First Assignment, Fall 2014

Pick one of the following:

1. Ask any American over the age of forty to describe the first presidential event that he or she can clearly remember (e.g., FDR’s Pearl Harbor speech, the JFK assassination). Then “go back in time” to contemporary press reports and documents. How did the event look then? What accounts for differences between memory and the printed record? 
2. Find a recent (2013-2014) speech that invokes Washington, Lincoln, FDR, or JFK in order to make points about current politics. Why does the speaker or writer use this comparison? Is it historically accurate? How well does it apply to current politics? 
3. Pick any president between Washington and Bush 43. If Milkis and Nelson were to give four more manuscript pages to that president, what should they say? That is, what key aspects of this presidency did they downplay or overlook?

• Whichever essay you choose, do research to document your claims. Do not write from the top of your head. 
• Essays should be typed, double-spaced, and no more than four pages long. I will not read past the fourth page. 
• Cite your sources with endnotes, which should be in a standard style (e.g., Turabian or Chicago Manual of Style). Endnote pages do not count against the page limit. 
• Watch your spelling, grammar, diction, and punctuation. Errors will count against you. 
• Turn in essays to the class Sakai dropbox by 11:59 PM, Monday, September 29. Late essays will drop a gradepoint for one day’s lateness, a full letter grade after that. I will grant no extensions except for illness or emergency.

The Early Presidency

Washington Inauguration


Presidential power:  Neutrality, Pacificus and Helvidius

The Whiskey Rebellion:

;br />

Farewell Address:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

... 

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

The Election of 1800


The "bald, blind" Adams
Jefferson and the "pike and halbert"


For more on Washington, see a lecture by Yale historian Joanne Freeman (Pomona `84):

The President and the Constitution

Article II

Federalist 70 and plurality in the executive:

But one of the weightiest objections to a plurality in the Executive, and which lies as much against the last as the first plan, is, that it tends to conceal faults and destroy responsibility. Responsibility is of two kinds -- to censure and to punishment. The first is the more important of the two, especially in an elective office. Man, in public trust, will much oftener act in such a manner as to render him unworthy of being any longer trusted, than in such a manner as to make him obnoxious to legal punishment. But the multiplication of the Executive adds to the difficulty of detection in either case. It often becomes impossible, amidst mutual accusations, to determine on whom the blame or the punishment of a pernicious measure, or series of pernicious measures, ought really to fall. It is shifted from one to another with so much dexterity, and under such plausible appearances, that the public opinion is left in suspense about the real author. The circumstances which may have led to any national miscarriage or misfortune are sometimes so complicated that, where there are a number of actors who may have had different degrees and kinds of agency, though we may clearly see upon the whole that there has been mismanagement, yet it may be impracticable to pronounce to whose account the evil which may have been incurred is truly chargeable.

"I was overruled by my council. The council were so divided in their opinions that it was impossible to obtain any better resolution on the point." These and similar pretexts are constantly at hand, whether true or false. And who is there that will either take the trouble or incur the odium, of a strict scrunity into the secret springs of the transaction? Should there be found a citizen zealous enough to undertake the unpromising task, if there happen to be collusion between the parties concerned, how easy it is to clothe the circumstances with so much ambiguity, as to render it uncertain what was the precise conduct of any of those parties?

The oath (keep in mind next week when we discuss Lincoln):

May 19, 2008, in Billings, Montana

White House Delays Executive Actions on Immigration

Hello everyone, happy weekend!

I wanted to get this up before the headline disappeared, but the White House announced this morning that it will be delaying executive action on immigration. This announcement came despite a previous one made this summer in the White House Rose Garden that the president will act immediately after Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of Homeland Security, finished his review and presented recommendations to the president.

The article goes on to note that the reversal came likely due to mounting pressure from Senate Democrats, who are worried about the potential political ramifications that would come from executive actions during an election year. (POLITICO has reported that pressure from Senate Democrats have been ratcheting up for a bit now) It's interesting to note that while the response from the GOP is predictable, the harshest criticism comes from immigration reform groups, players that have typically supported the president and the Democrats.

Also, it'll be interesting to learn more throughout the class what exactly "executive actions" are! I found a nice basic primer for what executive "tools" the POTUS can use, written by Cass Sunstein, the former administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)

The American Presidency

The presidency:  Kevin Spacey perspectives

Stuff you want to know:

• The president's salary and pension
• The Oval Office
• The Situation Room
• Presidential Emergency Operations Center (still photo)
• The Secret Service

Congressional Members at SOTU

Sadly, I haven't seen the speech yet (curses, Jesse Jackson!)

But I did see a story earlier in the day about Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY).

He gets to the House chamber very early - 8 A.M. - so that he's seen on TV shaking the President's hand. His view:

People say, five months after, I’ll bump into them in my district and they say to me, ‘Oh, Mr. Engel, we saw you on TV.’ And I would have done eight wonderful interviews in August and 12 brilliant interviews in September and they say, ‘No, you were shaking the president’s hand.' It’s what people remember. And my attitude is, if my constituents love it, I love it.

House Approves Biggest Changes in Financial Regulation Since Great Depression

Obama and fellow Dems eager to change the tide in the financial scheme launched a campaign for transparency in financial regulation. Republicans, lobbyists, and others who have benefited from the cash flow are dismissing these efforts as unneeded . The inter-agency council will serve as a "watchdog agency." Long overdue!