedent of bowing out after two terms was not broken until FDR was elected to his third term in 1940.
This certainly isn't true.
The book makes the assumption that because FDR is the only president to be elected to more than two terms that he is the only person to break this precedent. However, in order to break the precedent, all that a person would have to do is be elected to two terms and run for a third.
Ulysses S. Grant was president for two terms, then Rutherford B. Hayes succeeded him. Hayes faught corruption, the spoils system, and the political machine in his term. So in 1880, Grant was the Stalwart faction of the Republican Party favorite to be nominated for president. He failed to be nominated because of the rift between the Stalwarts and Half-Breeds, but the point stands that there was effort to get him a third term.
The other Roosevelt, Theodore, ran for a third term in 1912, when he was dissatisfied with the way his handpicked successor was running the show. He failed to get the Republican nomination, but ran under his own new party, the Progressive (Bull Moose) Party.
So the real fact in this matter is that George Washington's precedent of leaving the office of president voluntarily and forever after two terms was broken in our nation's history, and not only by FDR.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Obligatory Thanksgiving Day Post
"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness. Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us. And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best. Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789."
George Washington proclaimed this on October 3, 1789.
Seperation of Church and State, my ass.
George Washington proclaimed this on October 3, 1789.
Seperation of Church and State, my ass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)