Dead Presidents

Historical facts, thoughts, ramblings and collections on the Presidency and about the Presidents of the United States.

By Anthony Bergen
Posts tagged "Secretary of State"
Asker Anonymous Asks:
was George W Bush a racist
deadpresidents deadpresidents Said:

George W. Bush can be — and should be — criticized for a great number of things, but I’ve never heard anything that would indicate that he was racially intolerant.

With PEPFAR, Bush 43 did more to help combat AIDS in Africa than any other President in American history. Throughout both of his terms, one of the most influential and prominent members of his Administration was a black female — first as National Security Advisor and then as Secretary of State. Think about this: George W. Bush served eight years as President and he didn’t have a white Secretary of State — the nation’s top diplomatic post and most visible representative of our country other than the President — serve even one minute of those eight years. In his first term, the Secretary of State was Colin Powell; in the second term, it was Condoleezza Rice.

And here’s the impressive part: Bush — a Republican from Texas — never used the diversity of his Cabinet as a political selling point as many other recent Presidents have done. With the exception of Hillary Clinton in his first term, President Obama has appointed white men to run the State Department, Treasury Department, and the Department of Defense, just as every single one of his predecessor’s has done, with the exception of Bush 43 and Bill Clinton (who appointed Madeline Albright as his second term Secretary of State).

Asker jrobertxiii Asks:
I know you're busy with the rankings, but I was wondering how cabinet positions came into existence. They aren't created in the Constitution, so is it by Executive Order or an act of Congress or something else entirely? Particularly, I'm interested in the creation of the Secretary of State. Thank you.
deadpresidents deadpresidents Said:

This is one of those things that has never been fully interpreted by the Supreme Court and is only vaguely referred to in the Constitution in what is referred to as the “Appointments Clause”. The text of that clause, which is Article II, Section 2, states that the President “shall nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

What those “Departments” actually were wasn’t made specifically clear, but the common interpretation (and the one that makes the most sense) of those “Departments” is of the agencies of the federal government that exercise the power of the Executive Branch. What the “Heads of Department” were is less clear and has never been defined by the Supreme Court, but it has been taken to mean that there are principal “Officers” and “inferior Officers” within those Departments — the principal “Officers” require Senate confirmation while the “inferior Officers” do not unless Congress specifically mandates it. The principal “Officers” are not just the Secretaries of each Cabinet-level Department and Senate confirmation isn’t limited to agencies considered Cabinet-level Departments. There are nearly 1,500 positions in the federal government which require Senate confirmation after Presidential appointment.

The formation of these Departments and the reason for Cabinet Secretaries is basically, to put it really simply, because there’s a lot of damn work to do. The President is vested with all of this Executive power, but the President is just one person. The Legislative Branch has hundreds of members in elected positions and even the Supreme Court has nine members, and that’s not even counting all of the lower courts in the Judicial Branch. To use the Department of State/Secretary of State as an example since that’s the one you mentioned, the Constitution gives the President the responsibility for our country’s foreign relations. Even during George Washington’s Presidency when the size of the country and the government was small, it was obvious that the President couldn’t single-handedly administer foreign policy, manage the financial system and law enforcement/legal apparatus, and be Commander-in-Chief of the military. The President needed help, so Departments were formed and people were put in charge of those Departments.

The State Department was a no-brainer, and during the Washington Administration, it was followed by a Treasury Department (finance), War Department (defense), and Attorney General (justice). There was actually no Department of Justice until 1870. Prior to that, the Attorney General was a Presidential appointee who was responsible for prosecuting cases before the Supreme Court and as the Executive Branch’s legal authority who could give opinions and advice on the law. When it comes to the technical process of establishing a federal Department, the President usually appoints an official responsible for a specific role or advocates for the establishment of such a role and Congress passes a law creating the Department needed to support that Presidential appointee. As the government and country has grown and different technologies and industries have sprouted, new Departments have been added or have been turned into something else.

The establishment of a Department of State was obviously the most important Department to the leaders when the Presidency went into effect because of its role in supporting the President in foreign relations at a time where even some of our more cosmopolitan leaders were regarded (often quite accurately) as somewhat provincial. Foreign policy was a big concern because the United States was still recovering from a Revolutionary War which resulted in independence but required everything Americans had as well as the assistance of foreign allies (or foreign countries who were at least enemies of England). Strengthening those ties, along with building new ones, was an absolute necessity for defensive and economic reasons — for survival, basically. That’s why the Department of State was the first to be created shortly after Washington was inaugurated. At first, it was actually called the “Department of Foreign Affairs”, but Congress changed the name to the “Department of State” right before Thomas Jefferson was appointed as the first Secretary of State a couple of months later.

More Cabinet-level Departments — along with sub Cabinet-level agencies, many of which also have principal officers who require Senate confirmation following Presidential appointment — have been established throughout our history, but the Secretary of State has largely remained the most important position in the Cabinet. Like the Chief Justice, the Secretary of State is seen as first-among-equals, and was such an important and influential position that the Secretary is first in the order of precedence of members of the Cabinet and was second in line to the Presidency from 1886 until 1947. Early Secretaries of State were so influential that the position seemed to be a stepping stone to the Presidency during the first 50 years of the job’s existence with four of the first six Presidents (Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams) being former Secretaries of State. Three Secretaries of State (Madison, Monroe, and J.Q. Adams) were elected to the Presidency directly from the State Department. However, only two former Secretaries of State have been elected President since 1825 — Martin Van Buren, Secretary of State under President Jackson (1829-1831) and elected President in 1836, and James Buchanan, Secretary of State under President Polk (1845-1849) and elected President in 1856 — so, if she is successful in 2016, Hillary Clinton will be the first former Secretary of State elected President in 160 years. And it won’t be for a lack of trying — former Secretaries of State who were nominated by a major party but lost a Presidential election include Henry Clay (lost three Presidential election), Daniel Webster (lost two Presidential elections), Lewis Cass, and James G. Blaine. Several others unsuccessfully sought their party’s nomination and lost or settled for the State Department after losing a Presidential election first (including William Jennings Bryan, who lost three Presidential elections).

This is way more information than jrobertxiii asked for, but I hope it answered some of your questions. 

Mr. Buchanan’s real trouble is that he cannot use my Administration and shape his course according to his own ever varying whims, in order to promote his aspirations to the Presidency. He cares nothing for the success or glory of my Administration further than he can make it subservient to his own political aspirations…The truth is that the scheming and intriguing about the Presidential election, and especially by Mr. Buchanan, is seriously embarrassing my Administration.

James K. Polk, on his frustration with his Secretary of State James Buchanan for actively working to position himself as the leading candidate to succeed Polk as President and neglecting (in Polk’s mind) his duties in Polk’s Cabinet, personal diary entry, February 24, 1848.

From almost the beginning of his Administration, President Polk had pledged to only serve a single term and never had any intention to change his mind and seek reelection in 1848. However, Polk was almost universally dismissive — particularly in entries that he made in his White House diary — of nearly every person whose name was mentioned as a possible successor, regardless of whether they were fellow Democrats or members of the Whig Party. Polk was also adamant that members of his Cabinet refrain from partisan politics — even throughout 1848 as the Democrats were seeking a strong Presidential candidate who might be able to beat whichever former General fresh from military glory in the Mexican-American War — Zachary Taylor or Winfield Scott — was nominated by the Whigs.

Despite Polk’s efforts, Buchanan did seek the Democratic nomination in 1848, but lost to Lewis Cass, who was defeated by Zachary Taylor in the general election (Cass later served as Secretary of State when Buchanan was eventually elected President). Buchanan also unsuccessfully sought the 1852 Democratic nomination, losing out to dark horse Franklin Pierce who was suggested to the deadlocked Democratic National Convention as a compromise candidate and finally nominated after 49 ballots.

President Pierce nominated Buchanan to serve as U.S. Minister to Great Britain and being out of the country throughout the travails of the Pierce Administration and the worsening sectional crises over slavery was probably instrumental in Buchanan finally achieving his long-awaited goal of becoming President. In 1856, Pierce became the first President to be denied renomination by his own party as the Democrats turned to Buchanan instead. James K. Polk probably wouldn’t have been happy with his former Secretary of State’s election, but Polk had died just three months after leaving office in 1849. Although Buchanan had been mentioned as potential contender for the Presidency and was perhaps better qualified for the position than anyone else ever elected to the job, the nation’s troubles quickly worsened after he was sworn in and Buchanan never fulfilled the expectations many Americans had for a President with his experience. Today, he is considered one of the worst Presidents in American history.

It was as far as I could send him out of my sight, and where he could do the least harm. I would have sent him to the North Pole if we had kept a minister there!
Andrew Jackson, expressing his opposition to James K. Polk’s nomination of James Buchanan as Secretary of State despite his own appointment of Buchanan as U.S. Minister to Russia during his Presidency, 1845
Asker Anonymous Asks:
Do you think Secretary of State would be a good stepping stone to the presidency today, or that the offices are too distinct now?
deadpresidents deadpresidents Said:

At the beginning of the 19th Century, being Secretary of State was almost a guarantee that you’d be elected President.  Five of the first eight Presidents had served as Secretary of State, including three (James Madison, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams) who went directly to the White House from serving two terms as Secretary of State.  But it’s been nearly 160 years since the last Secretary of State — James Buchanan, who ran President Polk’s State Department from 1845 to 1849 — was elected President.  

I think it’s more difficult now for a couple of reasons.  First of all, Secretaries of State aren’t nearly as powerful now.  The Vice Presidency is a far more influential position today than it was in the 18th, 19th, and first half of the 20th Century, the White House Chief of Staff handles the Administration’s COO-type responsibilities that many Secretaries previously took on, and as other Cabinet posts have increased their profile within the Executive Department it has diminished the power of the Secretary of State, especially when there are turf wars like the feud between Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld.  The Secretary of State used to be a Foreign Minister-type position that was basically just short of being equivalent to a Prime Minister; in many ways, the Secretary of State used to be (unofficially) the first-among-equals within the Cabinet.  That changed a bit early in the 20th Century, but especially in the latter part of the last century.  Basically since Nixon’s Presidency, American foreign policy is almost fully run by the White House through the National Security Staff (formerly known as the National Security Council).  The Secretary of State is a member of the National Security Staff and has a role in formulating that policy, of course, but they are more like Super Ambassadors who go where the President sends them and relays messages.  They have always been the top American diplomat, but the job now is much more political, domestically and internationally, than administrative.

Another reason why you don’t see more Secretaries of State running for President directly from the State Department is purely political.  If a President serves a single term, a Secretary of State isn’t going to be an ideal candidate because they’d have to challenge their boss.  If a President serves two terms, there is usually voter fatigue when it comes to the President and his Cabinet.  After two terms, the opposition party will have been sharpening their knives and getting ready for the Presidential election.  A Secretary of State who has either served two terms in office or wants to run for President directly from the State Department after one term in the Cabinet is an easy target.  All Presidents eventually become lame ducks and if someone is serving in their Cabinet as the President’s popularity starts to take a dive, they’ll usually be painted with that same brush.  It’s easy to run against them — whether you’re from the other party or challenging them in the primary.

Hillary Clinton would have a more difficult race in front of her if she were serving as Secretary of State in Obama’s Cabinet right now.  It would be easier to connect her with an unpopular President who is rapidly heading towards lame duck status if she were currently in the Cabinet.  Since she left after the first term, on her own terms, after Obama had been re-elected, she basically left at the perfect time — it’s like when an athlete retires after winning a championship.  If you go out on top, you control your destiny and shore up your legacy.  So, that’s why no Secretaries of State have been elected President since Buchanan in 1856 and few have even won their party’s nomination.  But, if things play out the way I think they will, Hillary will end that drought in 2016.      

Have there been Secretaries of State or Defense/War that have been wholly unqualified for their jobs? Because those seem like cabinet positions where you'd always need someone to be pretty competent.
deadpresidents deadpresidents Said:

Just like with the Presidency, we’ve had people who, if not unqualified were at least poorly suited for the position of Secretary of State or Secretary of War/Defense.  

Most recently, I’d say that President Clinton’s first Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, was a bad fit for the job.  He only lasted about a year and ended up resigning after the Black Hawk Down disaster in Mogadishu.  As for a recent Secretary of State who was a bad fit, I think I’d point to President Reagan’s first Secretary of State, Alexander Haig.  Haig was certainly qualified, but he rubbed a lot of people the wrong way within the Reagan Administration and really made a bad situation worse when Reagan was shot by getting up in front of the press at the White House, incorrectly declaring himself next in line Constitutionally after the President and Vice President, and saying that he was “in control of the government” while the President was in the hospital and the Vice President was flying back to Washington.

Asker Anonymous Asks:
Its been said Jon Huntsman is telling friends that he won't be running again in 2016. Might he be gunning for the next Republican Secretary of Stare instead?
deadpresidents deadpresidents Said:

First of all, I know it was an innocent typo and I’m totally not one of those people who likes pointing typos out, but Secretary of Stare would be the greatest Cabinet position ever.  I would be an amazing Secretary of Stare.

Huntsman would be a fantastic Secretary of State in a Republican or Democratic Administration, but I hope he runs for President.  Hillary Clinton would be great.  I love Joe Biden.  I am completely intrigued by Martin O’Malley.  But Jon Huntsman is the type of President that this country sorely needs right now, and I would love to see it happen.

What are your thoughts on Obama's nomination of John Kerry as Secretary of State?
deadpresidents deadpresidents Said:

I think Senator Kerry is an excellent choice.  He has a wealth of experience in foreign relations due to his lengthy service on that committee in the Senate, is well-known around the world, and has built personal relationships with many international leaders that will serve him and the President well once he takes over at State.  I think that Susan Rice got a raw deal over the Benghazi attacks and was unfairly made out to be the scapegoat, but I also think Kerry is a much more solid pick for Secretary of State than Rice would have been.

Asker Anonymous Asks:
Who do you think was the best Secretary of State of the last 100 years?
deadpresidents deadpresidents Said:

He was only Secretary of State for two years (1947-1949), but George C. Marshall, in my opinion, was the greatest American diplomat of the past 100 years.  Marshall, of course, developed the Marshall Plan, which helped relieve war-torn Europe and won him the 1953 Nobel Peace Prize. 

By the way, outside of the State Department, General Marshall probably was one of the most qualified Americans who never served as President of the United States.  Marshall was the Army Chief of Staff during World War II and what that means is that he was the guy who basically picked the Generals who won the war.  Marshall was a priceless asset to President Roosevelt and President Truman during the war and after the war.

Besides General Marshall, I’d also include Charles Evans Hughes, who served as Secretary of State under President Harding and President Coolidge (and was another guy who probably should have been President himself).  Also, Cordell Hull — the longest serving Secretary of State — who served throughout almost three full terms of FDR’s Administration.

Depending on your political affiliation, there are also many who have high opinions of other 20th/21st Century Secretaries of State.  Quite frankly, the United States has done historically well — particularly in the last 50 years — with the person that have been put at the helm of the State Department.  These names are all people who did some important things that significantly affected American policy and the world as a whole:   John Foster Dulles (President Eisenhower), Dean Rusk (President Kennedy and President Johnson), Henry Kissinger (President Nixon and President Ford), George Schulz (President Reagan), James Baker (President Bush 41), and Madeline Albright (President Clinton).  Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are tainted by the Iraq War, but Powell is a heavyweight on the world stage and Rice is a remarkable leader.  Hillary Clinton is on her way to being a very important Secretary of State and might be the MVP of the Obama Administration so far.