George W. on George W.

Many posts have discussed the presidency.

President George W. Bush at In Pursuit:

Few qualities have inspired me more than Washington’s humility. I have studied the corrupting nature of power, and how retaining power for power’s sake has infected politics for generations. Our first president could have remained all-powerful, but twice he chose not to. In so doing, he set a standard for all presidents to live up to. His life, with all its flaws and achievements, should be studied by all who aspire to leadership. George Washington’s humility in giving up power willingly remains among the most consequential decisions and important examples in American politics.

After leading the United States to victory over Great Britain in the Revolutionary War, George Washington was at the height of his power. Some suggested that he should become king. Instead, General Washington resigned his military commission in 1783. When King George III of Great Britain learned of his vanquisher’s intentions, he reportedly said, “If He did, He will be the greatest man in the world.” What Washington did on that cold December afternoon in Annapolis shaped the foundation and future of American democracy. And he was just getting started.

Presidents and the Press: The Early Years

 Many posts have discussed the relationship between presidents and the press. 

Todd Andrlik at Mount Vernon:

Washington read newspapers voraciously and understood the immense power of the printed word. Bruce Chadwick, one of 37 historian contributors to Reporting the Revolutionary War, wrote in George Washington’s War (2004) that “The help of the press was another part of Washington’s winter [of 1777] strategy. The general read as many newspapers as he could… he had friends in every major city in the states send him their newspapers and asked anyone scheduled to visit him to bring along the latest editions. He read them to find out how the press and public felt about the army – and him – but also to determine what the British were doing.”

The following winter, Washington received authorization from Congress to fund the publication of the New-Jersey Journal, a completely army-controlled newspaper that served as Washington’s mouthpiece and helped offset the political vitriol from James Rivington’s and James Humphreys’ Loyalist papers being printed in British-occupied New York and Philadelphia. The story of the Journal is well told in Chadwick’s volume. In Reporting the Revolutionary War, general audiences can now experience firsthand the same impressive assortment of war intelligence and public opinion that Washington craved from newspapers.

Shannon Duffy at Mount Vernon:

The peak of press attacks against Washington came with the public announcement of the controversial Jay Treaty with Great Britain in 1794, which attempted to ward off an impending war with Britain at the expense of American-French relations. Even before the terms of the treaty were announced, Jay's negotiations stirred up widespread opposition. The hostility was triggered not only by anti-British sentiment, but also by fears that the President was overstepping his authority in negotiating the treaty.

Washington's apparent refusal to acknowledge public opposition to the treaty added to a general discomfort with the power he was wielding. "Belisarius" cast harsh aspersions upon Washington's high-handed manner, which he saw as emblematic of the entire administration: "a brief but trite review of your six years administration, mark the progressive steps which have led the way to the present public evils that afflict your country. . .the unerring voice of posterity will not fail to render the just sentence of condemnation on the man who has entailed upon his country deep and incurable public evils."3

John R. Vile at The Free Speech Center:

In 1792, the new Congress under the Constitution adopted further legislation on the postal service. In setting rates, from 6 cents to 25 cents per letter (depending on the distance it was being sent), Congress provided that newspapers would be charged only 1 or 1 1/2 cents, again based on distance. The law also allowed designated governmental officials including the president, vice president, cabinet officers, and members of Congress to send mail related to their offices for free. This practice, which continues today, is known as the franking privilege.

To facilitate the exchange of information, the law continued the earlier practice that provided that “every printer of newspapers may send one paper to each and every other printer of newspapers within the United States, free of postage, under such regulations, as the Postmaster General shall provide.”

Peter McNamara at The Free Speech Center:

Scholars have traditionally cited 17 indictments and 10 convictions, many upon charges so flimsy as to be comical.  Targets of the act tended to be the editors of Democratic-Republican newspapers who criticized the Federalist administration of President John Adams.

...

The prosecutions and subsequent convictions under the Sedition Act galvanized opposition to the Federalist administration. (Samuel Chase, a Supreme Court justice, was particularly partisan toward the Sedition Act when presiding over prosecutions, and was later impeached for this.) The prosecuted Republican printers and editors became folk heroes. In the election of 1800, the Federalists were swept from power—never to return—and Jefferson, the new Democratic-Republican president, subsequently pardoned those who had been convicted under the law.

Almost 170 years later, the Supreme Court wrote in the celebrated libel case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964): “Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history.” Today, the Sedition Act of 1798 is generally remembered as a violation of fundamental First Amendment principles.

The Federalists in 1800 turned to papers to warn about the election of Thomas Jefferson: 

Monticello:

In order to curb Alexander Hamilton's influence, [James Thomson} Callender published, in his The History of the United States for 1796, a report of the affair between Alexander Hamilton and Maria Reynolds, a married woman.[4] The day before the Alien and Sedition Acts became law on July 13, 1798, Callender fled to Virginia to the home of Senator Stevens Thomson Mason of Loudoun County. Then, in 1799, he moved to Richmond where he wrote for the Richmond Recorder. His anti-Federalist pamphlet, The Prospect Before Us, led to his prosecution under the Sedition Act.[5] He was sentenced on May 24, 1800, to nine months in jail and a $200 fine.

When he got out of jail in the spring of 1801, Callender expected President Jefferson to reward him for his work and his loyalty. He wanted the Richmond postmaster job but he did not get it. In the president's view, Callender was now too radical, and in an attempt to foster reconciliation after the difficult election of 1800, Jefferson did not patronize the more militant or radical Republicans. As Jefferson wrote, "I am really mortified at the base ingratitude of Callender. it presents human nature in a hideous form."[6] In February 1802, Callender joined with Federalist newspaper editor Henry Pace and began to attack both parties, particularly the Republicans and specifically Jefferson. In a series of articles beginning on September 1, 1802, Callender alleged that Jefferson had several children by a slave concubine, Sally Hemings.[7]

Free Speech Center;

Before either of these events, a riot in Baltimore reflected local anger over the publication of the Federalist Republic, a newspaper run by Alexander Contee Hanson.

Reflecting sentiments that prevailed among members of the Federalist Party, it had vehemently opposed American participation in the War of 1812, which Congress had declared at the request of President James Madison, largely over English interference with American shipping. After being driven from his business by rioters, Hanson had retreated to Georgetown but returned to Baltimore where he resumed his vitriolic verbal attacks against the war and its Democratic-Republican supporters.

 

James Madison, Majority Leader

 At AEI, Jay Cost writes that Madison was effectively the first House majority leader.

To be clear, Madison never held that title in the same way that Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) currently does. The title did not exist when Congress first opened its doors in the spring of 1789. Almost nothing did. Nowadays, a new member of Congress must learn all manner of rules and procedures to be an effective member. There is even a mandatory orientation session they all are supposed to take. But when the House gaveled into session in April 1789 there were no rules beyond those briefly laid out in the Constitution. There was no organization beyond the speaker, whose role was completely undefined in the Constitution. It was into this vacuum stepped Madison.

...
Madison rose to the top of the congressional heap thanks to his extensive experience in legislative assemblies, which he had been serving in since 1776, as well as his almost superhuman work ethic. In doing so, he took the lead in three essential projects for the new nation—the impost, the establishment of the State Department, and the Bill of Rights.

...

All in all, Madison was the essential man of the first meeting of Congress. Perhaps the best illustration of his influence was George Washington’s inaugural address. The president had his secretary, David Humphreys, write an early draft of it, but unsatisfied with the result, he turned to Madison in February 1789, who was traveling from his home in the Virginia Piedmont to New York City. Madison served as Washington’s ghostwriter, refining the points the president which to make into the polished draft that became part of history. A few months later, the House appointed a select committee to write an official response to the inaugural, with Madison serving as chair. And so it was that communication between the executive and the legislature was essentially Madison corresponding with himself!

Madison’s time as leader of the Federalists in Congress was short lived. The first session of Congress ended in September 1789. When the second session began in January 1790, Alexander Hamilton submitted the Report on Public Credit, the first of several proposals that would transform American public finance and the shape of its politics. Hamilton would become de facto prime minister of the Washington Administration, while Madison would oppose him, in so doing planting the seeds of American partisanship. Madisonian opposition in the House would, in short order, blossom into a broad-based political coalition known at the time as the Republican Party (today referred to as the Democratic-Republican Party). Madison would win election to the second and third Congresses, but retire in 1797 to his Montpelier homestead, returning to government in 1801 as the secretary of state.

The period of Madison’s domination of the House was quite brief, from April to September 1789. But it constitutes one of the most significant accomplishments of his career in government. Not only was he essential in enacting important pieces of legislation, he helped establish the way the House would do business and prove to the nation that Congress could accomplish the tasks the Constitution laid out for it.

Decorating the White House

 Carolina A. Miranda at WP:

Every U.S. president has adapted the Oval Office to suit his taste. Franklin Delano Roosevelt placed an animal hide rug on the floor. John F. Kennedy, a World War II naval officer, hung seascapes on the walls. And Barack Obama featured indigenous ceramics on the shelves. But Trump has gone golden, taking the office into baroque and rococo realms typical of 17th- and 18th-century French monarchs. An analysis in the Cut called the decoration “An Interior Designer’s Nightmare.” But the sparkle conveys something more insidious about how Trump views himself. Behold the new Sun King, a wannabe emperor who views his powers as absolute — who governs by executive order, and has been recorded giggling in his gilded chamber with Salvadoran autocrat Nayib Bukele as his administration defies a unanimous Supreme Court ruling that he facilitate the return of a Salvadoran immigrant who was wrongly deported. God save us from the king.

When it came time to choose a design for a presidential residence in the late 18th century, Washington likewise picked one of the more restrained concepts. Conceived by Irish-born architect James Hoban, the White House, as it originally stood, combined the tidy symmetries and boxy practicality of Georgian architecture, a neoclassical style that had been popular in the British Isles during the 18th century. The White House was inspired, in part, by Leinster House in Dublin, which dates to the 1740s and now houses the Irish Parliament — a Georgian structure that is grand in scale but subdued in its surface decoration.

In keeping with the modest tone, the White House’s earliest inhabitants avoided referring to the building as a “presidential palace,” describing it instead as the “executive mansion” or the “President’s House,” the latter of which appears engraved on silver serving objects from the 19th century. It was Theodore Roosevelt who made the informal expression “the White House” the building’s official designation. The U.S. republic’s representative democracy, however imperfect and incomplete, has historically been symbolized by a “house” — not a palace.

The Constitution, BIrthright Citizenship, and the Oath of Office

Many posts have discussed oaths of office.

Yesterday, Trump swore to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," which requires him to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed. "  Russell Contreras at Axios:

President Trump has signed an executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship in the U.S. — a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court more than 125 years ago.

Why it matters: Trump is acting on a once-fringe belief that U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants have no right to U.S. citizenship and are part of a conspiracy (rooted in racism) to replace white Americans.

The big picture: A coalition of civil rights and civil liberties groups filed a lawsuit on Monday night in an effort to halt the executive order.The order is also expected to face legal challenges from state attorneys general since it conflicts with decades of Supreme Court precedent and the 14th Amendment — with the AGs of California and New York among those indicating they would do so.

Context: Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed to give nearly emancipated and formerly enslaved Black Americans U.S. citizenship."All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside," it reads.

Zoom in: Trump signed the order on Monday, just hours after taking office.

Reality check: Thanks to the landmark Wong Kim Ark case, the U.S. has since 1898 recognized that anyone born on United States soil is a citizen.The case established the Birthright Citizenship clause and led to the dramatic demographic transformation of the U.S.

Kevin Butterfield at WP:

The Founding generation believed that oaths have consequences, binding those who took them to a course of action. And so, in the summer of 1787 delegates to the Constitutional Convention knew from the outset that whatever they came up with would include oaths. The famous “Virginia Plan,” a 19-point checklist offered up as a starting point for debate, proposed that all governmental powers within the states “be bound by Oath, to support the articles of Union.”

The final text mentions oaths three times. The Bill of Rights would add one more mention, the 14th Amendment yet another. Article VI of the Constitution empowers Congress to draft an oath for every single officeholder in the nation — federal, state and local — which they did immediately. The first thing signed into law by Washington was the Oaths Act. Every elected or appointed government official in a state or federal role would henceforth “solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

That oath was hugely important. Though it was rewritten by Congress in the wake of the Civil War, as Americans grappled with allowing former Confederates into federal service at all, that oath of office is still with us, for public servants low and high. I took it when I began work at the Library of Congress, incoming Vice President JD Vance will, too, and millions more have spoken the same words.

But only the president takes an oath written into the Constitution. A first draft had the incoming president swear simply to “faithfully execute the office of President of the United States of America.” The last two words disappeared as the oath took shape, with James Madison and George Mason adding “and will to the best of my judgment and power, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

It sat that way until the closing days of the Convention. Washington’s copy, marked up as it received its final changes, shows him scratching out the words “judgment and power” and writing in the word “Abilities” (the final version actually used the word “ability”), a change the delegates must have made for concision, and the text was complete. He would be the first to speak those words.

The Founders and Current Events

 Many posts have discussed the Founding.

David Frum at The Atlantic:

Two political myths inspired the dreams and haunted the nightmares of the Founders of the American republic. Both these foundational myths were learned from the history and literature of the ancient Romans.

Cincinnatus was the name of a man who, the story went, accepted supreme power in the state to meet a temporary emergency and then relinquished that power to return to his farm when the emergency passed. George Washington modeled his public image on the legend of Cincinnatus, and so he was depicted in contemporary art and literature—“the Cincinnatus of the West,” as Lord Byron praised him in a famous poem of the day.

Against the bright legacy of Cincinnatus, the Founders contrasted the sinister character of Catiline: a man of depraved sexual appetites who reached almost the pinnacle of power and then exploited populist passions to overthrow the constitution, gain wealth, and pay his desperately pressing debts. Alexander Hamilton invoked Catiline to inveigh against his detested political adversary, Aaron Burr:

He is bankrupt beyond redemption except by the plunder of his country. His public principles have no other spring or aim than his own aggrandisement … If he can, he will certainly disturb our institutions to secure to himself permanent power and with it wealth … He is truly the Cataline of America.

Jessica Gavora at The Atlantic:

The notion that America is an idea has always lifted up our country, and for good reason. The fact that America was founded on the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the governing limits of the Constitution makes us unique among nations. Most countries trace their origins to tribal identity. But America has its origins in the revolutionary idea that the government cannot deny men and women an equal opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Both our friends and foes have recognized this difference. No less than Joseph Stalin railed against American “exceptionalism” when our workers refused to join in solidarity with his murderous revolution of the proletariat.

Christmas 1983

President Reagan, December 24, 1983

My fellow Americans:

Like so many of your homes, the White House is brimming with greens, colorful decorations, and a tree trimmed and ready for Christmas day. And when Nancy and I look out from our upstairs windows, we can see the National Christmas Tree standing in majestic beauty. Its lights fill the air with a spirit of love, hope, and joy from the heart of America.

I shared that spirit recently when a young girl named Amy Benham helped me light our national tree. Amy had said that the tree that lights up our country must be seen all the way to heaven. And she said that her wish was to help me turn on its lights. Well, Amy's wish came true. But the greatest gift was mine, because I saw her eyes light up with hope and joy just as brightly as the lights on our national tree. And I'm sure they were both seen all the way to heaven, and they made the angels sing.

Christmas is a time for children, and rightly so. We celebrate the birthday of the Prince of Peace who came as a babe in a manger. Some celebrate Christmas as the birthday of a great teacher and philosopher. But to other millions of us, Jesus is much more. He is divine, living assurance that God so loved the world He gave us His only begotten Son so that by believing in Him and learning to love each other we could one day be together in paradise.

It's been said that all the kings who ever reigned, that all the parliaments that ever sat have not done as much to advance the cause of peace on Earth and good will to men as the man from Galilee, Jesus of Nazareth.

Christmas is also a time to remember the treasures of our own history. We remember one Christmas in particular, 1776, our first year as a nation. The Revolutionary War had been going badly. But George Washington's faith, courage, and leadership would turn the tide of history our way. On Christmas night he led a band of ragged soldiers across the Delaware River through driving snow to a victory that saved the cause of independence. It's said that their route of march was stained by bloody footprints, but their spirit never faltered and their will could not be crushed.

The image of George Washington kneeling in prayer in the snow is one of the most famous in American history. He personified a people who knew it was not enough to depend on their own courage and goodness; they must also seek help from God, their Father and Preserver.

In a few hours, families and friends across America will join together in caroling parties and Christmas Eve services. Together, we'll renew that spirit of faith, peace, and giving which has always marked the character of our people. In our moments of quiet reflection I know we will remember our fellow citizens who may be lonely and in need tonight.

``Is the Christmas spirit still alive?'' some ask. Well, you bet it is. Being Americans, we open our hearts to neighbors less fortunate. We try to protect them from hunger and cold. And we reach out in so many ways -- from toys-for-tots drives across the country, to good will by the Salvation Army, to American Red Cross efforts which provide food, shelter, and Christmas cheer from Atlanta to Seattle.

Churches are so generous it's impossible to keep track. One example: Reverend Bill Singles' Presbyterian Meeting House in nearby Alexandria, Virginia, is simultaneously sponsoring hot meals on wheels programs, making and delivering hundreds of sandwiches and box loads of clothes, while visiting local hospitals and sending postcards to shut-ins and religious dissidents abroad.

Let us remember the families who maintain a watch for their missing in action. And, yes, let us remember all those who are persecuted inside the Soviet bloc -- not because they commit a crime, but because they love God in their hearts and want the freedom to celebrate Hanukkah or worship the Christ Child.

And because faith for us is not an empty word, we invoke the power of prayer to spread the spirit of peace. We ask protection for our soldiers who are guarding peace tonight -- from frigid outposts in Alaska and the Korean demilitarized zone to the shores of Lebanon. One Lebanese mother told us that her little girl had only attended school 2 of the last 8 years. Now, she said, because of our presence there her daughter can live a normal life.

With patience and firmness we can help bring peace to that strife-torn region and make our own lives more secure. The Christmas spirit of peace, hope, and love is the spirit Americans carry with them all year round, everywhere we go. As long as we do, we need never be afraid, because trusting in God is the one sure answer to all the problems we face.

Till next week, thanks for listening, God bless you, and Merry Christmas.

Fake Washington, Fake Jefferson, Fake Henry

Many posts have discussed fake quotations from Lincoln, Jefferson, Tocqueville, and others.

John Fea at Current:

 Here is Kyle Mantyla at Right Wing Watch:

MAGA pastor and self-proclaimed “prophet” Hank Kunneman held a special patriotic church service prior to Independence Day earlier this month, during which he read made-up a quote supposedly from Thomas Jefferson in an attempt to argue that America was founded as and must remain a Christian nation.

During the service, Kunneman flagrantly misrepresented the famous 1802 “separation of church and state” letter that Jefferson sent to the Danbury Baptists after being elected president.

After mistakenly claiming that this quote came from “an address” that Jefferson delivered to the Danbury Baptists, Kunneman then read a laughably false quote supposedly delivered by Jefferson.

“He said, ‘The First Amendment has created a wall of separation between church and state,’” Kunneman declared, while an image of false quote was projected on screen. “‘But that wall is one directional. It keeps the government from running the church, and it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.’”

“Take that and choke,” Kunneman smugly proclaimed.

Read the rest here.

Watch the entire sermon here.

Some of you might notice that Kunneman also throws up on the screen a quote that he claims comes from George Washington’s Farewell Address: “Do not let anyone claim tribute of American patriotism, if they even attempt to remove religion from politics.” Read the farewell address here. Kunneman only got this quote half right. (The words after the comma are not Washington’s). Apparently Kunneman got this quote off the internet. He didn’t even bother to read the original document.

And that’s not all. Kunneman follows this up with the fake Patrick Henry quote that got Missouri senator Josh Hawley into trouble earlier this month.

The Peaceful Transfer of Power

 Liz Cheney in the 1/6 report:

At the heart of our Republic is the guarantee of the peaceful transfer of power. Members of Congress are reminded of this every day as we pass through the Capitol Rotunda. There, eight magnificent paintings detail theearliest days of our Republic. Four were painted by John Trumbull, including one depicting the moment in 1793 when George Washington resigned his commission, handing control of the Continental Army back to Congress. Trumbull called this, “one of the highest moral lessons ever given the world.” With this noble act, George Washington established the indispensable example of the peaceful transfer of power in our nation. 

Standing on the West Front of the Capitol in 1981, President Ronald Reagan described it this way: 

To a few of us here today, this is a solemn and most momentous occasion, and yet in the history of our nation it is a commonplace occurrence. The orderly transfer of authority as called for in the Constitution routinely takes place, as it has for almost two centuries, and few of us stop to think how unique we really are. In the eyes of many in the world, this every-4-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle.

Every President in our history has defended this orderly transfer of authority, except one. January 6, 2021 was the first time one American President refused his Constitutional duty to transfer power peacefully to the next.

George Washington and Mass Inoculation

Amy Lynn Filsinger,  & Raymond Dwek at the Library of Congress:

George Washington's military genius is undisputed. Yet American independence must be partially attributed to a strategy for which history has given the infamous general little credit: his controversial medical actions. Traditionally, the Battle of Saratoga is credited with tipping the revolutionary scales. Yet the health of the Continental regulars involved in battle was a product of the ambitious initiative Washington began earlier that year at Morristown, close on the heels of the victorious Battle of Princeton. Among the Continental regulars in the American Revolution, 90 percent of deaths were caused by disease, and Variola the small pox virus was the most vicious of them all. (Gabriel and Metz 1992, 107)

On the 6th of January 1777, George Washington wrote to Dr. William Shippen Jr., ordering him to inoculate all of the forces that came through Philadelphia. He explained that: "Necessity not only authorizes but seems to require the measure, for should the disorder infect the Army . . . we should have more to dread from it, than from the Sword of the Enemy." The urgency was real. Troops were scarce and encampments had turned into nomadic hospitals of festering disease, deterring further recruitment. Both Benedict Arnold and Benjamin Franklin, after surveying the havoc wreaked by Variola in the Canadian campaign, expressed fears that the virus would be the army's ultimate downfall. (Fenn 2001, 69)

At the time, the practice of infecting the individual with a less-deadly form of the disease was widespread throughout Europe. Most British troops were immune to Variola, giving them an enormous advantage against the vulnerable colonists. (Fenn 2001, 131) Conversely, the history of inoculation in America (beginning with the efforts of the Reverend Cotton Mather in 1720) was pocked by the fear of the contamination potential of the process. Such fears led the Continental Congress to issue a proclamation in 1776 prohibiting Surgeons of the Army to inoculate.

Washington suspected the only available recourse was inoculation, yet contagion risks aside, he knew that a mass inoculation put the entire army in a precarious position should the British hear of his plans. Moreover, Historians estimate that less than a quarter of the Continental Army had ever had the virus; inoculating the remaining three quarters and every new recruit must have seemed daunting. Yet the high prevalence of disease among the army regulars was a significant deterrent to desperately needed recruits, and a dramatic reform was needed to allay their fears.

Weighing the risks, on February 5th of 1777, Washington finally committed to the unpopular policy of mass inoculation by writing to inform Congress of his plan. Throughout February, Washington, with no precedent for the operation he was about to undertake, covertly communicated to his commanding officers orders to oversee mass inoculations of their troops in the model of Morristown and Philadelphia (Dr. Shippen's Hospital). At least eleven hospitals had been constructed by the year's end.

Variola raged throughout the war, devastating the Native American population and slaves who had chosen to fight for the British in exchange for freedom. Yet the isolated infections that sprung up among Continental regulars during the southern campaign failed to incapacitate a single regiment. With few surgeons, fewer medical supplies, and no experience, Washington conducted the first mass inoculation of an army at the height of a war that immeasurably transformed the international system. Defeating the British was impressive, but simultaneously taking on Variola was a risky stroke of genius.

References:

Fenn, Elizabeth. Pox Americana: the Great Smallpox Epidemic of 1775-82. New York: Hill and Wang, 2001. 370 p.

Gabriel, Richard, and Karen Metz. A History of Military Medicine. New York: Greenwood Press, 1992. 2 v.

The People Rate the Presidents

 Matthew Smith at YouGov:

The respective excellence of US presidents is always being debated. Many academics have put together rankings over the years to demonstrate who they think is best, and in one famous case the features of one person’s top four have been carved into a mountain.

But how do the leaders of the nation rank in terms of public opinion? A new YouGov poll has asked Americans their view on the 45 men who have served as president to date.

Topping the list is Abraham Lincoln. Eight in ten Americans (80%) have a favorable view of the president who freed the slaves and won the Civil War, including 56% who have a “very favorable” view of him.

In a perhaps surprise second place – if going by combined very+somewhat favorable ratings – is John F. Kennedy, whom 73% of Americans have a favorable view opinion of. This puts him three points ahead of the more traditional runner-up George Washington (70%), who places third on this measure (although the scores are within the margin of error). It is worth noting that fewer people have a “very” favorable view of Kennedy: 35% to Washington’s 44%.

Theodore Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson complete the top five, both being seen favorably by 62% of Americans.

...

 There are only two presidents who are currently seen unfavorably by a majority of Americans: Richard Nixon (56%) and Donald Trump (54%). More Americans take a “very” negative view of Trump (47% to Nixon’s 34%), although he is also popular among a wider group: 39% like Donald Trump compared to 27% for Nixon.

A Republican Executive

 At AEI, Joseph M. Bessette and Gary J. Schmitt have a report titled "Crafting a Republican Executive: The Presidency and the Constitutional Convention." Key points:

• The Constitutional Convention of 1787 knew the young nation needed a strong executive that was still accountable to the general public. In short, the new executive was to be an unprecedented mix of monarchic-like vigor and republican restraint.
• The first major issue the Convention faced was what powers in addition to executing the nation’s laws could be given to the new executive. The office needed to be made both capable and accountable before those powers could be added. The second and related issue was how best to select the president to maintain the office’s independence and energy. The Convention ultimately settled on the Electoral College system as the best practical means to select a president.
• In the end, the authorities the delegates vested in the chief executive were as much a reflection of their confidence in the characteristics of the institution they crafted and its concomitant promotion of “presidential” behavior as it was trust in the personal characteristics of the men they expected would rise to the nation’s highest office.

From the report:

To make an obvious point, the delegates would hardly have committed themselves to making the president impeachable if they expected every president to be a Washington. Nor would they have required Senate approval to the appointment of high-ranking executive officials. In the end, the authorities the delegates vested in the chief executive were as much a reflection of their confidence in the characteristics of the institution they so carefully crafted and the ways that institution would promote “presidential” behavior as it was trust in the personal characteristics of the men they expected would rise to the nation’s highest office.

Indeed, it is remarkable how frank the delegates were in their discussions of the executive. Those concerned about creating too strong an office were not at all reluctant to speak of ignoble cabals and monarchic designs, while those who favored a powerful and energetic executive were quite open about the need to tie the president’s passions and interests to
his duties.

Rather than looking to Washington as the kind of man they expected typically to occupy the office, the delegates may have been thinking more of someone like New York Gov. George Clinton. By the summer of 1787, Clinton was serving in his 11th consecutive
year as governor. Among the state governors, only William Livingston of New Jersey had served longer (by one year), and no governor had become as powerful a political figure in his state. Although Clinton was not without talent, few would rank him with fellow
New Yorkers Hamilton or Jay, never mind with the likes of Washington. Operating under a constitution that gave him renewable three-year terms and vested the office with substantial independent powers, Clinton proved to be an effective and responsible governor.

The architects of the presidency hoped their Electoral College system would raise to the nation’s highest office men with a reputation for exemplary public service. As the delegates themselves implied, reputation was an approximation for real virtue. Men of the caliber of Washington were desired, but men like Clinton were more likely to fill the office.

The Crossing

 From the National Park Service:

On December 25, 1776, General George Washington and a small army of 2400 men crossed the Delaware River at McConkey's Ferry, in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, on their way to successfully attack a Hessian garrison of 1500 at Trenton, New Jersey. This march, at one of the lowest points of the American Revolution, gave the Patriots new hope after their failed effort to keep the British from occupying New York City. The close of 1776 found the cause of American independence from Great Britain staggering under a succession of defeats. In October, the Continental Congress had made provision for a long-term military force, but at the end of the year this establishment was on paper, not in the field where it was desperately needed. Washington, in his camp on the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware, realized that he must strike a military blow to the enemy before his army melted away and he was determined to hit the Hessian garrison at Trenton. On the night of December 25, the American main force was ferried across the Delaware River by Colonel John Glover's Marblehead fishermen and in the bleak early morning hours assembled on the New Jersey shore for the march on Trenton, about 10 miles downstream. Surprise was complete, and within an hour and a half after the action opened the Hessians surrendered.

Thanksgiving and Constitutional Gratitude

 Yuval Levin and Adam J. White at National Review:

George Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation in 1789, like so many other aspects of his presidency, set a precedent. Even if they were spurred by a congressional resolution, Washington’s words went far beyond Congress’s, offering the newly constituted people an example of what to be grateful for, and how to express that gratitude.

Washington went on to further exemplify constitutional gratitude at the end of his presidency, in his 1796 farewell address. There he expressed thanks not just to those who created the Constitution, but also to the Americans now tasked with sustaining it. They had entrusted Washington with the first presidency, and his farewell address is replete with statements of gratitude to Americans, of love for America, and of a profound sense of that with which he had been entrusted.

The man who had devoted his life first to the revolution, and then to the Constitution, left office not suggesting that the people were indebted to him, but the opposite: He offered “deep acknowledgement of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country,” he wrote, “for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment.” The presidency was not a prize that he had earned, but an “important trust” that soon would be committed to his successor.

Washington would not be the last president to speak in such terms, nor should these themes be the exclusive province of presidents. Statesmen in Congress can offer such examples, too. In Federalist No. 57, James Madison writes that members of Congress would be motivated by more than just ambition and self-interest; he also counted duty and gratitude among “the chords by which [those members] will be bound to fidelity and sympathy with the great mass of the people.”

Some more than others, of course, and if the likes of Washington and Lincoln are rare in the White House then they are rarer still on Capitol Hill. But when members of Congress, like presidents, are able to define their office not just in terms of power but also in terms of gratitude both to their fellow countrymen and to their forefathers, they help to perpetuate the Constitution that creates their offices; and they offer an example for the people whose own constitutional gratitude is indispensable for this perpetuation.

This Thanksgiving, when the nation is battered by a pandemic and fractured by political strife, we can hope that statesmen will step forward to exemplify constitutional gratitude. But more important, we can rediscover the sources of our own gratitude, for those who wrote the Constitution and those who perpetuated it — not just for our own sake, but for the sake of posterity.

Congress and Thanksgiving Day

From the National Archives:

On September 28, 1789, just before leaving for recess, the first Federal Congress passed a resolution asking that the President of the United States recommend to the nation a day of thanksgiving. A few days later, President George Washington issued a proclamation naming Thursday, November 26, 1789 as a "Day of Publick Thanksgivin" - the first time Thanksgiving was celebrated under the new Constitution. Subsequent presidents issued Thanksgiving Proclamations, but the dates and even months of the celebrations varied. It wasn't until President Abraham Lincoln's 1863 Proclamation that Thanksgiving was regularly commemorated each year on the last Thursday of November.

In 1939, however, the last Thursday in November fell on the last day of the month. Concerned that the shortened Christmas shopping season might dampen the economic recovery, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued a Presidential Proclamation moving Thanksgiving to the second to last Thursday of November. As a result of the proclamation, 32 states issued similar proclamations while 16 states refused to accept the change and proclaimed Thanksgiving to be the last Thursday in November. For two years two days were celebrated as Thanksgiving - the President and part of the nation celebrated it on the second to last Thursday in November, while the rest of the country celebrated it the following week.

To end the confusion, Congress decided to set a fixed-date for the holiday. On October 6, 1941, the House passed a joint resolution declaring the last Thursday in November to be the legal Thanksgiving Day. The Senate, however, amended the resolution establishing the holiday as the fourth Thursday, which would take into account those years when November has five Thursdays. The House agreed to the amendment, and President Roosevelt signed the resolution on December 26, 1941, thus establishing the fourth Thursday in November as the Federal Thanksgiving Day holiday.

George Washington on Immigration

Many posts have discussed immigration to the United States.

From George Washington to Joshua Holmes, 2 December 1783

The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent & respectable Stranger, but the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions; whom we shall wellcome to a participation of all our rights & privileges, if by decency & propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.

From George Washington to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 28 May 1788

 I had always hoped that this land might become a safe & agreeable Asylum to the virtuous & persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong...

 Proclamation, 1 January 1795

[We] humbly and fervently to beseech the kind author of these blessings graciously to prolong them to us—to imprint on our hearts a deep and solemn sense of our obligations to him for them—to teach us rightly to estimate their immense value—to preserve us from the arrogance of prosperity and from hazarding the advantages we enjoy by delusive pursuits to dispose us to merit the continuance of his favors, by not abusing them, by our gratitude for them, and by a correspondent conduct as citizens and as men—to render this Country more and more a safe and propitious asylum for the unfortunate of other Countries..

Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation

Sam Wineburg at Zocalo Public Square:

George Washington issued what might be considered the first executive order. To commemorate the end of a bloody Revolutionary War, Washington set aside the last Thursday of November as a day of thanksgiving and prayer. His 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation was short, a mere 456 words, punctuated by references—“Almighty God,” “the Lord and Ruler of Nations,” “the great and glorious Being,” “the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be”—to a Supreme Being.
...
Historians were not deaf to Washington’s religious references. While the clergy and the scientists saw them as evidence of Washington’s devotion, the historians stressed the president’s precision in crafting a vocabulary that would unite the dizzying array of Protestant denominations in post-revolutionary America without alienating the small but important groups of Catholics, Jews, and freethinkers dotting the American landscape. It was precisely because he understood that Americans did not believe the same thing that Washington was scrupulous in choosing words that would be acceptable to a wide spectrum of religious groups.

In his own time, Washington’s reluctance to show his doctrinal cards dismayed his Christian co-religionists. Members of the first Presbytery of the Eastward (comprised of Presbyterian churches in Massachusetts and New Hampshire) complained to the president that the Constitution failed to mention the cardinal tenets of Christian faith: “We should not have been alone in rejoicing to have seen some explicit acknowledgement of the only true God and Jesus Christ.” Washington dodged the criticism by assuring the Presbyterians that the “path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction.”

Similarly, a week before his 1789 proclamation, Washington responded to a letter from Reverend Samuel Langdon, the president of Harvard College from 1774-1780. Langdon had implored Washington to “let all men know that you are not ashamed to be a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Once again, instead of affirming Christian tenets, Washington wrote back offering thanks to the generic “Author of the Universe.”

The Cost of the American Revolution

Jay Cost at National Review:

On an absolute scale, the American Revolution was a relatively modest affair. However, judged in light of the tiny American economy of 1776–83, it was an enormous undertaking. As a percentage of GDP, the Revolutionary War cost the United States about as much as World War I did (and remember that, before the absolutely massive conflict of World War II, World War I was known as “the Great War”).

...
The war effort was the single greatest reason for the nationalist movement of the 1780s, which led in turn to the Constitution. The 1770s was characterized by a revolutionary fervor — informed by a simple, virtuous type of republicanism that rings through the Declaration of Independence. That was the ethos of Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and Samuel Adams. But five years later, it was others — such as George Washington, Robert Morris, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton — who had to reckon with the prospect of a failed revolution. They had to deal with the impossible challenge of running a government completely unequipped for the task at hand. This is the origin of our Constitution, born first and foremost of the sacrifice of the Revolutionary soldiers.

Thanksgiving Proclamations

Richard Samuelson at Law and Liberty:

George Washington set the tone for the office in many ways, none more so than in his Thanksgiving Proclamation, given in October, 1789, seven months after he took the oath of office. Why have such a proclamation at all? Where in Article I, Section 8 (the section that lists the powers the people gave the federal government) is the power to proclaim a federal holiday? In 1791 James Madison would criticize Alexander Hamilton’s assertion that the U.S. government has the authority to create a national bank, for nowhere in the Constitution did the people give the federal government the right to create a bank or to create a corporation (an entity that had traditionally been regarded as a “person” in the eyes of the law). And fourteen years later, the Louisiana Purchase would tie President Jefferson in knots, for nowhere did the people give the U.S. government the right to acquire territory. Yet Madison lost the national bank argument in 1791 and by 1816 he had changed his mind about its constitutionality. Meanwhile, Jefferson didn’t stop the Senate from ratifying the Louisiana Purchase. In other words, he and Madison implicitly accepted that there are some powers that belong to government due to the nature of the thing, and when the people created the U.S. government they, of necessity, allowed it those powers without which no government can function.

The authority to proclaim a Thanksgiving might seem trivial to us—mere words, and an idle declaration. But it is, in fact, fraught with meaning, for the assumption of such authority highlights the degree to which a President is, by nature, much like a monarch—albeit an elected one. Similarly, it points us to the limits of secular nationalism.

Consider President Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation. He begins with the universal “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.” But then he stops, as if he knew some might ask why the President is involved. Washington goes on, “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 and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a a form of government for their safety and happiness.’” Congress asked Washington to proclaim the day. An interesting request. Congress did not pass a law proclaiming a day of Thanksgiving. Such an act may, according to some constructions of the Constitution, have crossed over into an establishment of religion. Instead, they have merely asked the President to “recommend” such an observance to the people. But if it’s not a law, wherefore does the authority come from? It must adhere in the nature of the thing.

Purple Heart Day

A release from the Military Order of the Purple Heart of the U.S.A

Each year on August 7th, the nation pauses to remember and pay homage to the brave men and women who were either wounded on the battlefield or paid the ultimate sacrifice with their lives. As America’s oldest decoration, the Purple Heart is awarded to any member of the U.S. Armed Forces that has been wounded, died as a result of wounds received in battle, or those who died in captivity while a prisoner of war (POW). We now celebrate Purple Heart Day on the anniversary of its creation by General George Washington on August 7, 1782.

This year, many States, Counties, and Cities; sport and entertainment entities; colleges and universities, and other patriotic entities across the nation who have proclaimed themselves as Purple Heart communities, will raise the Purple Heart flag in recognition of the service and sacrifice of their local sons and daughters. In New York City, the Empire State Building will be lit in purple lights as a reminder to all Americans that there is a price for the freedoms we enjoy, and honor is due to those who gave their all in defense of those freedoms. In Norfolk, Virginia, the streets of the city will be filled with Purple Heart recipients as they gather to participate in the 2016 MOPH National Convention.

The organization now known as the "Military Order of the Purple Heart of the U.S.A. Inc.," (MOPH) was formed in 1932 for the protection and mutual interest of all combat wounded veterans and active duty men and women who have received the decoration. 

Jennifer Bendery reports at The Huffington Post:

Donald Trump was thrilled last week when a veteran at a Virginia rally gave him his Purple Heart. “I’ve always wanted to get a Purple Heart,” he said, dangling the medal typically awarded to soldiers wounded or killed while serving in battle. “This was much easier.”

That response didn’t sit right with Cameron Kerr, a Purple Heart recipient based in Virginia. As an Army veteran who lost his leg on the battleground in Afghanistan, Kerr was stunned to see Trump treating the prestigious award like a flashy new toy. He figured if Trump has really always wanted a Purple Heart, he should have to earn it “the old-fashioned way”: by going into a war zone.

So he’s raising money to help give Trump that chance.

“As with seemingly everything else in his life, Mr. Trump got [a Purple Heart] handed to him instead of earning it,” Kerr states on a GoFundMe page he launched Tuesday with the headline “Help Trump Get A Purple Heart.”

“I fully endorse his desire to earn one and would happily oblige his interest in doing so, by being one of the first to chip in to fly him to the conflict zone of his choosing,” Kerr wrote. “After all, you’re never too old to follow your dreams.”