tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca-fr/topics/andrew-jackson-19752/articlesAndrew Jackson – La Conversation2024-03-26T12:40:09Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2250612024-03-26T12:40:09Z2024-03-26T12:40:09ZPoliticians may rail against the ‘deep state,’ but research shows federal workers are effective and committed, not subversive<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584101/original/file-20240325-22-7ip3p7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2995%2C2043&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A worker at the National Hurricane Center tracks weather over the Gulf of Mexico.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/philippe-papin-hurricane-specialist-at-the-national-news-photo/1494908383">Joe Raedle/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s common for political candidates to disparage “the government” even as they run for an office in which they would be part of, yes, running the government. </p>
<p>Often, what they’re referring to is what <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=I_z924QAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">we</a>, as <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=RW9itwwAAAAJ">scholars</a> of the inner workings of democracy, call “the administrative state.” At times, these critics use a label of collective distrust and disapproval for government workers that sounds more sinister: “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2023.2249142">the deep state</a>.”</p>
<p>Most people, however, don’t know what government workers do, why they do it or how the government selects them in the first place.</p>
<p>Our years of research about the people who work in the federal government finds that they care deeply about their work, aiding the public and pursuing the stability and integrity of government.</p>
<p>Most of them are devoted civil servants. Across hundreds of interviews and surveys of people who have made their careers in government, what stands out most to us is their commitment to civic duty without regard to partisan politics. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584107/original/file-20240325-23-c14rfc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A drawing of a statue with a caricature of Andrew Jackson riding on a pig." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584107/original/file-20240325-23-c14rfc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584107/original/file-20240325-23-c14rfc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=911&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584107/original/file-20240325-23-c14rfc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=911&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584107/original/file-20240325-23-c14rfc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=911&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584107/original/file-20240325-23-c14rfc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1144&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584107/original/file-20240325-23-c14rfc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1144&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584107/original/file-20240325-23-c14rfc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1144&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Andrew Jackson was a proponent of the ‘spoils system’ in which new presidents could hire friends and supporters into government jobs.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:In_memorium--our_civil_service_as_it_was.JPG">Thomas Nast, Harper's Weekly, via Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>From spoils to merit</h2>
<p>From the country’s founding through 1883, the U.S. federal government relied on what was called a “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/009539979802900606">spoils system</a>” to hire staff. The system got its name from the expression “to the victor goes the spoils.” A newly elected president would distribute government jobs to people who helped him win election.</p>
<p>This system had two primary defects: First, vast numbers of federal jobholders could be displaced every four or eight years; second, many of the new arrivals had no qualifications or experience for the jobs to which they were appointed. </p>
<p>Problems resulting from these defects were smaller than modern Americans might expect, because at that time the federal government was much smaller than it is today and had less to do with Americans’ everyday lives. This method had its defenders, including President Andrew Jackson, who <a href="https://search.worldcat.org/title/7597210">believed that government tasks were relatively simple</a> and anyone could do them.</p>
<p>But even so, the spoils system meant government was not as effective as it could have been – and as the people justifiably expected it to be.</p>
<p>In 1881, President James Garfield was assassinated by a <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/114423/destiny-of-the-republic-by-candice-millard/">man who believed he deserved a government job</a> because of his support for Garfield but didn’t get one. The assassination led to bipartisan passage in Congress of the <a href="https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/pendleton-act">Pendleton Act of 1883</a>. </p>
<p>The law brought sweeping change. It introduced for the first time principles of merit in government hiring: Appointment and advancement were tied to workers’ competence, not their political loyalties or connections. To protect civil servants from political interference, they were given job security: Grounds for firing now revolve around poor performance or misconduct, rather than being a supporter of whichever political party lost the last election.</p>
<p>Nearly <a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES9091000001">3 million career civil servants</a> continue to have these protections today. New presidents still get to hire <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/ppo/">roughly 4,000 political appointees</a> with fewer protections.</p>
<p>As a result of these changes and related reforms in the <a href="https://www.eeoc.gov/history/civil-service-reform-act-1978">Civil Service Reform Act of 1978</a>, the U.S. government is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12945">far more effective today</a> than it was prior to the Pendleton Act. </p>
<p>In fact, U.S. civil service institutions, built on merit-based appointments, merit-based advancement and security of employment, have become the <a href="https://doi.org/10.33545/26646021.2020.v2.i1b.40">standard for democratic governments</a> around the globe. U.S. federal workers are generally <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2023.2249142">high-performing, impartial and minimally corrupt</a> compared with other countries’ civil servants.</p>
<h2>Increasing government responsibilities</h2>
<p>Since 1776, the U.S. population has increased <a href="https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/07/july-fourth-celebrating-243-years-of-independence.html">from about 2.5 million people to over 330 million today</a>. With its growing size and with technological advances, the federal government now provides a great many services, including <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/19/opinion/trump-deep-state.html">protecting its citizens</a> from complex environmental, health and international threats.</p>
<p>Environmental Protection Agency employees help maintain clean air and water and clean up toxic waste dumps to protect human health. Department of Energy scientists and managers oversee the treatment and disposal of <a href="https://wwnorton.com/books/The-Fifth-Risk/">radioactive nuclear waste</a> from our weapons program and power plants. National Park Service staff manage over <a href="https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/fy2021-bib-bh081.pdf">85 million acres of public land across all 50 states</a>. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s forecasters’ advance detection of potential weather emergencies enable early warnings and evacuations from high-risk areas, <a href="https://wwnorton.com/books/The-Fifth-Risk/">which has saved countless lives</a>.</p>
<p>Federal Emergency Management Agency employees aid survivors of natural disasters. That agency also subsidizes flood insurance, making home insurance available in flood-prone areas. The U.S. government additionally provides <a href="https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/federal-government-pays-farmers-doesnt-mean-farmers-are-fans">billions of dollars in subsidies</a> per year to support farmers and maintain food security. </p>
<p>These programs are all administered by government employees: environmental scientists, lawyers, analysts, diplomats, security officers, postal workers, engineers, foresters, doctors and many other specialized career civil servants. Andrew Jackson’s idea of government work no longer applies: You do not want just anyone managing hazardous waste, sending a space shuttle into orbit or managing public lands constituting <a href="https://www.gao.gov/managing-federal-lands-and-waters">one-third of the country’s territory</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584104/original/file-20240325-26-idylq7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="People wearing white helmets and white jackets slice open meat carcasses." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584104/original/file-20240325-26-idylq7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584104/original/file-20240325-26-idylq7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584104/original/file-20240325-26-idylq7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584104/original/file-20240325-26-idylq7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584104/original/file-20240325-26-idylq7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=558&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584104/original/file-20240325-26-idylq7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=558&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584104/original/file-20240325-26-idylq7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=558&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">U.S. Department of Agriculture food safety inspectors examine meat at a processing plant.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/AgSecretaryFoodSafety/51f2053e7b3841c5b9343ebff015c7c3/photo">AP Photo/Nati Harnik</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A dedicated workforce</h2>
<p>Research, including our own, shows that these workers are not self-serving elites but rather dedicated and committed public servants.</p>
<p>That’s <a href="https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/the-new-case-for-bureaucracy/book238024">generally true</a> even of Internal Revenue Service staffers, postal service clerks and other bureaucratic functionaries who may not earn much public respect. Federal employees <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/phantoms-of-a-beleaguered-republic-9780197656945?cc=us&lang=en&">mirror demographics in the United States</a> and are hired, trained and legally obligated to uphold the Constitution and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/725313">serve the public interest</a>.</p>
<p>One of us, Jaime Kucinskas, with sociologist and law professor <a href="https://law.seattleu.edu/faculty/directory/profiles/zylan-yvonne.html">Yvonne Zylan</a>, tracked the experiences of dozens of federal employees across the EPA, Department of Health and Human Services, State Department, Department of Interior, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security and various other agencies during the Trump administration. That research found these workers were dedicated to serving the public and the Constitution, upholding the missions of their agencies and democracy, and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/725313">working to support leadership and the elected president</a>. </p>
<p>Even though 80% of the centrist and Democratic Party-leaning government workers they spoke with did not believe in the ideas behind the Trump presidency, they were careful to follow legal official orders from the administration.</p>
<p>They noted the importance of speaking up while leaders deliberated what to do. After political appointees and supervisors made their decisions, however, even the civil servants who most valued speaking truth to power acknowledged, “Then it’s time to execute,” as one State Department employee told Kucinskas. “As career professionals we have an obligation to carry out lawful instructions, even if we don’t fully agree with it.”</p>
<p>Another international affairs expert told Kucinskas, “People have voted and this is where we’re at. And we’re not going to change things. We don’t do that here.” He said if political appointees “want to do what you consider bad decisions … we do our best to give more information. … And if they still decide to do (it), then we say okay, that’s what we’re going to do.”</p>
<p>He was firm in this loyal and deferential position to the elected president and his administration in 2018 and again in a 2020 follow-up interview. “If you want to be an advocate, you can leave and work in a different sector,” he concluded. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584106/original/file-20240325-20-pr6w27.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="People wearing reflective safety vests stand in a clearing." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584106/original/file-20240325-20-pr6w27.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584106/original/file-20240325-20-pr6w27.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584106/original/file-20240325-20-pr6w27.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584106/original/file-20240325-20-pr6w27.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584106/original/file-20240325-20-pr6w27.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584106/original/file-20240325-20-pr6w27.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584106/original/file-20240325-20-pr6w27.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Environmental Protection Agency workers tour the site of an abandoned mercury mine in California slated for cleanup.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/environmental-protection-agency-remedial-project-manager-news-photo/2041454729">Jane Tyska/Digital First Media/East Bay Times via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some decided to do just that: More than a quarter of the upper-level government workers Kucinskas spoke with left their positions during the Trump administration. Although exits typically rise during presidential transitions, <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/31/2/451/5983893">they typically remain under 10%</a>, making this degree of high-level exits unusually high.</p>
<p>Even as many Americans express frustration with the president, Congress and the <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/06/06/the-people-of-government-career-employees-political-appointees-and-candidates-for-office/">federal government as a whole</a>, however, we believe it is important not to take for granted what federal government workers are doing well. U.S. citizens benefit from effective federal services, thanks in part because the government hires and rewards civil servants because of their merit rather than loyalty.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/225061/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Years of research about the people who work in the federal government finds that most of them are devoted civil servants who are committed to civic duty without regard to partisan politics.Jaime Kucinskas, Associate Professor of Sociology, Hamilton CollegeJames L. Perry, Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs Emeritus, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2239422024-02-22T18:48:25Z2024-02-22T18:48:25ZWhat does Donald Trump’s NATO posturing mean for Canada?<p>Donald Trump’s <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/trump-says-he-would-encourage-russia-to-do-whatever-the-hell-they-want-to-any-nato-country-that-doesn-t-pay-enough-1.6764435">recent candid admission</a> that he would encourage Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to NATO members shirking their alliance commitments predictably dominated the news cycle for several days.</p>
<p>What this veiled threat means to <a href="https://theconversation.com/justin-trudeau-and-nato-the-problem-with-canadian-defence-isnt-cash-its-culture-204252">Canada, which perpetually fails to meet NATO’s benchmark of spending two per cent of gross domestic product on defence</a>, is uncertain — but certainly worrisome.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/justin-trudeau-and-nato-the-problem-with-canadian-defence-isnt-cash-its-culture-204252">Justin Trudeau and NATO: The problem with Canadian defence isn’t cash, it's culture</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Even a potential Pierre Poilievre government would only <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/poilievre-says-he-would-cut-wasteful-foreign-aid-work-towards-nato-spending-target-1.6770426">“work towards”</a> meeting the target. Poilievre’s simultaneous <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-politics-briefing-too-early-to-say-how-conservatives-would-balance/">commitment to balancing the budget</a> suggests that any substantial spending increases on the Canadian Armed Forces are unlikely.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1758190989892620783"}"></div></p>
<h2>Unilateralism, not isolationism</h2>
<p>Despite <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/14/trump-foreign-policy-advisers-nato-remarks-00141287">some Republican</a> efforts <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4475656-graham-responds-to-trump-nato-comments-if-you-dont-pay-you-get-kicked-out/">to calm</a> the waters churned up by former president Trump, a <a href="https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/majority-trump-republicans-prefer-united-states-stay-out-world?utm_source=media&utm_campaign=ccs&utm_medium=atlantic">recent survey</a> conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs highlights the decreasing Republican appetite for foreign commitments.</p>
<p>It found that a majority of “Trump Republicans” would prefer the United States was less involved in global affairs. Findings like this <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/13/opinion/gop-senate-ukraine-aid.html">predictably inspire</a> headlines about <a href="https://bnnbreaking.com/politics/the-resurgence-of-isolationism-in-us-politics-shadows-over-foreign-policy">American isolationism</a>. The <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/how-stalled-u-s-aid-for-ukraine-exemplifies-gops-softening-stance-on-russia">recent stalled funding for Ukraine</a> in the U.S. Congress reflects this development. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2017-01-20/jacksonian-revolt">According to historian Walter Russell Meade</a>, Trump pursued a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02633957209368">classical “Jacksonian” approach to governance</a> during his presidency: a minimalist government that aims “to fulfil the country’s destiny by looking after the physical security and economic well-being of the American people in their national home, and to do that while interfering as little as possible with the individual freedoms that makes the country unique.” </p>
<p>However, this approach is <a href="https://notesonliberty.com/2017/04/11/unilateralism-is-not-isolationism/">less about “isolationism” than it is “unilateralism</a>.” It’s in keeping with what Trump announced in his 2017 <a href="https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf">“America First” national security strategy</a> and later re-emphasized in his <a href="https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-74th-session-united-nations-general-assembly/">2019 address to the United Nations General Assembly</a> — U.S. domination unshackled by having to work with others.</p>
<p>This is evident in the Chicago poll finding that “half of Trump Republicans (48 per cent) say the U.S. should be <em>the dominant</em> world leader, while a majority of non-Trump Republicans (65 per cent) say the country should play a <em>shared leadership</em> role.” In essence, Jacksonians see no value in working with foreigners because that curtails America’s ability to make decisions solely in its own interests.</p>
<h2>What would the end of NATO mean?</h2>
<p>A bipartisan bill in the U.S. Senate passed in late 2023 <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/4360407-congress-approves-bill-barring-president-withdrawing-nato/">prohibits a unilateral presidential withdrawal from NATO</a> without a two-thirds Senate majority or a specific act of Congress. </p>
<p>However, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/01/trump-2024-reelection-pull-out-of-nato-membership/676120/">an American president could easily hobble NATO</a> by withdrawing Europe-based U.S. troops, forgoing active participation in NATO exercises and, more generally, by <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-nato-speech-article-5-2017-6">raising doubts about the sanctity of Article 5 of the NATO treaty</a>, which essentially assures collective defence if any member is attacked.</p>
<p>The end of NATO would mark the destruction of the post-Second World War international system and a <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/2538540">return to a balance-of-power arrangement</a>. In such a world, the largest powers would dictate the structures and rules under which their regional spheres of influence would be governed, <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine">regardless of the wishes of the citizens of those sovereign nations</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/donald-trump-is-already-flustering-foreign-leaders-who-are-trying-to-prepare-for-a-possible-presidency-223767">Donald Trump is already flustering foreign leaders who are trying to prepare for a possible presidency</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>What would this mean for Canada as part of the American sphere? While <a href="https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/CAN/Year/LTST/Summarytext">most of Canada’s trade flows south</a> rather than across oceans — and although the collapse of the post-war multilateral system of relationships would normally be a disaster for a medium-sized trading nation like Canada — it would nonetheless probably be able to weather the storm thanks to its close attachment to the U.S. </p>
<p>But lacking the resources of a great power, countries like Canada rely on established norms, rules and institutions to make the world predictable and stable. These concepts are at significant risk when the great powers start acting unilaterally.</p>
<p>Remaining trans-Atlantic relationships would be of little strategic value to Canada in the face of American abuses of power. Its allies would be of no assistance in remediating <a href="https://www.britannica.com/money/mercantilism">mercantilistic behaviour</a> from the United States. Canadian governments have never been able to shift our national economy <a href="https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/free-trade-20/has-north-american-integration-resulted-in-canada-becoming-too-dependent-on-the-united-states/">away from the pull of the U.S. market</a>, and it would be increasingly impossible to do so if NATO no longer existed.</p>
<p>The worst outcome, in fact, would be the strategic confinement of Canada to the North American continent.</p>
<h2>Special relationship on life support</h2>
<p>The “special relationship” Canada once enjoyed with the U.S. <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/what-special-relationship-canada-grimaces-amid-hail-us-trade-blows-2021-06-22/">has largely disappeared</a>, save for a residual sense of <a href="https://today.yougov.com/travel/articles/24068-what-america-thinks-canada-might-surprise-you">good will Americans typically reserve for Canada</a>. The Trump administration demonstrated that <a href="https://policyoptions.irpp.org/fr/magazines/may-2020/rethinking-the-canada-us-relationship-after-the-pandemic/">no such bonhomie existed, and furthermore treated Canada with zero-sum precision</a> in its economic policies.</p>
<p>Still, the <a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/congress-executive-and-intermestic-affairs-three-proposals">complex and intertwined relationship</a> between the U.S. and Canada <a href="https://www.policymagazine.ca/the-hidden-wiring-of-the-canada-us-relationship/">would be difficult to disentangle</a>, and doing so wouldn’t be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/11926422.2018.1542604">painless for the Americans, either</a>. The depth of the cross-border relationship might be its best defence against efforts to undo it. </p>
<p>But Canadians should not expect to be exempt from the growing mistrust within America, especially in the event of a second Trump presidency.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-canada-shouldnt-always-count-on-special-treatment-from-the-u-s-93235">Why Canada shouldn't always count on special treatment from the U.S.</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The security of the northern border <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/republican-presidential-candidates-turn-attention-to-border-with-canada-1.6739098">continues to arouse suspicion</a>. <a href="https://www.cp24.com/news/u-s-officials-say-no-indication-rainbow-bridge-vehicle-explosion-was-terrorist-attack-after-canadian-caution-1.6656266">A car accident late last year near the Niagara Falls Rainbow Bridge</a> quickly raised fears of lax Canadian border controls <a href="https://toronto.citynews.ca/2023/11/23/some-were-quick-to-blame-terrorism-and-canada-after-fatal-rainbow-bridge-border-explosion/">by some American commentators</a>, even though those concerns turned out to be baseless. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1728058325051269560"}"></div></p>
<p>The Greek general Thucydides famously observed that “<a href="https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191866692.001.0001/q-oro-ed6-00010932#:%7E:text=Thucydides%20c.&text=I%20have%20written%20my%20work,a%20possession%20for%20all%20time.&text=The%20strong%20do%20what%20they,weak%20suffer%20what%20they%20must.&text=Of%20the%20gods%20we%20believe,they%20rule%20wherever%20they%20can.">the strong do what they can and the weak suffer as they must</a>.” </p>
<p>An increasingly unilateral America under Trump will be far more predatory towards both Canada and Mexico. <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-would-canada-approach-the-prospect-of-war-181106">Canada’s relative geographic isolation from the world</a>, which historically has kept the country remarkably secure, <a href="https://www.libraryjournal.com/review/canada-alone-navigating-the-postamerican-world-1800371">could then become something of a prison</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/223942/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul T. Mitchell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Canada relies on established norms, rules and institutions to make the world stable. These concepts would be a great risk if Donald Trump made good on threats to disregard NATO.Paul T. Mitchell, Professor of Defence Studies, Canadian Forces CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2138522023-12-05T13:18:28Z2023-12-05T13:18:28ZWhy Franklin, Washington and Lincoln considered American democracy an ‘experiment’ – and were unsure if it would survive<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/562824/original/file-20231130-19-e8zx58.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4089%2C3108&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Voters in a county election, 1854.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.110694.html">Etching by John Sartain after painting by George Caleb Bingham; National Gallery of Art</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>From the time of the founding era to the present day, one of the more common things said about American democracy is that <a href="https://www.citizen-times.com/story/opinion/2023/05/14/american-experiment-in-democracy-tested-by-those-who-want-control/70180548007/">it is an “experiment</a>.” </p>
<p>Most people can readily intuit what the term is meant to convey, but it is still a phrase that is bandied about more often than it is explained or analyzed. </p>
<p>Is American democracy an “experiment” in the bubbling-beakers-in-a-laboratory sense of the word? If so, what is the experiment attempting to prove, and how will we know if and when it has succeeded?</p>
<h2>Establishing, then keeping, the republic</h2>
<p>To the extent you can generalize about such a <a href="https://www.loa.org/books/black-writers-of-the-founding-era/">diverse</a> <a href="https://uncpress.org/book/9780807847862/the-other-founders/">group</a>, the founders meant two things, I would argue, by calling self-government an “experiment.”</p>
<p>First, they saw their work as an experimental attempt to apply principles derived from science and the study of history to the management of political relations. As the founder John Jay <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Principles_and_Acts_of_the_Revolution_in/ZWw2AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22first+people+whom+heaven+has+favored+with+an+opportunity+of+deliberating+upon%27%22+intitle:principles&pg=PA181&printsec=frontcover">explained to a New York grand jury in 1777</a>, Americans, acting under “the guidance of reason and experience,” were among “the first people whom heaven has favored with an opportunity of deliberating upon, and choosing the forms of government under which they should live.”</p>
<p>Alongside this optimistic, Enlightenment-inspired understanding of the democratic experiment, however, was another that was decidedly more pessimistic. </p>
<p>Their work, the founders believed, was also an experiment because, as everyone who had read their Aristotle and Cicero and studied ancient history knew, republics – in which <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/republic-government">political power rests with the people and their representatives</a> – and democracies were historically rare and acutely susceptible to subversion. That subversion came both from within – from decadence, the sapping of public virtue and demagoguery – as well as from monarchies and other enemies abroad. </p>
<p>When asked whether the federal constitution of 1787 established a monarchy or a republic, Benjamin Franklin is famously said to have answered: “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/12/18/republic-if-you-can-keep-it-did-ben-franklin-really-say-impeachment-days-favorite-quote/">A republic, if you can keep it</a>.” His point was that establishing a republic on paper was easy and preserving it the hard part.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/562828/original/file-20231130-27-qsdx64.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Five men sitting and standing around a table, with the title 'The Declaration Committee' below the image." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/562828/original/file-20231130-27-qsdx64.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/562828/original/file-20231130-27-qsdx64.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/562828/original/file-20231130-27-qsdx64.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/562828/original/file-20231130-27-qsdx64.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/562828/original/file-20231130-27-qsdx64.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=611&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/562828/original/file-20231130-27-qsdx64.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=611&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/562828/original/file-20231130-27-qsdx64.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=611&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The committee that drafted the Declaration of Independence, from left: Thomas Jefferson, Roger Sherman, Benjamin Franklin, Robert R. Livingston and John Adams.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-committee-which-drafted-the-declaration-of-independence-news-photo/3092203?adppopup=true">Printed by Currier & Ives; photo by MPI/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Optimism and pessimism</h2>
<p>The term “experiment” does not appear in any of the nation’s founding documents, but it has nevertheless enjoyed a privileged place in public political rhetoric. </p>
<p>George Washington, in <a href="https://www.loc.gov/resource/mgw2.025/?sp=28&st=text">his first inaugural address</a>, described the “republican model of government” as an “experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” </p>
<p>Gradually, presidents began to talk less of a democratic experiment whose success was still in doubt than about one whose viability had been proven by the passage of time. </p>
<p>Andrew Jackson, for one, in <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Compilation_of_the_Messages_and_Papers/kD0PAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Our+Constitution+is+no+longer+a+doubtful+experiment%22+inauthor:richardson&pg=PA293&printsec=frontcover">his 1837 farewell address</a> felt justified in proclaiming, “Our Constitution is no longer a doubtful experiment, and at the end of nearly half a century we find that it has preserved unimpaired the liberties of the people.”</p>
<p>Such statements of guarded optimism about the American experiment’s accomplishments, however, existed alongside persistent expressions of concern about its health and prospects. </p>
<p>In the <a href="https://wwnorton.com/books/The-Rise-of-American-Democracy">period before the Civil War</a>, despite participating in what in hindsight was a healthy, two-party system, politicians were forever proclaiming the end of the republic and casting opponents as threats to democracy. Most of those fears can be written off as hyperbole or attempts to demonize rivals. Some, of course, were sparked by genuine challenges to democratic institutions.</p>
<p>The attempt of Southern states to dissolve the Union represented one such occasion. In a July 4, 1861, address to Congress, Abraham Lincoln quite rightly saw the crisis as <a href="https://www.loc.gov/resource/mal.1057200/?sp=1&st=text">a grave trial for the democratic experiment to survive</a>.</p>
<p>“Our popular Government has often been called an experiment,” Lincoln observed. “Two points in it our people have already settled – the successful establishing and the successful administering of it. One still remains – its successful maintenance against a formidable internal attempt to overthrow it.” </p>
<h2>Vigilance required</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/562830/original/file-20231130-27-kzydzw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="An white haired man from the 18th century in a black coat and white shirt with high collar." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/562830/original/file-20231130-27-kzydzw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/562830/original/file-20231130-27-kzydzw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=728&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/562830/original/file-20231130-27-kzydzw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=728&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/562830/original/file-20231130-27-kzydzw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=728&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/562830/original/file-20231130-27-kzydzw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=915&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/562830/original/file-20231130-27-kzydzw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=915&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/562830/original/file-20231130-27-kzydzw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=915&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">George Washington, in his first inaugural address, described the ‘republican model of government’ as an ‘experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.nga.gov/global-site-search-page.html?searchterm=George+Washington">National Gallery, Corcoran collection</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If you tried to quantify references to the democratic “experiment” throughout American history, you would find, I suspect, more pessimistic than optimistic invocations, more fears that the experiment is at imminent risk of failing than standpat complacency that it has succeeded. </p>
<p>Consider, for example, the popularity of such recent tomes as “<a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/562246/how-democracies-die-by-steven-levitsky-and-daniel-ziblatt/">How Democracies Die</a>,” by political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, and “<a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/621076/twilight-of-democracy-by-anne-applebaum/">Twilight of Democracy</a>,” by journalist and historian Anne Applebaum. Why this persistence of pessimism? Historians of the United States have long noted the popularity since the time of the Puritans of <a href="https://uwpress.wisc.edu/books/4948.htm">so-called “Jeremiads”</a> and “declension narratives” – or, to put it more colloquially, nostalgia for the good old days and the belief that society is going to hell in a handbasket.</p>
<p>The human-made nature of our institutions has always been a source of both hope and anxiety. Hope that America could break the shackles of old-world oppression and make the world anew; anxiety that the improvisational nature of democracy leaves it vulnerable to anarchy and subversion. </p>
<p>American democracy has faced genuine, sometimes existential threats. Though its attribution to Thomas Jefferson is apparently apocryphal, the adage that <a href="https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/eternal-vigilance-price-liberty-spurious-quotation/">the price of liberty is eternal vigilance</a> is justly celebrated.</p>
<p>The hard truth is that the “experiment” of American democracy will never be finished so long as the promise of equality and liberty for all remains anywhere unfulfilled. </p>
<p>The temptation to give in to despair or paranoia in the face of the experiment’s open-endedness is understandable. But fears about its fragility should be tempered with a recognition that democracy’s essential and demonstrated malleability – its capacity for adaptation, improvement and expanding inclusivity – can be and has historically been a source of strength and resilience as well as vulnerability.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/213852/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Thomas Coens does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Is American democracy an ‘experiment’ in the bubbling-beakers-in-a-laboratory sense of the word? If so, what is the experiment attempting to prove, and how will we know if and when it has succeeded?Thomas Coens, Research Associate Professor of History, University of TennesseeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1917382022-12-06T13:35:15Z2022-12-06T13:35:15ZCherokee Nation wants to send a delegate to the House – it’s an idea older than Congress itself<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/493378/original/file-20221103-21-pntp8v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1872%2C1247&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">At the Cherokee Heritage Center in Park Hill, Oklahoma, life-size sculptures depict the walk of the Cherokees along the Trail of Tears.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/byways/photos/77119">Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 1835, the Cherokee Nation was promised a delegate in Congress as part of the same treaty – Treaty of New Echota – that led to the death of thousands on the Trail of Tears. Nearly 200 years later, the Cherokee are still <a href="https://www.cherokee.org/our-government/delegate-to-congress/">fighting to make that promise a reality</a>. </p>
<p>“The Treaty of New Echota is a living, valid treaty, and the Delegate provision is intact because it has never been abrogated,” <a href="https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/HHRG-117-RU00-Testimony-HoskinC-111622.pdf">Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin</a> wrote in testimony <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/11/18/1137534079/cherokee-delegate-congress-hearing-treaty-new-echota">submitted to the House Committee on Rules</a> on Nov. 16, 2022. “As the Supreme Court has made clear on multiple occasions, and as the landmark McGirt decision reaffirmed, lapse of time cannot divest Indian nations of their treaties and treaty rights.” </p>
<p>McGirt is <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-9526">the 2020 Supreme Court case</a> that reaffirmed that the reservation boundaries of Muscogee (Creek) Nation survived Oklahoma statehood and remain in effect today. This decision, coupled with a follow-up decision, upheld the reservation status of the Cherokee Nation and four other tribes.</p>
<p>If the Cherokee Nation is successful in its bid, <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/kimberly-teehee-cherokee-nations-first-delegate-congress-180973046/">Kimberly Teehee</a>, the nominated delegate, will join delegates representing the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam and other U.S. territories as a nonvoting member of the House.</p>
<p>As a citizen of the Cherokee Nation and a historian of <a href="https://www.oupress.com/9780806152240/serving-the-nation/">Cherokee history and social welfare</a>, I think it is important to acknowledge that the idea of a Cherokee delegate is not new. Rather, it is based on hundreds of years of Cherokee negotiations with European colonists and the U.S. government – negotiations that were built on Indigenous diplomatic tools as much as European ones.</p>
<p>What’s more, it is an opportunity for the U.S. to honor its treaties and affirm its government-to-government agreements with the Cherokee Nation. </p>
<h2>Indigenous origins</h2>
<p>Before the colonial period, <a href="https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ana/fact-sheet/american-indians-and-alaska-natives-numbers">more than 500 different Native tribes</a> lived in what is now the United States. When conflicts arose among the various groups, Native peoples used diplomatic tools to address them.</p>
<p>The Chickasaws and Muscogee, also known as the Creek, appointed individuals known as <a href="https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/creek-indian-leaders/">micos to maintain diplomacy and peace</a> within and among Native nations. When the French arrived, <a href="https://mississippiencyclopedia.org/entries/native-americans-relations-with-french/">they accepted and abided by</a> the mico system. </p>
<p>Similarly, by the early 19th century, Cherokee Chickamauga warrior Major Ridge – and later his son John Ridge – served as representatives to the Muscogee Council even though Cherokees fought against the Muscogee throughout the 18th century.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/493379/original/file-20221103-12-neeysl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A black and white engraving of 18th century Native Americans in foreground, outside and surrounded by flora." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/493379/original/file-20221103-12-neeysl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/493379/original/file-20221103-12-neeysl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493379/original/file-20221103-12-neeysl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493379/original/file-20221103-12-neeysl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493379/original/file-20221103-12-neeysl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493379/original/file-20221103-12-neeysl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493379/original/file-20221103-12-neeysl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An engraving of the Cherokee ambassadors in England, 1730.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chiefs_from_Carolina.jpg">Isaac Basire/Smithsonian Institution</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Adaptations</h2>
<p>Representation has always been important in Native nations’ dealings with European settlers and their decedents. </p>
<p>As early as 1730, <a href="https://www.wnchistory.org/september-9-1730-cherokees-and-british-sign-treaty-of-whitehall/">Cherokee chiefs met with King George II</a> to finalize a treaty. </p>
<p>The 13 newly united states ratified their first treaty with a Native nation in 1778. The Treaty of Fort Pitt, also known as the Delaware Treaty, included a <a href="https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-delawares-1778.-(0003)">provision for a delegate</a> should the Delaware Nation ever form a state and join the fledgling union – an idea that has not yet come to pass. </p>
<p>In 1785, the Cherokee Nation signed its first treaty with the United States, <a href="https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-cherokee-1785.-(0008)#:%7E:text=the%20United%20States.-,ARTICLE%20XII.,-Indians%20may%20send">the Treaty of Hopewell</a>, which built on the precedent set with the Delaware by offering representation to the Cherokee.</p>
<h2>New challenges</h2>
<p>Although the relationship between Native tribes and European colonists began with some degree of respect and mutual accommodation, that power dynamic shifted as more white settlers arrived.</p>
<p>As the colonies grew in population, <a href="https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/cherokee-removal/#:%7E:">land speculators, slaveholders, settlers and Southern politicians</a> were eager to see the federal government remove tribes, including the Cherokee, from their ancestral lands. </p>
<p>Using the same methods as Americans had to assert their independence, Cherokees fought back by writing <a href="https://digital.lib.utk.edu/collections/islandora/object/volvoices%3A13651#page/1/mode/2up">their own constitution in 1827</a>, intentionally including features of the U.S. constitution and reasserting the Cherokee Nation’s legal rights to its communally held lands. </p>
<p>This sovereign act angered Southerners. <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/andrew-jackson/">Andrew Jackson</a>, elected President in 1828, strongly supported removal. Congress passed <a href="https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib//ourdocs/indian.html">the Indian Removal Act</a> in 1829, increasing pressure on Native nations to exchange territory in the east for lands west of the Mississippi River. </p>
<p>Still believing in the power of the pen, the Cherokee Nation next attempted to use the <a href="https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/government-politics/worcester-v-georgia-1832/">U.S. legal system</a> to resist removal. In 1832, the Supreme Court in <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/31us515">Worcester v. Georgia</a> upheld their sovereignty as “a distinct community occupying its own territory in which the laws of Georgia can have no force.”</p>
<p>Everyday Cherokee people didn’t support removal; their leaders understood it didn’t make financial sense. But the U.S. government didn’t respect this majority view. Instead, the government resorted to negotiating the Treaty of New Echota in 1835 with a Cherokee political faction, led by the Ridges, who lacked the legal standing to finalize it. </p>
<p>The traitorous pact threw the tribe into political upheaval. Although <a href="https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-cherokee-1835.-(0439)#:%7E:text=to%20treaty%20stipulations.-,ARTICLE%207,-.">Article 7</a> of the treaty articulated the rights of the Cherokee Nation to appoint a delegate to Congress, the people were in no position to press for this right to be recognized.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/493363/original/file-20221103-13-3lijt3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="An oil on canvas painting of a meeting of hundreds of 19th century Native American tribe members." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/493363/original/file-20221103-13-3lijt3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/493363/original/file-20221103-13-3lijt3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493363/original/file-20221103-13-3lijt3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493363/original/file-20221103-13-3lijt3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493363/original/file-20221103-13-3lijt3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=580&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493363/original/file-20221103-13-3lijt3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=580&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493363/original/file-20221103-13-3lijt3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=580&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In 1843, the International Indian Council, consisting of hundreds of tribe members from throughout the U.S., met at Tallequah, Indian Territory. Several U.S. government officials were also in attendance.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://americanart.si.edu/artwork/international-indian-council-held-tallequah-indian-territory-1843-22854">John Mix Stanley/Smithsonian American Art Museum</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why not then</h2>
<p>The negative effects of the treaty were both immediate and long lasting.</p>
<p>In the short term, <a href="https://www.ncdcr.gov/blog/2015/12/29/the-treaty-of-new-echota-and-the-trail-of-tears">it forced 16,000 Cherokee people off their homelands</a> in the Southeast. An estimated 25% died before, during and after removal from disease, hunger, exposure and trauma. </p>
<p>In addition to dividing people from their homelands, removal also divided Cherokees from each other – and brought new Native groups together. A formal council was called in 1843 to <a href="https://osiyo.tv/cherokee-almanac-international-indian-council-1843/">establish alliances with other Native nations</a> who were suddenly their neighbors due to displacement. </p>
<p>The U.S. Civil War disrupted these efforts. Some Cherokee people fought for the Union; others for the Confederacy – and that reopened removal era tensions. </p>
<p>After the Civil War, the U.S. government reaffirmed its relationship with the Cherokee Nation in a new treaty signed in 1866. The <a href="https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-cherokee-1866.-(0942)#:%7E:text=of%20the%20Interior.-,ARTICLE%2031,-.:%7E:text=of%20the%20Interior.-,ARTICLE%2031.,-Inconsistent%20treaty%20provisions">final article</a> maintained the Cherokee Nation’s right to appoint a delegate to Congress. </p>
<h1>Additional challenges</h1>
<p>Despite the United States’ treaty promises to keep settlers out of Indian Territory, illegal settlement by U.S. citizens created new legal battles. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/dawes-act.htm">1887 Dawes General Allotment Act</a> aimed to break up tribal communal landholding. </p>
<p>The Cherokee Nation sent delegations to Washington, and they were able to successfully resist this process for another 12 years, but despite their efforts, <a href="https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=CU006">the 1898 Curtis Act</a> led to the <a href="https://uncpress.org/book/9780807872048/sustaining-the-cherokee-family/">allotment of the Cherokee Nation</a>. In other words, the federal government revoked some of its treaty responsibilities by breaking up the land the tribes held collectively into individual plots and creating the state of Oklahoma. </p>
<p>Still committed to representation, Native leaders held a <a href="https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=SE021">Constitutional Convention</a> and proposed the State of Sequoyah, which would exist side by side with Oklahoma. The effort failed largely because the Republican-led Congress opposed the possibility of adding two new Democrat-led states at the same time.</p>
<p>Allotment and Oklahoma statehood plunged Cherokee people into abject poverty, forcing many to turn to itinerant labor. </p>
<h1>Why now?</h1>
<p>In October 1870, the editor of the Cherokee Nation’s newspaper “The Cherokee Advocate,” after hearing about threats posed by railroads and those seeking to establish U.S. territories, wrote: “The danger, though successfully resisted for the time, is by no means past. The necessity <a href="https://gateway.okhistory.org/ark:/67531/metadc1849363/m1/3/">of sending delegates to Washington, D.C. still exists</a> and they must continue.” </p>
<p>That sentiment is still held by many Cherokees today almost two hundred years later.</p>
<p>Since the 1970s ushered in President Nixon’s <a href="https://www.whitehousehistory.org/self-determination-without-termination">Self-Determination policy</a>, the Cherokee Nation has launched another phase of rebuilding, enhancing its economy and expanding tribal government and services.</p>
<p>Today the Cherokee Nation comprises more than 440,000 citizens, some of them Delaware. Its population exceeds that of <a href="https://bsp.guam.gov/census-of-guam/">Guam</a> and trails <a href="https://www.census.gov/library/stories/state-by-state/wyoming-population-change-between-census-decade.html">Wyoming</a> by roughly 140,000. </p>
<p>In 2022, the Cherokee Nation is asking for Congress to seat its delegate, as the Treaty of 1835 requires and for which the Cherokees have fought by legal and diplomatic means since before the U.S. existed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/191738/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julie Reed has received funding from various organizations for consulting work on Cherokee history including New York Historical Society, Cherokee Nation Businesses, and various k-12 textbook producers. She has also received fellowship and scholarship support from the Spencer Foundation, the American Philosophical Society, and the Cherokee Nation Education Foundation. She is citizen of the Cherokee Nation. </span></em></p>The right is explicitly laid out in the same treaty that led to the Trail of Tears.Julie Reed, Associate Professor in History, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1581992021-04-19T12:27:57Z2021-04-19T12:27:57ZHas any US president ever served more than eight years?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/392657/original/file-20210330-19-1co58pi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C76%2C5662%2C4431&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Franklin Delano Roosevelt, standing at center and facing left just above the eagle, takes the presidential oath of office for the third time in 1941.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://flickr.com/photos/54078784@N08/6351043453">FDR Presidential Library and Museum via Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/curious-kids-us-74795">Curious Kids</a> is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to <a href="mailto:curiouskidsus@theconversation.com">curiouskidsus@theconversation.com</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Has there ever been a president who has served more than eight years? – Joseph, 8, New York, New York</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>The only president in American history to serve more than two four-year terms was <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/fdroosevelt">Franklin Delano Roosevelt</a>. He actually served three full terms as well as the first three months of a fourth term until his death on April 12, 1945.</p>
<p>The current limits on how long a person can be president come from the 22nd Amendment, added to the U.S. Constitution in 1951, which limits presidents to <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-22/">two successful presidential elections</a>. The amendment makes one exception: If a president takes office in the middle of someone else’s term – if the president dies, for example, and a vice president takes over and serves less than two years, that person can still run twice for their own election. But if the replacement president serves for more than two years of their predecessor’s term, they can only be elected to one more presidential term of their own.</p>
<p>FDR wasn’t breaking those rules, because the rules did not exist for the first 162 years of the nation’s history, from 1789 to 1951. Even so, in all that time, he was the only president who served more than two terms.</p>
<p>A total of 13 presidents have served exactly two full terms. Eight of them came before Roosevelt. <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/washington">George Washington</a>, <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/jefferson">Thomas Jefferson</a>, <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/madison">James Madison</a>, <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/monroe">James Monroe</a>, <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/jackson">Andrew Jackson</a>, <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/grant">Ulysses Grant</a> and <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/wilson">Woodrow Wilson</a> served their terms consecutively. <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/cleveland">Grover Cleveland</a> served two terms separated by the four-year term of <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/bharrison">Benjamin Harrison</a>.</p>
<p>Some considered third terms: In 1880, four years after he finished out his second term, <a href="http://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198837404.003.0020">Grant pressed his candidacy once again</a> but failed to secure the Republican Party’s presidential nomination. And as Woodrow Wilson finished out his second term in 1920, <a href="https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/david-pietrusza/1920/9780786732135/">he also thought about running for a third term</a>, but ultimately withdrew from consideration.</p>
<p>Five more presidents – <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/eisenhower">Dwight Eisenhower</a>, <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/reagan">Ronald Reagan</a>, <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/clinton">Bill Clinton</a>, <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/gwbush">George W. Bush</a> and <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/obama">Barack Obama</a> – came after the 22nd Amendment was passed, so they had to leave and let someone else take over.</p>
<p>Four additional presidents – <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/roosevelt">Theodore Roosevelt</a>, <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/coolidge">Calvin Coolidge</a>, <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/truman">Harry Truman</a> and <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/lbjohnson">Lyndon Johnson</a> – completed the remaining terms of another president and were elected to their own full term immediately afterward. Under the rules of their times, each of them could have run for one more term. Several chose not to run for reelection; others ran and lost.</p>
<p>For example, Lyndon Johnson, who took over after John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, initially tried for a second full term in 1968. But during the presidential primaries, he withdrew from consideration, in part because his <a href="https://www.history.com/news/lbj-exit-1968-presidential-race">handling of the war in Vietnam was unpopular</a> and threatened his chances.</p>
<p><iframe id="cRKFU" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/cRKFU/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>The precedent of serving just two terms was originally established by Washington, the nation’s first president. By all accounts, <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/46099/his-excellency-by-joseph-j-ellis/">Washington would have easily been reelected</a> had he chosen to run a third time.</p>
<p>But he rejected public calls to run for a third term as president in 1796. Washington was concerned that by staying in office longer, <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/46099/his-excellency-by-joseph-j-ellis/">he might send a message</a> that presidents should govern until death or illness drove them away, like a king. The American Revolution had just overthrown a monarchy. Washington thus wanted to lead by example in voluntarily leaving office after his second term, retiring to his Mount Vernon estate in Virginia.</p>
<p>After all, if two terms is good enough for George Washington, isn’t it good enough for everyone else?</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to <a href="mailto:curiouskidsus@theconversation.com">CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com</a>. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.</em></p>
<p><em>And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/158199/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Yalof does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Only one president has done so – Franklin Delano Roosevelt – but others considered it, and even tried.David Yalof, Professor of Political Science, University of ConnecticutLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1570262021-03-18T12:19:18Z2021-03-18T12:19:18ZAll American presidents have made spectacles of themselves – and there’s nothing wrong with that<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390139/original/file-20210317-23-1yvecxe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C3%2C1002%2C505&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Both Andrew Jackson, left, and Donald Trump presented themselves as men of the people.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.loc.gov/resource/cph.3g02109//https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-donald-trump-speaks-to-reporters-on-the-south-news-photo/1230547564?adppopup=true">Jackson, Library of Congress; Trump, Drew Angerer/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>After four years of Donald Trump as president, many Americans were sick and tired. They booted him out, with large numbers likely preferring not to hear about him ever again. </p>
<p>And yet, as <a href="https://unito.academia.edu/MaurizioValsania/CurriculumVitae">a historian of the early American republic</a>, I dare say that the man – or rather the personage – has already become a classic. Trump will remain in the public debate for centuries.</p>
<p>Trump’s apparently calculated shows of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/05/will-americans-forgive-trump">lack of compassion</a> plus his <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/12/us/politics/donald-trump-access-hollywood.html">galloping vulgarity</a> made him into one of the most <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-beastly-is-trump-the-post-gut-checker-investigates/2019/08/23/72b70ab2-c5b3-11e9-b5e4-54aa56d5b7ce_story.html">unpresidential presidents</a> ever. </p>
<p>But while Trump’s <a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-opinion-trump-norms-presidency-20191028-20191025-sfjob7bizzf2fbqb7eqhcuw3uy-story.html">vulgarity alienated many</a>, a big chunk of Americans saw it as a show, a choreography aimed at doing away with the hypocrisy of Ivy League-educated liberals, although Trump’s appointees were <a href="https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/12/01/republicans-criticize-biden-cabinet-ivy-league-reality-check-avlon-vpx.cnn">even more Ivy League</a> than those in other administrations. </p>
<p>As the recent elections demonstrate, large numbers of voters have condoned the former president’s lowbrow attitudes. Vulgarity, for millions, was just a means to an end. It was part of a larger plan, the beginning of a <a href="https://americanexperience.si.edu/historical-eras/colonization-revolution-and-new-nation/pair-daniel-lamotte-independence-squire-jack-porter/">Jacksonian, democratic revolution</a> expected to give <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-legacy-obliterated-norms-chipped-institutions-end/story?id=75275806">a voice to working-class voters</a> who have been overlooked, allegedly smothered by decades of censorship or “<a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/11/04/opinion/trump-speaks-people-whove-grown-weary-political-correctness/">leftist political correctness</a>.”</p>
<p>Trump would have loved to emulate the achievements of <a href="https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/may/02/whats-up-with-donald-trump-andrew-jackson/">Andrew Jackson, his idol</a>. Jackson was the <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/jackson/impact-and-legacy">president who changed 19th-century America forever</a>. He expanded (male) suffrage, fought against the banks, reshaped federal institutions, and championed territorial expansion – at the expense of Native Americans.</p>
<p>Jackson was also the man who <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/430927-america-lived-through-a-trump-like-presidency-before-with-lasting">revolutionized the figure of the president</a>. With a penchant for exaggeration, he called for a degree of authenticity in the personage – and it didn’t matter if it was real or pretended. </p>
<p>It’s an American idea that Trump also got perfectly right: Acting out the “man of the people,” with a load of weaknesses and flaws, may well help the president send citizens the message that the supreme office also belongs to them; that the president is like “<a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/preamble">We the People</a>.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390147/original/file-20210317-13-936aiw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Trump at a rally throwing MAGA hats into a crowd." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390147/original/file-20210317-13-936aiw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390147/original/file-20210317-13-936aiw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390147/original/file-20210317-13-936aiw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390147/original/file-20210317-13-936aiw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390147/original/file-20210317-13-936aiw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390147/original/file-20210317-13-936aiw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390147/original/file-20210317-13-936aiw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Trump’s ‘galloping vulgarity’ distinguished him among U.S. presidents.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-donald-trump-throws-hats-to-the-crowd-during-a-news-photo/1025390272?adppopup=true">Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Alike in style, communication, resentments</h2>
<p>In terms of political achievements and successes, Trump <a href="https://www.oah.org/tah/issues/2017/february/donald-trump-is-not-a-twenty-first-century-andrew-jackson/">is not like Jackson</a>. Personally, the two are also very different: While <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/10/06/655121335/how-trump-got-his-fortune">Trump was steeped in privilege since birth</a>, <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Andrew-Jackson">Jackson was born into</a> a Scots-Irish family of modest means, somewhere along the border between North and South Carolina. And only Jackson was a <a href="https://thehermitage.com/learn/andrew-jackson/general/#:%7E:text=War%20Hero,them%20to%20withdraw%20from%20Louisiana.">military hero</a> and <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/jackson/impact-and-legacy">a committed</a> <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/10/24/660042653/what-is-a-nationalist-in-the-age-of-trump">nationalist</a> who, despite all flaws, never chased personal interests. No competition. </p>
<p>But there is one area in which the two can compete: Trump is a novel Andrew Jackson in matters of personal style, approach to communication and raids launched against the “liberal elites” – in Jackson’s case, against the two patrician <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/564486/the-problem-of-democracy-by-nancy-isenberg-and-andrew-burstein/">Presidents Adams</a> – John and John Quincy – plus the presidential class known as the <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Virginia-Dynasty-Presidents-Creation-American/dp/1101980044">“Virginia Dynasty</a>”: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390141/original/file-20210317-15-1gkn350.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A political cartoon satirizing the pandemonium after President Andrew Jackson tried to shut down a major U.S. bank." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390141/original/file-20210317-15-1gkn350.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390141/original/file-20210317-15-1gkn350.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390141/original/file-20210317-15-1gkn350.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390141/original/file-20210317-15-1gkn350.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390141/original/file-20210317-15-1gkn350.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390141/original/file-20210317-15-1gkn350.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390141/original/file-20210317-15-1gkn350.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Andrew Jackson took aim at elite institutions; this political cartoon shows the mayhem after he withdrew government funds from the Bank of the United States.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-andrew-jackson-refuses-to-renew-the-charter-of-news-photo/2668436?adppopup=true">Artwork printed by H R Robinson, photo by MPI/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Both Jackson and Trump put on stage the same seductive character, the “man of the people.” Like Trump, President Jackson was less than regal. Like Trump, Jackson made deliberate shows of coarseness, profanity and vulgarity in general. </p>
<p>By 1829, the year of his inauguration, the man was a physical wreck. Toothless, his lungs chronically irritated by a bullet he was shot with during a duel, Jackson used to sputter what he called “<a href="https://www.healthguidance.org/entry/8908/1/the-health-of-the-president-andrew-jackson.html">great quantities of slime</a>.” There’s worse: In a calculated effort to intimidate his enemies and inspire his followers, Jackson would break into terrible fits of shouting, foot-stomping, book-slamming and <a href="https://history.princeton.edu/about/publications/rise-american-democracy-jefferson-lincoln">table-pounding</a>.</p>
<p>And he cursed like a sailor. President Jackson had a pet parrot, Poll. On June 10, 1845, about 3,000 people attended Jackson’s funeral, at the Hermitage, Tennessee. A story goes that Poll was greatly annoyed by the mourners. Jackson’s propensity for swearing must have rubbed off on his pet, because the parrot unexpectedly launched into a blasphemous tirade. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/01/12/a-potty-mouthed-history-of-presidential-profanity-and-one-cursing-white-house-parrot/">Everyone was flabbergasted</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390145/original/file-20210317-21-1bhu1x3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="George Washington taking the oath of office among almost a dozen men." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390145/original/file-20210317-21-1bhu1x3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390145/original/file-20210317-21-1bhu1x3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390145/original/file-20210317-21-1bhu1x3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390145/original/file-20210317-21-1bhu1x3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390145/original/file-20210317-21-1bhu1x3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=544&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390145/original/file-20210317-21-1bhu1x3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=544&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390145/original/file-20210317-21-1bhu1x3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=544&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">George Washington, here being inaugurated as the nation’s first president, had no precedent to rely on for how he acted.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-inauguration-of-george-washington-lithograph-currier-news-photo/629448241?adppopup=true">Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>‘Demean himself’</h2>
<p>Marking the proper measure of the “regality” of a president is similarly important. For a nation built upon a Constitution, rather than upon hereditary aristocracy, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691211992">the figure of the president must be unlike any king</a>. And presidents must not be demi-gods or saints either. </p>
<p>When he was <a href="https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/the-first-president/inauguration/timeline/">sworn in as the new nation’s first president on April 30, 1789, George Washington</a> had no precedent to rely on. Understandably, he was a little bemused. What shall the president be doing? And who is the president, after all? On May 10, Washington wrote to John Adams and asked for his “candid and undisguised opinions” in matter of presidential etiquette and strategies of <a href="http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/self/self-presentation/">self-presentation</a>. </p>
<p>An 18th-century elite man, Washington wasn’t tempted by vulgarity, of course. He wasn’t trying to become a “man of the people” himself. He rather feared he could fall into the opposite excess, aristocracy.</p>
<p>“The President,” he wrote to Adams, “can have no object but to demean himself in his public character, in such a manner as to maintain the dignity of Office, without subjecting himself to the imputation of superciliousness or <a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-02-02-0182">unnecessary reserve</a>.”</p>
<h2>‘Persona is a public act’</h2>
<p>Washington’s era was different from Jackson’s era, and from our era. But Washington is still right, I believe, and not only to suggest that moderation may be preferred over extremes. Washington is especially right in his claim that the president’s persona is a public act, and does not belong to the individual exclusively. </p>
<p>In terms of institutional procedures, Trump may have done some harm to the office, but he did not and could not destroy the role of the president – the symbolic, inspirational, educational role attached to that office. </p>
<p>The reason is that this role must be reenacted each time. In over 200 years, all presidents, good and bad, couldn’t help asking themselves what the title “President of the United States” entailed, practically. And what piece of theater they were supposed to perform, exactly.</p>
<p>Joe Biden must be asking himself the same question. And he has already provided some answers. Neither an aristocrat nor a pure “man of the people,” he has already presented himself as an <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/joe-bidens-superpower/616957/">empathetic</a> man and a loving, supportive and protective <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/upshot/trump-biden-masculinity-fatherhood.html">father</a> and grandfather. Biden’s persona, presented in an elderly man with feathery white hair, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/09/20/913667325/how-joe-bidens-faith-shapes-his-politics">brings his religious faith</a> to the fore.</p>
<p>The first Catholic president after John F. Kennedy, Biden offers himself as <a href="https://theconversation.com/anointing-the-nation-how-joe-bidens-catholic-faith-permeated-his-inaugural-address-154672">a novel, much-needed American Moses</a>. Are Americans ready for this personage? Will he succeed in connecting with “We the People?”</p>
<p>[<em>Like what you’ve read? Want more?</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=likethis">Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157026/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maurizio Valsania does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A president’s persona is always a public act. In that way, Trump’s shtick – vulgar man of the people – was not exceptional. And every president has had to invent his version of the role.Maurizio Valsania, Professor of American History, Università di TorinoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1551802021-02-12T14:38:20Z2021-02-12T14:38:20ZIt’s not just Trump – presidents and politicians have long shredded etiquette<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/383887/original/file-20210211-17-1lc2o5m.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=50%2C0%2C552%2C373&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A cartoonist's image of Sen. Charles Sumner's May 1856 beating by South Carolina Rep. Preston Brooks.
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Southern_Chivalry.jpg#/media/File:Southern_Chivalry.jpg">Wikipedia</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Donald Trump has achieved something unique: He is the first and only president to face not one but <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/majority-of-house-members-vote-for-2nd-impeachment-of-trump">two impeachments</a>. But even though the U.S. Senate is still expected to exonerate him from charges that he incited the deadly Capitol insurrection, Americans already know that he won’t go down in history as a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/31/trump-abandoned-civility-republican-party">model of civility</a>. </p>
<p>Examples of his bad manners abounded from day one of his presidency. When he gave his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRBsJNdK1t0">inaugural speech</a>, Trump in 2017 craftily avoided any nod to his defeated opponent, Hillary Clinton, or to the other half of the electorate. </p>
<p>Then he started embarrassing foreign leaders <a href="https://apnews.com/article/768b59297e8d4a55998839411490562f">during official trips</a>. “Time after time, diplomatic niceties fell by the wayside as the president contradicted and undermined his hosts,” the Associated Press reported in mid-2019.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/15/i-concede-nothing-trump-says-shortly-after-appearing-acknowledge-biden-won-election/">After the 2020 election, Trump did not congratulate President-elect Joe Biden</a> – <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55736856">and did not attend</a> the inaugural ceremony in January. </p>
<p>As the nation celebrates Presidents Day, it’s good to remember, however, that Trump is not alone in his transgressions of civility. In reality, the shredding of etiquette by presidents, other politicians and public officials has long been a feature of American politics. Ungraciousness is bipartisan: The public has not forgotten House Speaker Nancy Pelosi <a href="https://theconversation.com/civility-in-politics-is-harder-than-you-think-130522">literally shredding</a>, in full public view, the text of President Trump’s State of the Union speech.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369677/original/file-20201116-17-b16qes.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tears up what appeared to be a copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union speech." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369677/original/file-20201116-17-b16qes.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369677/original/file-20201116-17-b16qes.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369677/original/file-20201116-17-b16qes.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369677/original/file-20201116-17-b16qes.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369677/original/file-20201116-17-b16qes.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369677/original/file-20201116-17-b16qes.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369677/original/file-20201116-17-b16qes.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tears up what appeared to be a copy of President Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech on Feb. 4, 2020.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/feb-4-2020-house-speaker-nancy-pelosi-tears-up-what-news-photo/1199118661?adppopup=true">Xinhua/Liu Jie via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Ripping off the toupee</h2>
<p>American politicians have long treated one another with disrespect. Trump shunning the president-elect may seem extreme today, but in 1801, at the presidential inauguration ceremony of Thomas Jefferson, <a href="https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/inaugural/exhibition.html#jefferson">the outgoing president, John Adams, was nowhere to be seen</a> – he was not even invited. For his part, Adams had appointed to high office several anti-Jeffersonian men. And he had done that <a href="https://www.historyhit.com/the-friendship-and-rivalry-of-thomas-jefferson-and-john-adams/">just before leaving office</a>.</p>
<p>Jefferson, in turn, <a href="http://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/thomas-jefferson/#:%7E:text=Jefferson%20even%20refused%20to%20attend,existed%20between%20the%20two%20men.">did not attend the funeral of George Washington</a> on Dec. 18, 1799, and in 1829 John Quincy Adams – another one-term-only president, like his father – <a href="https://www.whitehousehistory.org/not-a-ragged-mob-the-inauguration-of-1829">stayed clear of Andrew Jackson’s inauguration</a>.</p>
<p>In the years before the Civil War, breaches in etiquette <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/opinion/sunday/violence-politics-congress.html">took a dramatic turn</a>. On May 22, 1856, <a href="https://theconversation.com/think-the-us-is-more-polarized-than-ever-you-dont-know-history-131600">U.S. Rep. Preston Brooks of South Carolina, a Democrat, beat Republican Sen. Charles Sumner</a> with a walking cane. The scene took place on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Brooks was “outraged” by an anti-slavery speech Sumner had given a few days earlier. He stopped short of killing his enemy only because the cane unexpectedly broke.</p>
<p>The floor of the U.S. House of Representatives held ominous scenes as well. On Feb. 6, 1858, at nearly 2 a.m., as members were discussing the admission of the Kansas Territory into the Union, South Carolina Democrat Laurence Keitt and Pennsylvania Republican Galusha Grow exchanged volleys of insults, arguing over whether Kansas would be a free or a slave state.</p>
<p>They switched to blows. More than 30 representatives jumped into the fight, <a href="https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1851-1900/The-most-infamous-floor-brawl-in-the-history-of-the-U-S--House-of-Representatives/">leading to a brawl</a>. The situation defused after Wisconsin Republicans John Potter and Cadwallader Washburn ripped the toupee from the head of William Barksdale, a Democrat from Mississippi.</p>
<h2>Founders knew incivility’s risk</h2>
<p>No matter the occasional jeers and laughs; when political leaders treat each other with disrespect, the nation suffers. </p>
<p>Civility is neither frivolous nor a matter of private behavior only. As economist Friedrich Hayek said, civility is a “<a href="https://www.worldcat.org/title/law-legislation-and-liberty-volume-2-the-mirage-of-social-justice/oclc/811505153">method of collaboration</a> which requires agreement only on means and not on ends.” The lack of civility, obviously, decreases the chances of finding solutions to urgent common problems.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PX9reO3QnUA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">At a rally in 2015, then-candidate Donald Trump mocked a reporter with a disability.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The founders, perhaps better than any other generation, were acutely aware of the political risk of incivility. Washington, Adams, Jefferson and the others <a href="https://21stcenturycicero.wordpress.com/tyrrany/the-founding-fathers-the-classics/">knew history by heart</a>. They looked back at the tyrants and all the reckless commanders of the past, like Attila or Caligula. They knew that brash leaders such as these could, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, burst asunder “<a href="https://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=FOEA-print-04-01-02-3893">all the ligaments of duty & affection</a>.”</p>
<p>And they looked forward, with anxiety, to the moment when a new barbarism would come back in full swing. Ominous signs were already looming. <a href="https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2015/04/frontier-racing-and-injured-pride-the-duel-between-andrew-jackson-and-charles-dickinson/">On May 30, 1806, Andrew Jackson killed Charles Dickinson</a>, an attorney who had accused him, of all things, of cheating on a horse race bet. This event did not put a stop to Jackson’s career. He was a brawler and a committed duelist. He snapped easily and showed no respect for his opponents. But “Old Hickory,” as he was known, kept gaining national notoriety. </p>
<p>President Jackson is <a href="https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/may/02/whats-up-with-donald-trump-andrew-jackson/">Trump’s favorite leader</a> – although the two have <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/donald-trump-andrew-jackson.html">very little in common</a>. Just like Trump, however, Jackson represents a straightforward, low-brow style of unapologetic and ungraceful leadership. Jackson bore exactly those personal attributes which left the founders aghast: “<a href="https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/wheeling-wv-19591010">His passions are terrible</a>,” Thomas Jefferson said about Jackson in a 1824 interview.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369679/original/file-20201116-17-1c7p8cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A portrait of Andrew Jackson, the seventh U.S. president. Thomas Jefferson said 'His passions are terrible.'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369679/original/file-20201116-17-1c7p8cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369679/original/file-20201116-17-1c7p8cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=755&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369679/original/file-20201116-17-1c7p8cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=755&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369679/original/file-20201116-17-1c7p8cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=755&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369679/original/file-20201116-17-1c7p8cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=949&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369679/original/file-20201116-17-1c7p8cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=949&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369679/original/file-20201116-17-1c7p8cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=949&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Andrew Jackson, the seventh U.S. president. Thomas Jefferson said, ‘His passions are terrible.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.loc.gov/resource/cph.3c17120/">Engraving by J.B. Longacre/Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The founders were passing through the short-lived age of <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/22033/the-refinement-of-america-by-richard-l-bushman/">refinement, politeness and civilization</a>. From the 1750s to the early 1800s, American leaders set for themselves an ambitious goal. They wanted to trigger an anthropological revolution and promote a new type of individual – polite, civilized, kind and collaborative.</p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>A modern nation, for them, relied on politicians who talked a certain way (with a lower voice), dressed a certain way (with less aristocratic pomp) and were able to <a href="https://www.upress.virginia.edu/title/5039">forestall any boorish posturing</a>.</p>
<p>In this respect, history has proven the founders’ expectations misplaced. These men, slave owners though they were, valued civility as at once liberating for the subject and an effective strategy of survival for the community at large. But “<a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-11404">the free cultivation of Letters</a>,” as George Washington hoped, “the unbounded extension of Commerce, the progressive refinement of Manners, the growing liberality of sentiment,” did not come about.</p>
<p>Joe Biden, now president, will not reverse the course of history. He cannot restore an age of refinement and politeness. He is not the vaccine. But in the eyes of many, he can be at least an <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/opinion/joe-biden-humility.html">antidote</a> against Trump’s lack of grace.</p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of an <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-presidents-snubbing-their-successors-and-why-the-founders-favored-civility-instead-149878">article originally published</a> on Nov. 17, 2020.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/155180/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maurizio Valsania does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>‘Mind your manners’ isn’t just something your mother told you. Manners – and civility – are an essential component of how things get done in government, and the Founding Fathers knew it.Maurizio Valsania, Professor of American History, Università di TorinoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1455182021-01-28T18:15:37Z2021-01-28T18:15:37ZTrump wasn’t the first president to try to politicize the civil service – which remains at risk of returning to Jackson’s ‘spoils system’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/381160/original/file-20210128-19-bzgg9j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=129%2C120%2C5622%2C3707&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Trump put a portrait of Andrew Jackson in the Oval Office when he was president. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-donald-trump-speaks-during-an-event-with-members-news-photo/880468366">Oliver Contreras-Pool/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The federal government’s core civilian workforce has long been <a href="https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001540761">known for its professionalism</a>. About <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43590.pdf">2.1 million nonpartisan career officials</a> provide essential public services in such diverse areas as agriculture, national parks, defense, homeland security, environmental protection and veterans’ affairs. </p>
<p>To get the vast majority of these “competitive service” jobs – which are protected from easy firing – federal employees must <a href="https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/classifying-general-schedule-positions/">demonstrate achievement in job-specific knowledge, skills and abilities superior to other applicants</a> and, in some cases, pass an exam. In other words, the civil service is designed to be “<a href="https://www.govexec.com/management/2020/10/why-merit-matters/169657/">merit-based</a>.”</p>
<p>It wasn’t always so. </p>
<p>From Andrew Jackson until Theodore Roosevelt, much of the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/11.1.172">federal workforce was subject to change after every presidential election</a> – and often did. Known as the spoils system, this pattern of political patronage, in which officeholders award allies with jobs in return for support, <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/1893171">began to end</a> in the late 19th century as citizens and politicians like Roosevelt grew fed up with its <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1845445">corruption, incompetence and inefficiency</a> – and its role in the <a href="https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/the-federal-civil-service-and-the-death-of-president-james-a-garfield.htm">assassination of a president</a>.</p>
<p>Less than two weeks before Election Day, former President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.govexec.com/management/2020/10/stunning-executive-order-would-politicize-civil-service/169479/">signed an executive order that threatened</a> to return the U.S. to a spoils system in which a large share of the federal government’s workforce could be fired for little or no reason – including a perceived lack of loyalty to the president.</p>
<p>While President Joe Biden <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/22/executive-order-protecting-the-federal-workforce/">quickly reversed the order</a> soon after taking office, the incident shows just how vulnerable the civil service is.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="An old picture shows a crowd of people in front of the White House in 1829." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375959/original/file-20201218-17-14hpknu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=50%2C39%2C941%2C633&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375959/original/file-20201218-17-14hpknu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375959/original/file-20201218-17-14hpknu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375959/original/file-20201218-17-14hpknu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375959/original/file-20201218-17-14hpknu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=605&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375959/original/file-20201218-17-14hpknu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=605&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375959/original/file-20201218-17-14hpknu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=605&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People seeking government jobs crashed the White House on the day of Andrew Jackson’s inauguration.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://picryl.com/media/presidents-levee-or-all-creation-going-to-the-white-house-robert-cruikshank-1">Library of Congress</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Birth of the spoils system</h2>
<p>The government of the early republic <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/the-early-federal-workforce-by-p-kastor.pdf?utm_campaign=Brookings%20Executive%20Education&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email">was small</a>, but the issue of whether civil servants should be chosen on the basis of patronage or skills was hotly debated. </p>
<p>Although George Washington and the five presidents who followed him <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/11.1.172">certainly employed patronage</a>, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=_j_YiYda81AC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false">they emphasized merit</a> when making appointments. </p>
<p>Washington wrote that relying on one’s personal relationship to the applicant <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/634173">would constitute</a> “an absolute bar to preferment” and wanted those “as in my judgment shall be the best qualified to discharge the functions of the departments to which they shall be appointed.” <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/11.1.172">He would not even appoint</a> his own soldiers to government positions if they lacked the necessary qualifications.</p>
<p>That changed in 1829 when Andrew Jackson, the seventh president, entered the White House.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379832/original/file-20210120-21-1cnf97x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="An illustration of Andrew Jackson riding a horse on a statue with the words, 'To the victors belong the spoils,' while several men seeking jobs bow down to him." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379832/original/file-20210120-21-1cnf97x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379832/original/file-20210120-21-1cnf97x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=661&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379832/original/file-20210120-21-1cnf97x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=661&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379832/original/file-20210120-21-1cnf97x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=661&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379832/original/file-20210120-21-1cnf97x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=831&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379832/original/file-20210120-21-1cnf97x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=831&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379832/original/file-20210120-21-1cnf97x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=831&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Political cartoon by Thomas Nast depicts office seekers seeking jobs from Andrew Jackson.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/political-cartoon-by-thomas-nast-with-the-caption-cant-you-news-photo/96743647">Fotosearch/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Jackson came to office <a href="https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/andrew-jackson-0">as a reformer</a> with a promise to end the dominance of elites and what he considered their corrupt policies. He believed that popular access to government jobs – and their frequent turnover through a four-year “<a href="https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/andrew-jackson-0">rotation in office</a>” – could serve ideals of democratic participation, regardless of one’s qualifications for a position.</p>
<p>As a result, at his inaugural reception on March 4, a <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/112695/american-lion-by-jon-meacham/">huge crowd of office seekers crashed</a> the reception. Jackson was “besieged by applicants” and “battalions of hopefuls,” <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/17600/andrew-jackson-by-hw-brands/">all seeking government jobs</a>.</p>
<p>Instead of preventing corruption from taking root, Jackson’s <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Jacksonians/2V9_twEACAAJ?hl=en">rotation policy became an opportunity for patronage</a> – or rewarding supporters with the spoils of victory. He <a href="https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/andrew-jackson-0">defended the practice</a> by declaring: “If my personal friends are qualified and patriotic, why should I not be permitted to bestow a few offices on them?” </p>
<p>Besides possessing a <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1845445">lack of appropriate skills and commitment</a>, office seekers <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/1845445">were expected to pay “assessments”</a> – a percentage of their salary ranging from 2% to 7% – to the party that appointed them.</p>
<p>Although Jackson <a href="https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/andrew-jackson-0">replaced only about 10%</a> of the federal workforce and 41% of presidential appointments, the practice increasingly <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Civil_Service_and_the_Patronage/URJPPqndZGYC?hl=en">became the norm</a> as subsequent presidents fired as well as refused to reappoint ever-larger shares of the government. </p>
<p><iframe id="kIe1G" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/kIe1G/5/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>The peak of the spoils system came under James Buchanan, who served from 1857 to 1861. He <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/History_of_the_Federal_Civil_Service_178.html?id=dwbvhZnJT9sC">replaced</a> <a href="https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001540761">virtually every federal worker at the end of their “rotation.”</a> William L. Marcy, who was secretary of state under Buchanan’s predecessor and was the first to refer to patronage as “spoils,” <a href="https://www.worldcat.org/title/jacksonians-a-study-in-administrative-history-1829-1861/oclc/498178">wrote in 1857</a> that civil servants from his administration were being “hunted down like wild beasts.”</p>
<p>Even Abraham Lincoln, who followed Buchanan, made extensive use of the system,
<a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Civil_Service_and_the_Patronage/URJPPqndZGYC?hl=en">replacing at least 1,457 of the 1,639 officials</a> then subject to presidential appointment. The number would have been higher but for the secession of Southern states, which put some federal officials out of his reach.</p>
<h2>A ‘vast public evil’ comes to an end</h2>
<p>The tide began to turn in the late 1860s following <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/History_of_the_Federal_Civil_Service_178.html?id=dwbvhZnJT9sC">public revelations</a> that positions had been created requiring little or no work and other abuses, including <a href="https://www.worldcat.org/title/jacksonians-a-study-in-administrative-history-1829-1861/oclc/498178">illiterate appointees</a>, and a <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/History_of_the_Federal_Civil_Service_178.html?id=dwbvhZnJT9sC">congressional report about the success</a> of civil service systems in Great Britain, China, France and Prussia. </p>
<p>In 1870, President Ulysses S. Grant asked Congress to take action, <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/History_of_the_Federal_Civil_Service_178.html?id=dwbvhZnJT9sC">complaining,</a> “The present system does not secure the best men, and often not even fit men, for public place.” Congress responded with legislation that authorized the president to use executive orders to prescribe regulations for the civil service. That power exists today, most recently exercised in Trump’s own order. </p>
<p>Grant established a Civil Service Commission that led to some reforms, but just two years later a <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/History_of_the_Federal_Civil_Service_178.html?id=dwbvhZnJT9sC">hostile Congress cut off new funding</a>, and Grant terminated the experiment in March 1875. The number of jobs potentially open to patronage continued to soar, <a href="https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1975/compendia/hist_stats_colonial-1970.html">doubling from 51,020 in 1871 to 100,020 in 1881</a>.</p>
<p>But across the U.S., <a href="https://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00024784/00001/3x">citizens were becoming disgusted</a> by a government stuffed with the people known as “spoilsmen,” leading to a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00003">growing reform movement</a>. The assassination of President James Garfield in 1881 <a href="https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/the-federal-civil-service-and-the-death-of-president-james-a-garfield.htm">by a deranged office seeker</a> who felt Garfield had denied him the Paris diplomatic post he wanted pushed the movement over the edge.</p>
<p>Garfield’s murder <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/1893171">was widely blamed</a> on the spoils system. George William Curtis, editor of Harper’s Weekly and an advocate for reform, published cartoons <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=_j_YiYda81AC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false">lambasting the system</a> and called it “a vast public evil.” </p>
<p>In early 1883, immediately after an election that led to sweeping gains for politicians in favor of reform, <a href="https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001540761">Congress passed the Pendleton Act</a>. It created the civil service system of merit-based selection and promotion. The act banned “assessments,” implemented competitive exams and open competitions for jobs, and prevented civil servants from being fired for political reasons. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Donald Trump stands in front of a painting of former President Teddy Roosevelt in the White House." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379569/original/file-20210119-15-1craue6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379569/original/file-20210119-15-1craue6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379569/original/file-20210119-15-1craue6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379569/original/file-20210119-15-1craue6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379569/original/file-20210119-15-1craue6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379569/original/file-20210119-15-1craue6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379569/original/file-20210119-15-1craue6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Teddy Roosevelt helped end the spoils system.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Trump/67fe2946462340c7a4a99409d94f295d/photo?hpSectionId=879083fa405d449fa332cbf742e7d609&st=hpsection&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=69&Query=teddy%20AND%20roosevelt&currentItemNo=7">AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Roosevelt was appointed to the new commission that oversaw the system by President Benjamin Harrison in 1889 and quickly <a href="https://www.opm.gov/about-us/our-mission-role-history/theodore-roosevelt/">became its driving force</a> – even as Harrison himself abused the spoils system, <a href="https://kansaspress.ku.edu/series/american-presidency-series/978-0-7006-0320-6.html">replacing 43,823 out of 58,623 postmasters</a>, for example.</p>
<p>At first, the system <a href="https://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00024784/00001/5x">covered just 10.5% of the federal workforce</a>, but it was gradually expanded to cover most workers. Under Roosevelt, who became president in 1901 after William McKinley was assassinated, the number of covered employees <a href="https://www.opm.gov/about-us/our-mission-role-history/theodore-roosevelt/">finally exceeded those not covered</a> in 1904 and soon reached <a href="https://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00024784/00001/5x">almost two-thirds of all federal jobs</a>. At its peak in the 1950s, the competitive civil service <a href="https://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00024784/00001/5x">covered almost 90% of federal employees</a>.</p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>New York, where Roosevelt was an assemblyman, and Massachusetts were the first states to implement their own civil service systems. Although all states now have such systems in place at local, state or both levels, it was not until <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055411000256">after 1940 that most states adopted a competitive civil service</a>. </p>
<h2>Teddy’s unfinished work</h2>
<p>Trump’s <a href="https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3896676/posts">Oct. 21 executive order</a> would have undone over a century of reforms by stripping potentially hundreds of thousands of civil servants of the protections that keep them from being summarily fired for political reasons. Insufficient loyalty to the president would be enough to lose one’s job. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/22/executive-order-protecting-the-federal-workforce">Biden revoked the changes</a> two days after taking office, but the episode is a reminder just how fragile the system supporting a merit-based government workforce remains. </p>
<p>While Trump’s effort to meddle in the civil service was particularly brazen, administrations of both parties still have a habit of doing so. For example, a common practice of outgoing administrations – including Trump’s – is to convert political appointees into permanent and protected civil servants in a process known as “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/06/some-trump-officials-are-burrowing-into-government-jobs-what-does-that-mean-exactly/">burrowing</a>.” Whether an effort to plant people who can <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-trump-burrowing-federal/2021/01/24/a495ae76-5c02-11eb-b8bd-ee36b1cd18bf_story.html">carry on a previous administration’s policies</a> or simply meant as a patronage reward, such appointees can be very hard for the incoming one to remove. </p>
<p>Both Trump’s executive order and the bipartisan practice of burrowing show the civil service needs stronger protections and that Teddy Roosevelt’s work is still unfinished. If, on a whim, a president can undo over a century of reforms, then the civil service remains insufficiently insulated from politics and patronage. </p>
<p>It may be time Congress passed a new law that permanently shields one of America’s proudest achievements from becoming another dysfunctional part of the U.S. government. </p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of an <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-revived-andrew-jacksons-spoils-system-which-would-undo-americas-138-year-old-professional-civil-service-150039">article originally published</a> on Jan. 21, 2021.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/145518/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Barry M. Mitnick does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>For decades, presidents beginning with Andrew Jackson routinely replaced large swaths of the government workforce, often requiring them to pay fees to political parties in exchange for their jobs.Barry M. Mitnick, Professor of Business Administration and of Public and International Affairs, University of PittsburghLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1500392021-01-21T13:14:22Z2021-01-21T13:14:22ZTrump revived Andrew Jackson’s spoils system, which would undo America’s 138-year-old professional civil service<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379567/original/file-20210119-15-1ix1ga6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=85%2C183%2C2900%2C1790&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A picture of Andrew Jackson hung in the Oval Office during Trump's tenure.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Trump/9e764f20ddfc448faca0727a96481f80/photo?hpSectionId=879083fa405d449fa332cbf742e7d609&st=hpsection&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=6008&Query=%22Donald%20Trump%22%20AND%20%22Oval%20Office%22&currentItemNo=28">AP Photo/Patrick Semansky</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The federal government’s core civilian workforce has long been <a href="https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001540761">known for its professionalism</a>. About <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43590.pdf">2.1 million nonpartisan career officials</a> provide essential public services in such diverse areas as agriculture, national parks, defense, homeland security, environmental protection and veterans affairs. </p>
<p>To get the vast majority of these “competitive service” jobs – which are protected from easy firing – federal employees must <a href="https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/classifying-general-schedule-positions/">demonstrate achievement in job-specific knowledge, skills and abilities superior to other applicants</a> and, in some cases, pass an exam. In other words, the civil service is designed to be “<a href="https://www.govexec.com/management/2020/10/why-merit-matters/169657/">merit-based</a>.”</p>
<p>It wasn’t always so. </p>
<p>From Andrew Jackson until Theodore Roosevelt, much of the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/11.1.172">federal workforce was subject to change after every presidential election</a> – and often did. Known as the spoils system, this pattern of political patronage, in which officeholders award allies with jobs in return for support, <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/1893171">began to end</a> in the late 19th century as citizens and politicians like Roosevelt grew fed up with its <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1845445">corruption, incompetence and inefficiency</a> – and its role in the <a href="https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/the-federal-civil-service-and-the-death-of-president-james-a-garfield.htm">assassination of a president</a>.</p>
<p>Less than two weeks before Election Day, Donald Trump <a href="https://www.govexec.com/management/2020/10/stunning-executive-order-would-politicize-civil-service/169479/">signed an executive order that threatens</a> to return the U.S. to a spoils system in which a large share of the federal government’s workforce could be fired for little or no reason – including a perceived lack of loyalty to the president.</p>
<p>While President Joe Biden appears <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-trump-federal-employees/2020/11/10/5a1c9f42-2388-11eb-8599-406466ad1b8e_story.html">likely to reverse the order</a>, its effects may not be so easily undone. And he may have his own reasons for keeping it temporarily in place. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="An old picture shows a crowd of people in front of the White House in 1829." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375959/original/file-20201218-17-14hpknu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=50%2C39%2C941%2C633&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375959/original/file-20201218-17-14hpknu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375959/original/file-20201218-17-14hpknu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375959/original/file-20201218-17-14hpknu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375959/original/file-20201218-17-14hpknu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=605&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375959/original/file-20201218-17-14hpknu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=605&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375959/original/file-20201218-17-14hpknu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=605&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People seeking government jobs crashed the White House on the day of Andrew Jackson’s inauguration.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://picryl.com/media/presidents-levee-or-all-creation-going-to-the-white-house-robert-cruikshank-1">Library of Congress</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Birth of the spoils system</h2>
<p>The government of the early republic <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/the-early-federal-workforce-by-p-kastor.pdf?utm_campaign=Brookings%20Executive%20Education&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email">was small</a>, but the issue of whether civil servants should be chosen on the basis of patronage or skills was hotly debated. </p>
<p>Although George Washington and the five presidents who followed him <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/11.1.172">certainly employed patronage</a>, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=_j_YiYda81AC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false">they emphasized merit</a> when making appointments. </p>
<p>Washington wrote that relying on one’s personal relationship to the applicant <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/634173">would constitute</a> “an absolute bar to preferment” and wanted those “as in my judgment shall be the best qualified to discharge the functions of the departments to which they shall be appointed.” <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/11.1.172">He would not even appoint</a> his own soldiers to government positions if they lacked the necessary qualifications.</p>
<p>That changed in 1829 when Andrew Jackson, the seventh president, entered the White House.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379832/original/file-20210120-21-1cnf97x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="An illustration of Andrew Jackson riding a horse on a statue with the words, 'To the victors belong the spoils,' while several men seeking jobs bow down to him." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379832/original/file-20210120-21-1cnf97x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379832/original/file-20210120-21-1cnf97x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=661&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379832/original/file-20210120-21-1cnf97x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=661&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379832/original/file-20210120-21-1cnf97x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=661&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379832/original/file-20210120-21-1cnf97x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=831&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379832/original/file-20210120-21-1cnf97x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=831&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379832/original/file-20210120-21-1cnf97x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=831&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Political cartoon by Thomas Nast depicts office seekers seeking jobs from Andrew Jackson.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/political-cartoon-by-thomas-nast-with-the-caption-cant-you-news-photo/96743647">Fotosearch/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Jackson came to office <a href="https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/andrew-jackson-0">as a reformer</a> with a promise to end the dominance of elites and what he considered their corrupt policies. He believed that popular access to government jobs – and their frequent turnover through a four-year “<a href="https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/andrew-jackson-0">rotation in office</a>” – could serve ideals of democratic participation, regardless of one’s qualifications for a position.</p>
<p>As a result, at his inaugural reception on March 4, a <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/112695/american-lion-by-jon-meacham/">huge crowd of office seekers crashed</a> the reception. Jackson was “besieged by applicants” and “battalions of hopefuls,” <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/17600/andrew-jackson-by-hw-brands/">all seeking government jobs</a>.</p>
<p>Instead of preventing corruption from taking root, Jackson’s <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Jacksonians/2V9_twEACAAJ?hl=en">rotation policy became an opportunity for patronage</a> – or rewarding supporters with the spoils of victory. He <a href="https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/andrew-jackson-0">defended the practice</a> by declaring: “If my personal friends are qualified and patriotic, why should I not be permitted to bestow a few offices on them?” </p>
<p>Besides possessing a <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1845445">lack of appropriate skills and commitment</a>, office seekers <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/1845445">were expected to pay “assessments”</a> – a percentage of their salary ranging from 2% to 7% – to the party that appointed them.</p>
<p>Although Jackson <a href="https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/andrew-jackson-0">replaced only about 10%</a> of the federal workforce and 41% of presidential appointments, the practice increasingly <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Civil_Service_and_the_Patronage/URJPPqndZGYC?hl=en">became the norm</a> as subsequent presidents fired as well as refused to reappoint ever-larger shares of the government. </p>
<p><iframe id="kIe1G" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/kIe1G/5/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>The peak of the spoils system came under James Buchanan, who served from 1857 to 1861. He <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/History_of_the_Federal_Civil_Service_178.html?id=dwbvhZnJT9sC">replaced</a> <a href="https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001540761">virtually every federal worker at the end of their “rotation.”</a> William L. Marcy, who was secretary of state under Buchanan’s predecessor and was the first to refer to patronage as “spoils,” <a href="https://www.worldcat.org/title/jacksonians-a-study-in-administrative-history-1829-1861/oclc/498178">wrote in 1857</a> that civil servants from his administration were being “hunted down like wild beasts.”</p>
<p>Even Abraham Lincoln, who followed Buchanan, made extensive use of the system,
<a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Civil_Service_and_the_Patronage/URJPPqndZGYC?hl=en">replacing at least 1,457 of the 1,639 officials</a> then subject to presidential appointment. The number would have been higher but for the secession of Southern states, which put some federal officials out of his reach.</p>
<h2>A ‘vast public evil’ comes to an end</h2>
<p>The tide began to turn in the late 1860s following <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/History_of_the_Federal_Civil_Service_178.html?id=dwbvhZnJT9sC">public revelations</a> that positions had been created requiring little or no work and other abuses, including <a href="https://www.worldcat.org/title/jacksonians-a-study-in-administrative-history-1829-1861/oclc/498178">illiterate appointees</a>, and a <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/History_of_the_Federal_Civil_Service_178.html?id=dwbvhZnJT9sC">congressional report about the success</a> of civil service systems in Great Britain, China, France and Prussia. </p>
<p>In 1870, President Ulysses S. Grant asked Congress to take action, <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/History_of_the_Federal_Civil_Service_178.html?id=dwbvhZnJT9sC">complaining,</a> “The present system does not secure the best men, and often not even fit men, for public place.” Congress responded with legislation that authorized the president to use executive orders to prescribe regulations for the civil service. That power exists today, most recently exercised in Trump’s own order. </p>
<p>Grant established a Civil Service Commission that led to some reforms, but just two years later a <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/History_of_the_Federal_Civil_Service_178.html?id=dwbvhZnJT9sC">hostile Congress cut off new funding</a>, and Grant terminated the experiment in March 1875. The number of jobs potentially open to patronage continued to soar, <a href="https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1975/compendia/hist_stats_colonial-1970.html">doubling from 51,020 in 1871 to 100,020 in 1881</a>.</p>
<p>But across the U.S., <a href="https://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00024784/00001/3x">citizens were becoming disgusted</a> by a government stuffed with the people known as “spoilsmen,” leading to a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00003">growing reform movement</a>. The assassination of President James Garfield in 1881 <a href="https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/the-federal-civil-service-and-the-death-of-president-james-a-garfield.htm">by a deranged office seeker</a> who felt Garfield had denied him the Paris diplomatic post he wanted pushed the movement over the edge.</p>
<p>Garfield’s murder <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/1893171">was widely blamed</a> on the spoils system. George William Curtis, editor of Harper’s Weekly and an advocate for reform, published cartoons <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=_j_YiYda81AC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false">lambasting the system</a> and called it “a vast public evil.” </p>
<p>In early 1883, immediately after an election that led to sweeping gains for politicians in favor of reform, <a href="https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001540761">Congress passed the Pendleton Act</a>. It created the Civil Service System of merit-based selection and promotion. The act banned “assessments,” implemented competitive exams and open competitions for jobs, and prevented civil servants from being fired for political reasons. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Donald Trump stands in front of a painting of former President Teddy Roosevelt in the White House." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379569/original/file-20210119-15-1craue6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379569/original/file-20210119-15-1craue6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379569/original/file-20210119-15-1craue6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379569/original/file-20210119-15-1craue6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379569/original/file-20210119-15-1craue6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379569/original/file-20210119-15-1craue6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379569/original/file-20210119-15-1craue6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Teddy Roosevelt helped end the spoils system.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Trump/67fe2946462340c7a4a99409d94f295d/photo?hpSectionId=879083fa405d449fa332cbf742e7d609&st=hpsection&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=69&Query=teddy%20AND%20roosevelt&currentItemNo=7">AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Roosevelt was appointed to the new commission that oversaw the system by President Benjamin Harrison in 1889 and quickly <a href="https://www.opm.gov/about-us/our-mission-role-history/theodore-roosevelt/">became its driving force</a> – even as Harrison himself abused the spoils system, <a href="https://kansaspress.ku.edu/series/american-presidency-series/978-0-7006-0320-6.html">replacing 43,823 out of 58,623 postmasters</a>, for example.</p>
<p>At first, the system <a href="https://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00024784/00001/5x">covered just 10.5% of the federal workforce</a>, but it was gradually expanded to cover most workers. Under Roosevelt, who became president in 1901 after William McKinley was assassinated, the number of covered employees <a href="https://www.opm.gov/about-us/our-mission-role-history/theodore-roosevelt/">finally exceeded those not covered</a> in 1904 and soon reached <a href="https://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00024784/00001/5x">almost two-thirds of all federal jobs</a>. At its peak in the 1950s, the competitive civil service <a href="https://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00024784/00001/5x">covered almost 90% of federal employees</a>.</p>
<p>New York, where Roosevelt was an assemblyman, and Massachusetts were the first states to implement their own civil service systems. Although all states now have such systems in place at local, state or both levels, it was not until <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055411000256">after 1940 that most states adopted a competitive civil service</a>. </p>
<h2>A return to the spoils?</h2>
<p>Trump’s executive order would mark a significant change. </p>
<p>The Oct. 21 order <a href="https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3896676/posts">created a new category of the civil service workforce</a>, known as “Schedule F,” which would include all currently protected employees in career positions that have a “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating character.” Because the language is both vague and encompassing, it may apply to as many as hundreds of thousands of the 2.1 million federal civilian workers – potentially to every worker who has any discretion in giving advice or making decisions. </p>
<p>The first agency to report a list of covered workers, the Office of Management and Budget, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-moves-to-strip-job-protections-from-white-house-budget-analysts-as-he-races-to-transform-civil-service/2020/11/27/d04f6eba-2e69-11eb-96c2-aac3f162215d_story.html">identified 425 professionals</a> – 88% of its employees – as transferable to Schedule F, which means <a href="https://www.govexec.com/management/2020/10/stunning-executive-order-would-politicize-civil-service/169479/">they could be fired at will</a>.</p>
<p>Although the order didn’t formally take effect until Jan. 19, some agencies had already taken actions consistent with it – including an apparent “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-white-house-purge/2020/11/13/2af12c94-25ca-11eb-8672-c281c7a2c96e_story.html">purge</a>” of career employees deemed insufficiently loyal to Trump. But the Trump administration was <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-civil-service-biden/2021/01/18/5daf34c4-59b3-11eb-b8bd-ee36b1cd18bf_story.html">unable to fully implement Schedule F</a> before Biden took over on Jan. 20.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden wave as they arrive at the North Portico of the White House on Jan. 20." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379828/original/file-20210120-17-asygph.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379828/original/file-20210120-17-asygph.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379828/original/file-20210120-17-asygph.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379828/original/file-20210120-17-asygph.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379828/original/file-20210120-17-asygph.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379828/original/file-20210120-17-asygph.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379828/original/file-20210120-17-asygph.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Will Biden make reversing the Trump order one of his early acts of office?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/APTOPIXBidenInauguration/cea5f292cf324cdb87b2f67782507b18/photo?hpSectionId=8eeed13412704a308764ffb384c901fd&st=hpsection&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=4539&currentItemNo=1">AP Photo/Alex Brandon</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Of course, Biden could quickly reverse the order – and <a href="https://fitzpatrick.house.gov/2021/1/fitzpatrick-connolly-introduce-the-preventing-a-patronage-system-act">there’s already a bipartisan push to forbid these transfers</a> – but rehiring anyone who has been fired won’t be easy or immediate. </p>
<p>Furthermore, Trump had <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/how-dozens-of-trumps-political-appointees-will-stay-in-government-after-biden-takes-over">tried to “burrow” political appointees deep into the senior executive service</a>, the top level of the civil service. The burrowing included the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/17/us/politics/nsa-michael-ellis-trump.html">controversial appointment</a> of Michael Ellis as general counsel of the National Security Agency. Senior executive service rules permit some political appointees to be converted to civil servants. This could protect them from easily being removed by Biden.</p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>Biden may want to remove civil servants considered Trump loyalists who may try to subvert his policies. If so, he’ll <a href="https://www.govexec.com/management/2021/01/dont-expect-trumps-workforce-policies-be-reversed-overnight/171488/">have to keep the executive order in place to expedite the process</a> and convert those employees to the new Schedule F classification, which would allow him to remove them. But keeping and using Schedule F, even for a relatively brief period, challenges the most fundamental principles of the civil service.</p>
<p>Trump’s order and Biden’s dilemma show that Teddy Roosevelt’s work is still unfinished. If, on a whim, a president can undo over a century of reforms, then the civil service remains insufficiently insulated from politics and patronage. It may be time Congress passed a new law that permanently shields one of America’s proudest achievements from becoming another dysfunctional part of the U.S. government.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/150039/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Barry M. Mitnick does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>For decades, presidents routinely replaced large swaths of the government workforce, often requiring them to pay fees to political parties in exchange for their jobs.Barry M. Mitnick, Professor of Business Administration and of Public and International Affairs, University of PittsburghLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1498782020-11-17T20:11:23Z2020-11-17T20:11:23ZA brief history of presidents snubbing their successors – and why the founders favored civility instead<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369678/original/file-20201116-21-1y1ixzu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C21%2C4713%2C3083&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Republican nominee Gov. Mike Pence and Democratic nominee Sen. Tim Kaine stand after the vice-presidential debate in Farmville, Va., Oct. 4, 2016.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Campaign2016VPDebate/a421c130ee024dd9b81c0bdbf007895b/photo?Query=Sen.%20Tim%20Kaine%20and%20Gov.%20Mike%20Pence%20after%20the%20vice-presidential%20debate%20in%20Farmville&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:asc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=12&currentItemNo=6">Joe Raedle/Pool via AP</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s beyond dispute: Donald Trump won’t go down in history as a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/31/trump-abandoned-civility-republican-party">model of civility</a>. Examples of his bad manners abound. When he gave his first <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRBsJNdK1t0">inaugural speech</a>, the president craftily avoided any nod to his defeated opponent, Hillary Clinton, or to the other half of the electorate. </p>
<p>Then he started embarrassing foreign leaders <a href="https://apnews.com/article/768b59297e8d4a55998839411490562f">during official trips</a>. “Time after time, diplomatic niceties fell by the wayside as the president contradicted and undermined his hosts,” the Associated Press reported in mid-2019.</p>
<p>Most likely, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/15/i-concede-nothing-trump-says-shortly-after-appearing-acknowledge-biden-won-election/">he will not congratulate President-elect Joe Biden</a> – or he will do it, eventually, but begrudgingly. It’s also <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/525883-mcenany-dodges-on-trump-attending-biden-inauguration-hell-attend-his">possible that he will not attend</a> the inaugural ceremony in January. </p>
<p>Trump is not alone in his transgressions of civility. In reality, the shredding of etiquette by politicians and public officials, including presidents, has long been a feature of American politics. Ungraciousness is bipartisan: The public has not forgotten House Speaker Nancy Pelosi <a href="https://theconversation.com/civility-in-politics-is-harder-than-you-think-130522">literally shredding</a>, in full public view, the text of President Trump’s State of the Union speech.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369677/original/file-20201116-17-b16qes.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tears up what appeared to be a copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union speech." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369677/original/file-20201116-17-b16qes.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369677/original/file-20201116-17-b16qes.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369677/original/file-20201116-17-b16qes.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369677/original/file-20201116-17-b16qes.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369677/original/file-20201116-17-b16qes.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369677/original/file-20201116-17-b16qes.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369677/original/file-20201116-17-b16qes.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tears up what appeared to be a copy of President Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech on Feb. 4, 2020.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/feb-4-2020-house-speaker-nancy-pelosi-tears-up-what-news-photo/1199118661?adppopup=true">Xinhua/Liu Jie via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Ripping off the toupee</h2>
<p>American politicians have long treated one another with disrespect. Trump shunning the president-elect may seem extreme today, but in 1801, at the presidential inauguration ceremony of Thomas Jefferson, <a href="https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/inaugural/exhibition.html#jefferson">the outgoing president, John Adams, was nowhere to be seen</a> – he was not even invited. For his part, Adams had appointed to high office several anti-Jeffersonian men. And he had done that <a href="https://www.historyhit.com/the-friendship-and-rivalry-of-thomas-jefferson-and-john-adams/">just before leaving office</a>.</p>
<p>Jefferson, in turn, <a href="http://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/thomas-jefferson/#:%7E:text=Jefferson%20even%20refused%20to%20attend,existed%20between%20the%20two%20men.">did not attend the funeral of George Washington</a> on Dec. 18, 1799, and in 1829 John Quincy Adams – another one-term-only president, like his father – <a href="https://www.whitehousehistory.org/not-a-ragged-mob-the-inauguration-of-1829">stayed clear of Andrew Jackson’s inauguration</a>.</p>
<p>In the years before the Civil War, breaches in etiquette <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/opinion/sunday/violence-politics-congress.html">took a dramatic turn</a>. On May 22, 1856, <a href="https://theconversation.com/think-the-us-is-more-polarized-than-ever-you-dont-know-history-131600">U.S. Rep. Preston Brooks of South Carolina, a Democrat, beat Republican Sen. Charles Sumner</a> with a walking cane. The scene took place on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Brooks was “outraged” by an anti-slavery speech Sumner had given a few days earlier. He stopped short of killing his enemy only because the cane unexpectedly broke.</p>
<p>The floor of the U.S. House of Representatives held ominous scenes as well. On Feb. 6, 1858, at nearly 2 a.m., as members were discussing the admission of the Kansas Territory into the Union, South Carolina Democrat Laurence Keitt and Pennsylvania Republican Galusha Grow exchanged volleys of insults, arguing over whether Kansas would be a free or a slave state.</p>
<p>They switched to blows. More than 30 representatives jumped into the fight, <a href="https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1851-1900/The-most-infamous-floor-brawl-in-the-history-of-the-U-S--House-of-Representatives/">leading to a brawl</a>. The situation defused after Wisconsin Republicans John Potter and Cadwallader Washburn ripped the toupee from the head of William Barksdale, a Democrat from Mississippi.</p>
<h2>Founders knew incivility’s risk</h2>
<p>No matter the occasional jeers and laughs; when political leaders treat each other with disrespect, the nation suffers. </p>
<p>Civility is neither frivolous nor a matter of private behavior only. As economist Friedrich Hayek said, civility is a “<a href="https://www.worldcat.org/title/law-legislation-and-liberty-volume-2-the-mirage-of-social-justice/oclc/811505153">method of collaboration</a> which requires agreement only on means and not on ends.” The lack of civility, obviously, decreases the chances of finding solutions to urgent common problems.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PX9reO3QnUA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">At a rally in 2015, then-candidate Donald Trump mocked a reporter with a disability.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The founders, perhaps better than any other generation, were acutely aware of the political risk of incivility. Washington, Adams, Jefferson and the others <a href="https://21stcenturycicero.wordpress.com/tyrrany/the-founding-fathers-the-classics/">knew history by heart</a>. They looked back at the tyrants and all the reckless commanders of the past, like Attila or Caligula. They knew that brash leaders such as these could, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, burst asunder “<a href="https://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=FOEA-print-04-01-02-3893">all the ligaments of duty & affection</a>.”</p>
<p>And they looked forward, with anxiety, to the moment when a new barbarism would come back in full swing. Ominous signs were already looming. <a href="https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2015/04/frontier-racing-and-injured-pride-the-duel-between-andrew-jackson-and-charles-dickinson/">On May 30, 1806, Andrew Jackson killed Charles Dickinson</a>, an attorney who had accused him, of all things, of cheating on a horse race bet. This event did not put a stop to Jackson’s career. He was a brawler and a committed duelist. He snapped easily and showed no respect for his opponents. But “Old Hickory,” as he was known, kept gaining national notoriety. </p>
<p>President Jackson is <a href="https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/may/02/whats-up-with-donald-trump-andrew-jackson/">Trump’s favorite leader</a> – although the two have <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/donald-trump-andrew-jackson.html">very little in common</a>. Just like Trump, however, Jackson represents a straightforward, low-brow style of unapologetic and ungraceful leadership. Jackson bore exactly those personal attributes which left the founders aghast: “<a href="https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/wheeling-wv-19591010">His passions are terrible</a>,” Thomas Jefferson said about Jackson in a 1824 interview.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369679/original/file-20201116-17-1c7p8cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A portrait of Andrew Jackson, the seventh U.S. president. Thomas Jefferson said 'His passions are terrible.'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369679/original/file-20201116-17-1c7p8cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369679/original/file-20201116-17-1c7p8cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=755&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369679/original/file-20201116-17-1c7p8cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=755&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369679/original/file-20201116-17-1c7p8cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=755&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369679/original/file-20201116-17-1c7p8cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=949&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369679/original/file-20201116-17-1c7p8cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=949&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369679/original/file-20201116-17-1c7p8cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=949&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Andrew Jackson, the seventh U.S. president. Thomas Jefferson said, ‘His passions are terrible.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.loc.gov/resource/cph.3c17120/">Engraving by J.B. Longacre/Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The founders were passing through the short-lived age of <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/22033/the-refinement-of-america-by-richard-l-bushman/">refinement, politeness and civilization</a>. From the 1750s to the early 1800s, American leaders set for themselves an ambitious goal. They wanted to trigger an anthropological revolution and promote a new type of individual – polite, civilized, kind and collaborative.</p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>A modern nation, for them, relied on politicians who talked a certain way (with a lower voice), dressed a certain way (with less aristocratic pomp) and were able to <a href="https://www.upress.virginia.edu/title/5039">forestall any boorish posturing</a>.</p>
<p>In this respect, history has proven the founders’ expectations misplaced. These men, slave owners though they were, valued civility as at once liberating for the subject, and as an effective strategy of survival for the community at large. But “<a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-11404">the free cultivation of Letters</a>,” as George Washington hoped, “the unbounded extension of Commerce, the progressive refinement of Manners, the growing liberality of sentiment,” did not come about.</p>
<p>Joe Biden, once president, will not reverse the course of history. He cannot restore an age of refinement and politeness. He is not the vaccine. But in the eyes of many, he can be at least an <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/opinion/joe-biden-humility.html">antidote</a> against Trump’s lack of grace.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/149878/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maurizio Valsania does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>‘Mind your manners’ isn’t just something your mother told you. Manners – and civility – are an essential component of how things get done in government, and the Founding Fathers knew it.Maurizio Valsania, Professor of American History, Università di TorinoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1495032020-11-04T17:17:16Z2020-11-04T17:17:16ZHistory tells us that a contested election won’t destroy American democracy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367541/original/file-20201104-13-2rvzgy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=13%2C67%2C4479%2C2593&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Trump falsely declaring a win in the early hours of Nov. 4, 2020, the day after the US election, as ballot counting continued in Pennsylvania and other battleground states.
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-donald-trump-flanked-by-karen-pence-us-vice-news-photo/1229450008?adppopup=true">Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>With the outcome of the 2020 presidential election still <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/11/03/us/trump-biden-election">hanging on the uncounted votes in a handful of battleground states</a>, President Donald Trump has already prematurely declared <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/03/us/elections/trump-attacking-the-democratic-process-falsely-says-he-won.html">victory and said he will take the election fight to the Supreme Court</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/03/us/elections/trump-attacking-the-democratic-process-falsely-says-he-won.html">Joe Biden said that</a> “It’s not my place or Donald Trump’s place to declare who has won this election,” Mr. Biden said. “That’s the decision of the American people.”</p>
<p>This situation compounded the <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/10/18535212/trump-2020-pelosi-lose-leave-office">worry felt by some even before the election</a> that a contested election would severely undermine faith in American democracy.</p>
<p>Yet the United States has a long history of such contested elections. With one exception, they have not badly damaged the American political system.</p>
<p>That contested 1860 election – which sparked the Civil War – happened in a unique context. As a political scientist who studies elections, I believe that, should President Trump – or less likely, Joe Biden – contest the results of the November election, American democracy will survive.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367543/original/file-20201104-17-9mzxs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Biden speaking at a lectern next to his wife, who wears a face mask" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367543/original/file-20201104-17-9mzxs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367543/original/file-20201104-17-9mzxs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367543/original/file-20201104-17-9mzxs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367543/original/file-20201104-17-9mzxs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367543/original/file-20201104-17-9mzxs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367543/original/file-20201104-17-9mzxs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367543/original/file-20201104-17-9mzxs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Biden projected confidence but urged patience in a speech late on election night, Wilmington, Delaware, Nov. 4, 2020.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/democratic-presidential-nominee-joe-biden-speaks-at-a-drive-news-photo/1283808822?adppopup=true">Win McNamee/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Legitimacy and peaceful transitions</h2>
<p>Most contested presidential elections have not posed <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3234268?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents">threats to the legitimacy</a> of government. </p>
<p>Legitimacy, or the collective acknowledgment that government has a right to rule, is essential to a democracy. In a legitimate system, unpopular policies are largely accepted because citizens believe that government has the right to make them. For example, a citizen may despise taxes but <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209338797">still admit that they are lawful</a>. Illegitimate systems, which are not supported by citizens, can collapse or descend into revolution. </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2013.09.006">In democracies, elections</a> generate legitimacy because citizens contribute to the selection of leadership.</p>
<p>In the past, contested elections have not badly damaged the fabric of democracy because the rules for handling such disputes exist and have been followed. While politicians and citizens alike have howled about the unfairness of loss, they accepted these losses. </p>
<h2>Contested elections and continuity</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.270towin.com/1800_Election/">In 1800</a>, both Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr received the same number of votes in the Electoral College. Because no candidate won a clear majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-ii">followed the Constitution</a> and convened a special session to resolve the impasse by a vote. It took 36 ballots to give Jefferson the victory, which was widely accepted. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.270towin.com/1824_Election/">In 1824</a>, Andrew Jackson won a plurality of the popular and electoral vote against John Quincy Adams and two other candidates, but failed to win the necessary majority in the Electoral College. The House, again following the procedure set in the Constitution, <a href="https://theconversation.com/stolen-elections-open-wounds-that-may-never-heal-128613">selected Adams as the winner over Jackson</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr.117.2.387">The 1876</a> election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden was contested because several Southern states failed to clearly certify a winner. This was resolved through inter-party negotiation conducted by an Electoral Commission established by Congress. While Hayes would become president, concessions were given to the South that effectively ended Reconstruction.</p>
<p>The contest between Democrat John F. Kennedy and Republican Richard Nixon in 1960 <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-drama-behind-president-kennedys-1960-election-win/">was rife with allegations of voter fraud</a>, and Nixon supporters pressed for aggressive recounts in many states. In the end, Nixon begrudgingly accepted the decision rather than drag the country through civil discord during the intense U.S.-Soviet tensions of the <a href="https://www.toledoblade.com/Print-Furniture/2000/11/10/Nixon-said-no-to-recount-in-1960-outcome/stories/200011100020">Cold War</a>. </p>
<p>Finally, in 2000, GOP candidate George W. Bush and Democratic candidate Al Gore tangled over disputed ballots in Florida. The Supreme Court terminated a recount effort and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq5YdkYSyEE">Gore publicly conceded</a>, recognizing the legitimacy of Bush’s victory by saying, “While I strongly disagree with the Court’s decision, I accept it.”</p>
<p>In each case, the losing side was unhappy with the result of the election. But in each case, the loser accepted the legally derived result, and the American democratic political system persisted. </p>
<h2>The system collapses</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.270towin.com/1860_Election/">election of 1860</a> was a different story. </p>
<p>After Abraham Lincoln defeated three other candidates, Southern states simply refused to accept the results. They viewed the selection of a president who would not protect slavery as illegitimate and ignored the election’s results. </p>
<p>It was only through the profoundly bloody Civil War that the United States remained intact. The dispute over the legitimacy of this election, based in fundamental differences between the North and South, cost <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/science/civil-war-toll-up-by-20-percent-in-new-estimate.html">600,000 American lives</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/355383/original/file-20200828-19-1r15eeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Dead Confederate soldiers lying on the ground in Gettysburg." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/355383/original/file-20200828-19-1r15eeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/355383/original/file-20200828-19-1r15eeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/355383/original/file-20200828-19-1r15eeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/355383/original/file-20200828-19-1r15eeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/355383/original/file-20200828-19-1r15eeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/355383/original/file-20200828-19-1r15eeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/355383/original/file-20200828-19-1r15eeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The contested 1860 presidential election led to the Civil War, where 600,000 died, including these Confederate soldiers at in Gettysburg’s ‘the devil’s den,’ June or July 1863.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.loc.gov/resource/cwp.4a39439/">Alexander Gardner, photographer/Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>What is the difference between the political collapse of 1860 and the continuity of other contested elections? In all cases, citizens were politically divided and elections were hotly contested. </p>
<p>What makes 1860 stand out so clearly is that the country <a href="https://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_united_states_history/150/">was divided over the moral question of slavery</a>, and this division followed geographic lines that enabled a revolution to form. Further, the Confederacy was reasonably unified <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html">across class lines</a>. </p>
<p>While the America of today is certainly divided, the distribution of political beliefs is far more <a href="https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1625.html">dispersed and complex</a> than the ideological cohesion of the Confederacy. </p>
<p>[<em>Insight, in your inbox each day.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=insight">You can get it with The Conversation’s email newsletter</a>.]</p>
<h2>Rule of law</h2>
<p>History suggests, then, that even if Trump or Biden contest the election, the results would not be catastrophic. </p>
<p>The Constitution is clear on what would happen: First, the president cannot simply declare an election invalid. Second, voting irregularities could be investigated by the states, who are responsible for managing the integrity of their <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/750">electoral processes</a>. This seems unlikely to change any reported results, as voter fraud is <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-vote-by-mail-explainer/explainer-fraud-is-rare-in-us-mail-in-voting-here-are-the-methods-that-prevent-it-idUSKBN2482SA">extraordinarily rare</a>. </p>
<p>The next step could be an appeal to the Supreme Court or suits against the states. To overturn any state’s initial selection, evidence of a miscount or voter fraud would have to be strongly established. </p>
<p>If these attempts to contest the election fail, on <a href="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/inaugurationconstit.html">Inauguration Day</a>, the elected president would lawfully assume the office. Any remaining ongoing contestation would be moot after this point, as the president would have full legal authority to exercise the powers of his office, and could not be removed short of impeachment. </p>
<p>While the result of the 2020 election is sure to make many citizens unhappy, I believe rule of law will endure. The powerful historical, social and geographic forces that produced the total failure of 1860 simply are not present.</p>
<p><em>This is an updated version <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-trump-refuses-to-accept-defeat-in-november-the-republic-will-survive-intact-as-it-has-5-out-of-6-times-in-the-past-144843">of a story originally published</a> on September 1, 2020.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/149503/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexander Cohen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Five of the six disputed presidential elections in US history were resolved and the country moved on – but one ended in civil war. What will happen if the 2020 election is contested?Alexander Cohen, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Clarkson UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1483042020-10-19T13:36:36Z2020-10-19T13:36:36Z20/20 vision needed in 2020: How this U.S. election compares to other tumultuous votes<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/364015/original/file-20201016-17-1u4crmp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=62%2C26%2C5865%2C2955&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">This combination of Sept. 29, 2020, file photos show President Donald Trump, left, and former Vice President Joe Biden during the first presidential debate in Cleveland, Ohio. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Sharp-eyed 20/20 vision has been hard to maintain in the maelstrom of 2020, with daily fears and passions often clouding analysis. </p>
<p>Here’s one helpful tool on one high-profile event: As the American presidential campaign concludes, a measure of depth and context can be applied to the chaos by comparing the Donald Trump-Joe Biden battle to tumultuous U.S. elections of the past.</p>
<p>Americans have been whiplashed by crises in 2020. The COVID-19 cyclone alone has been traumatic: There have been well over 200,000 deaths (and counting), staggering <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/ten-facts-about-covid-19-and-the-u-s-economy/">economic damage</a>, including layoffs and business failures, and mental health challenges (for example, <a href="https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-09/issue-brief-increases-in-opioid-related-overdose.pdf">a record number of deadly opioid overdoses</a>), to name just a handful of the pandemic-fuelled tribulations.</p>
<p>Add in compounding stresses like flareups in <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/politics/race-relations-2020-issue-poll-george-floyd/index.html">racial tensions</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/23/donald-trump-portland-oregon-mayor-ted-wheeler-teargas-federal-agents">urban protests</a> against systemic racism. Wrap everything up in an election year that never promised calm waters thanks to Trump’s voracious appetite for provocation on immigration, taxes, health care and a host of other issues. </p>
<p>The hypnotic grasp of the daily news cycle has been further intensified by the president’s behaviour since his positive COVID-19 diagnosis. The coronavirus has <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-circle-covid-1.5749693">invaded the White House</a> and its occupants have had no qualms about sharing it. </p>
<p>Given Trump’s simultaneous refusal to pledge he’ll accept the results of the election, it’s tempting to see a <em>Game of Thrones</em>-like scenario unfolding. For those familiar with the television version of the George R.R. Martin saga, the Sept. 26 Rose Garden celebration of Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination became something of <a href="https://ew.com/recap/game-of-thrones-recap-red-wedding-castamere/">a Red Wedding moment</a> when a horde of participants were felled, at least temporarily, by COVID-19. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1312373023077543937"}"></div></p>
<p>Fast forward to a Nov. 3 Battle of Winterfell, with the president, his “stand by” Proud Boys, and loyal Republican “white walkers” gearing up for combat.</p>
<h2>Americans have been here before</h2>
<p>And yet for all the current chaos, the United States has experienced moments like this before — and an awareness of this history could help put 2020 into perspective.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/jqadams/campaigns-and-elections">1824 election</a> is an early example of problematic volatility in American political history. There were four major candidates, all self-identified as members of a crumbling Democratic-Republican Party. One nominee was disabled by a stroke, but remained in the race — and the election was thrown into the House of Representatives when no candidate received a majority in the Electoral College. </p>
<p>Matters then went from bad to worse. Andrew Jackson, leading strongly in the popular vote, was denied victory when Henry Clay (who had placed fourth in the popular vote) threw his support to John Quincy Adams. Jackson supporters saw a “corrupt bargain” as Adams then named “Judas” Clay as his secretary of state.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="Portraits of Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/364014/original/file-20201016-17-epekfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/364014/original/file-20201016-17-epekfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/364014/original/file-20201016-17-epekfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/364014/original/file-20201016-17-epekfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/364014/original/file-20201016-17-epekfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/364014/original/file-20201016-17-epekfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/364014/original/file-20201016-17-epekfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The 1824 election showdown between Andrew Jackson (left) and John Quincy Adams (right) was notoriously nasty and chaotic.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Creative Commons)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Vitriolic campaigning never let up on the road to the 1828 election. Jackson was castigated as a drunk adulterer married to a bigamist; Adams was denounced as an effete “academician” wearing silk underwear. Adams’ wife was also accused of being born out of wedlock.</p>
<h2>1860’s election spurred a war</h2>
<p>Adams’ presidency was often hamstrung by 1824’s fallout. In 1860, the U.S. election had exponentially more disastrous results. Bad went not just to worse, but to hell. </p>
<p>The presidential contest was troubled enough: Four major candidates (again) as a disbanded Democratic convention in Charleston, S.C., gave way to an imploding second try in Baltimore. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="A portrait of Abraham Lincoln" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/364025/original/file-20201016-19-1oykhp3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/364025/original/file-20201016-19-1oykhp3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=710&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/364025/original/file-20201016-19-1oykhp3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=710&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/364025/original/file-20201016-19-1oykhp3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=710&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/364025/original/file-20201016-19-1oykhp3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=893&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/364025/original/file-20201016-19-1oykhp3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=893&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/364025/original/file-20201016-19-1oykhp3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=893&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans won the 1860 election, resulting in the Civil War.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Library of Congress)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans won, but the U.S. Civil War was the result as southern states moved to secede. The devastation of the four-year struggle was unparalleled in American experience — and remains so. “<a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/oliver-wendell-holmes-jr-a-life-in-war-law-ideas-stephen-budiansky-book-review/">Immense the butcher’s bill has been</a>,” wrote young Lieut. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., his thoughts echoed by many others as the death toll climbed to 750,000.</p>
<p>Lincoln’s election, of course, was not the root cause of the Civil War — though he was denounced as “<a href="https://nation.time.com/2012/10/25/lincoln-to-the-rescue/3/">that damned long-armed ape</a>” in some quarters. The 1860 vote, on the contrary, provides an example of the way a troubled election, then and now, can be a symptom of deeper volatility; in this case, a symbol of the profound tensions emanating from issues like slavery and sectional struggles over government policies for economic development. </p>
<h2>1968: Richard Nixon re-emerges</h2>
<p>So does the election of 1968 — another event that unfolded as <a href="https://time.com/5071384/1968-historic-lessons-for-2018/">volcanic tremors shook American society</a>. Protests spurred by the Vietnam War drove Lyndon Johnson into retirement; there were riots in more than 100 cities amid the civil rights movement; the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. stoked outrage, grief and anxiety.</p>
<p>At the Democratic convention in Chicago, violent street clashes shocked television viewers. A “police riot” was widely condemned, with Mayor Richard Daley’s Windy City strong-arm approach contrasting half-absurdly, half-horrifyingly with nominee Hubert Humphrey’s call for a “<a href="https://www.mprnews.org/story/2016/07/26/mpr-documentary-the-politics-of-joy-a-radio-remembrance-of-hubert-humphrey">politics of joy</a>.” </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3XzdltsTfvE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A look at the police violence against anti-war protesters at the Democratic convention in 1968, courtesy of Democracy Now.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Richard Nixon and the Republicans forged a winning campaign strategy that paired “law and order” (the very words back in play in 2020) with a <a href="https://www.csmonitor.com/1997/1209/120997.opin.column.1.html">“secret plan” to end the Vietnam ordeal</a>.</p>
<p>That was accompanied by a “<a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/4129605?seq=1">southern strategy</a>” designed to bring white voters into the GOP (an approach that remains a party mainstay).</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Richard Nixon waves from the steps of a helicopter." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/364031/original/file-20201016-13-pm65g1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/364031/original/file-20201016-13-pm65g1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/364031/original/file-20201016-13-pm65g1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/364031/original/file-20201016-13-pm65g1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/364031/original/file-20201016-13-pm65g1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/364031/original/file-20201016-13-pm65g1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/364031/original/file-20201016-13-pm65g1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In this Aug. 9, 1974, photo, President Richard Nixon waves goodbye from the steps of his helicopter outside the White House, after he gave a farewell address to members of the White House staff after announcing his resignation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Chick Harrity)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There have been other volatile elections: 1800, 1912, 1952, 2000 and 2016, for example. Their disruptive tensions have taken their toll. Tooth-and-nail presidential battles have sometimes been followed by terrible consequences — including the horrors of the Civil War (and Iraq) and the resistance to social and economic reforms that regularly tarnished the country’s post-Depression and <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/1960s/great-society">post-Great Society history.</a></p>
<h2>The heavy weight of the past</h2>
<p>Of equal importance, especially as the challenges of 2020 are contemplated, is the sheer burdensome weight of the past. Weaknesses in political processes are as old as the U.S. Constitution itself (including the periodic failure of <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/us-government/checks-and-balances#:%7E:text=Checks%20and%20balances%20operate%20throughout,to%20the%20other%20two%20branches.&text=Within%20the%20legislative%20branch%2C%20each,of%20power%20by%20the%20other.">“checks and balances”</a> or the monkey wrenches lurking in the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/upshot/electoral-college-votes-states.html">Electoral College</a>). </p>
<p>The racism that poisoned the atmosphere in 1860 has remained tragically potent ever since — just as it was before the Civil War, of course. It’s impossible to pinpoint the origins of other inequities still plaguing American society, straining the safety and limiting the opportunities of women, people of colour, the poor, LGBTQ+ citizens and the disabled. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/364089/original/file-20201018-17-fuqk5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Obama smiles with his right hand raised as he takes the oath of office at his inauguration." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/364089/original/file-20201018-17-fuqk5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/364089/original/file-20201018-17-fuqk5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/364089/original/file-20201018-17-fuqk5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/364089/original/file-20201018-17-fuqk5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/364089/original/file-20201018-17-fuqk5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/364089/original/file-20201018-17-fuqk5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/364089/original/file-20201018-17-fuqk5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Barack Obama takes the oath of office at his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2009.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Master Sgt. Cecilio Ricardo, U.S. Air Force/Flickr)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Whatever the woeful permutations of 2020 to date, this troubled election is again serving as a symptom and a symbol of a troubled society. Barack Obama was elected <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/obama-u-s-presidential-win-sent-a-message-to-the-world-1.695214">in 2008 on a wave of “hope and change,”</a> and yet amid the tumult 2020, that optimism seems a distant memory. Whatever this year’s immediate outcomes, history suggests anything but a quick resolution to deeply rooted problems.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/148304/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ronald W. Pruessen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The U.S. presidential election is again serving as a symptom and a symbol of a troubled society. Whatever the outcome, history suggests anything but a quick resolution to deeply rooted problems.Ronald W. Pruessen, Professor of History, University of TorontoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1453682020-09-08T19:19:01Z2020-09-08T19:19:01ZGeorge Washington was silent, but Trump tweets regularly – running for president has changed over the years<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356143/original/file-20200902-20-bc7vpz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5008%2C3341&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">President Donald Trump works on a smartphone, a common tool in his political communication efforts.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Virus-Outbreak-Trump/c0350128f27e4168864d2ccb0e6b3cd7/17/0">AP Photo/Alex Brandon</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Presidential campaigns haven’t always looked the way they do in 2020 – or the way they did in 2016, before the coronavirus pandemic changed everything about <a href="https://theconversation.com/pandemic-alters-political-conventions-which-have-always-changed-with-the-times-141663">conventions</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/amid-pandemic-campaigning-turns-to-the-internet-137745">political outreach</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-supreme-court-made-wisconsin-vote-during-the-coronavirus-crisis-136102">voting</a>.</p>
<p>The requirements have stayed the same – just about any <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen">natural-born citizen</a> <a href="https://www.constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-does-a-presidential-candidate-need-to-be-35-years-old-anyway/">over the age of 35</a> can run for president. But who decides who runs has changed substantially. So has campaigning.</p>
<p>Nowadays, people have to register as official candidates for president after they have <a href="https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/registering-candidate/house-senate-president-candidate-registration/">raised US$5,000 toward the effort</a>. At that point, the Federal Election Commission asks them to declare their political party affiliation, which they can choose even if the party leadership <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html">doesn’t want that person to run</a>.</p>
<p>Party elites are still powerful, but in past eras, they were much more so.</p>
<h2>The era of statesmen</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356147/original/file-20200902-20-1n7zn1o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="George Washington in his military uniform" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356147/original/file-20200902-20-1n7zn1o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356147/original/file-20200902-20-1n7zn1o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=630&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356147/original/file-20200902-20-1n7zn1o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=630&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356147/original/file-20200902-20-1n7zn1o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=630&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356147/original/file-20200902-20-1n7zn1o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=792&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356147/original/file-20200902-20-1n7zn1o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=792&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356147/original/file-20200902-20-1n7zn1o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=792&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">George Washington knew others wanted him to be president.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:George_Washington_After_the_Battle_of_Princeton_-_Charles_Willson_Peale_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_(29746887513).jpg">Charles Willson Peale painting via Cleveland Museum of Art</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When creating the presidency during the Constitutional Convention, many of the country’s founders saw George Washington as the ideal person to hold the office. Despite this consensus, they had a peculiar problem. </p>
<p>They thought anyone who sought the votes of the people wanted power for the wrong reasons and would use that power to undermine the government. For that reason, even Washington himself maintained a “guarded silence” on the topic to avoid appearing “<a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-05-02-0038">vain-glorious</a>,” admitting only privately that he would serve as the nation’s first president if he was called upon. </p>
<p>When combined with the very real fear that “those men who have overturned the liberties of republics” started “their career by <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed01.asp">paying an obsequious court to the people</a>,” early candidates knew they had to avoid looking too eager for power. </p>
<p>Thomas Jefferson took this position to an extreme when he <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/46096/american-sphinx-by-joseph-j-ellis/">vowed never to serve in public office again</a> after being the new nation’s first secretary of state. He discovered he would be on the ballot in 1796 only when his close friend James Madison wrote a letter claiming he “<a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-15-02-0405">ought to be preparing</a>” himself for the presidential nomination. Jefferson came in second that year, becoming the vice president; he won the top job in 1800.</p>
<p>Until 1824, candidates remained reserved about campaigning for themselves. That year, candidate Andrew Jackson stepped forward, promising to <a href="https://theconversation.com/stolen-elections-open-wounds-that-may-never-heal-128613">govern for the common man rather than the party elites</a> who had controlled Washington for too long. The turbulence in the lead-up to, during and after the Civil War left elections more disorganized until the late 19th century, when the era of the machine began. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356150/original/file-20200902-14-oein2s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Three men at a table stacked with papers" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356150/original/file-20200902-14-oein2s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356150/original/file-20200902-14-oein2s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356150/original/file-20200902-14-oein2s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356150/original/file-20200902-14-oein2s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356150/original/file-20200902-14-oein2s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356150/original/file-20200902-14-oein2s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356150/original/file-20200902-14-oein2s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Warren Harding, center, was reputedly picked to be the 1920 Republican presidential candidate by a group of party elites meeting in a ‘smoke-filled room.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/chairman-of-the-republican-national-committee-will-h-hays-news-photo/501167655">FPG/Keystone View Company/Archive Photos/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The rise of the political machine</h2>
<p>After Reconstruction ended in 1877, American politics was a dirty business. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F000271623316900104">Party elites sat in smoke-filled rooms</a> deciding whom they would support as a candidate and how they would stop others from winning the election. </p>
<p>Once in office, members of both parties used their position to provide others with patronage jobs and expected kickbacks as thanks. <a href="https://global.oup.com/ushe/product/gotham-9780195140491?cc=us&lang=en&">Party bosses usually maintained control</a> over those in power, even demanding a say in who served in the positions that were appointed by elected officials.</p>
<p>As New York City’s police commissioner and later governor of New York state, Theodore Roosevelt resisted the system so much that an <a href="https://www.worldcat.org/title/boss-platt-and-his-new-york-machine-a-study-of-the-political-leadership-of-thomas-c-platt-theodore-roosevelt-and-others/oclc/75290">aggravated party boss strong-armed members</a> of the Republican Party into offering the ambitious politician the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/03/a-brief-history-of-vice-presidents-bemoaning-the-vice-presidency/">notoriously powerless post of vice president</a>. The scheming backfired, however, when President William McKinley was assassinated in 1901. Roosevelt became president and instituted a variety of progressive reforms, like <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00011">hiring for merit rather than favoritism</a>, some of which helped diminish the power of party bosses.</p>
<p>By the 1920s, candidates had an even easier way to sidestep the party elites: the invention of the radio. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356151/original/file-20200902-20-17xafiv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Franklin Roosevelt at a desk with a paper and a microphone" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356151/original/file-20200902-20-17xafiv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356151/original/file-20200902-20-17xafiv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=779&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356151/original/file-20200902-20-17xafiv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=779&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356151/original/file-20200902-20-17xafiv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=779&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356151/original/file-20200902-20-17xafiv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=979&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356151/original/file-20200902-20-17xafiv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=979&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356151/original/file-20200902-20-17xafiv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=979&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Franklin Roosevelt used the radio to reach the American people directly.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Watchf-AP-A-DC-USA-APHS468672-FDR-Radio-Appeal/bc99970464444be18346225734999ecf/4/0">AP Photo/Gil Friedberg</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The first communication revolution</h2>
<p>The invention of the radio soon led to a watershed moment for democratization. Through this medium, presidents could speak directly to the citizens, creating a more visceral connection between the country’s leader and its people. </p>
<p>Eager for popular content, broadcasters gained access to nominating conventions and sold radios by <a href="https://psmag.com/news/airwaves-1924-the-first-presidential-campaign-over-radio-47615">claiming the people could get an inside look</a> at the process. With the addition of television in the early 1950s, <a href="https://time.com/4471657/political-tv-ads-history/">candidates started hiring advertisers</a> to determine how to “sell” themselves directly to the people, rather than going through the party. </p>
<p>By 1968, when the Democratic Party ignored the results of the primaries and nominated Hubert Humphrey for president, <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/1960s/1968-democratic-convention">the rioting in Chicago reached a boiling point</a>, leading to reforms. The primary elections became more influential, and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/democratic-republican-parties-both-play-favorites-when-allotting-convention-delegates-to-states-143963">elites lost more of their power</a>. In 1976, however, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/jimmy-carter-iowa-caucuses/426729/">Jimmy Carter’s surprising win in Iowa</a> caused Democrats to claw back some control by <a href="https://inthesetimes.com/features/superdelegate-interview-elaine-kamarck.html">creating superdelegates</a>, individuals selected by the party who could give their vote to a candidate and potentially overcome the results of the primaries. These efforts worked relatively well – until the creation of social media. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356152/original/file-20200902-22-1bzfa8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton stand next to each other" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356152/original/file-20200902-22-1bzfa8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356152/original/file-20200902-22-1bzfa8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356152/original/file-20200902-22-1bzfa8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356152/original/file-20200902-22-1bzfa8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356152/original/file-20200902-22-1bzfa8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=630&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356152/original/file-20200902-22-1bzfa8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=630&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356152/original/file-20200902-22-1bzfa8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=630&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In the 2008 Democratic primary, Barack Obama used online media to mobilize supporters and win the nomination over Hillary Clinton.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Campaign-2016-Debate-Clinton-s-Experience/532a7608dfae402c8c9716764c7bfd17/1/0">AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, Pool</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The second communication revolution</h2>
<p>During the 2008 Democratic primary, almost everyone assumed Hillary Clinton’s time had come. Political players and pundits alike expected people would vote accordingly; very few took Barack Obama’s candidacy seriously. They thought the self-proclaimed “<a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5537216/ns/politics/t/skinny-kid-funny-name-rallies-democrats/">skinny kid with a funny name</a>” would learn the ropes and maybe get a Cabinet post. </p>
<p>Instead, Obama revolutionized campaigning by using the “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/business/media/10carr.html">tremendous communication capacity</a>” of social media to spread his message and recruit volunteers. Obama harnessed the energy created by platforms designed to bring “friends” together and allow them to share their interests among anyone in their network. When coupled with his ability to bring a crowd to its feet – <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/chris-matthews-i-felt-thi_n_86449">and a very friendly media</a> – Clinton and the party backing her did not stand a chance: The people wanted <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/memorable-presidential-campaign-slogans-and-why-they-worked">hope and change</a>.</p>
<p>The people surprised the elites once again in 2016. Donald Trump offered a <a href="https://www.iowastatedaily.com/election2012/donald-trump-a-political-outsiders-dream-to-make-america-great-again/article_aedfc2aa-98dd-11e6-b217-37e46a46ef9b.html">unique vision of a country in disrepair</a> that <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trumps-message-of-doom-and-despair-in-america/2016/07/21/8afe4cae-3f22-11e6-80bc-d06711fd2125_story.html">needed an outsider to come in</a> and make America great again. </p>
<p>Republican operators like <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/the-final-humiliation-of-reince-priebus/535368/">Reince Priebus</a> and <a href="https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/07/why-paul-ryan-wont-accept-or-dismiss-donald-trump-000159/">Paul Ryan</a> did not take him seriously, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-media-didnt-want-to-believe-trump-could-win-so-they-looked-the-other-way/2016/11/09/d2ea1436-a623-11e6-8042-f4d111c862d1_story.html">nor did the media</a>. Many <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/27/hillary-clinton-will-win-what-kind-of-president-white-house-obama">believed Clinton would beat him</a> handily.</p>
<p>Once again, elites did not realize the power of social media – this time to divide the country. The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/world/asia/facebook-extremism.html">powerful algorithms</a> used by various media platforms <a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/radical-ideas-social-media-algorithms/">dramatically increased the amount of radical content</a> people saw. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"822502450007515137"}"></div></p>
<p>Simultaneously, Donald Trump fed the feeling of injustice among some in the country, claiming he would work for the “<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/822502450007515137">forgotten men and women</a>.” The sustained feeling of injustice among many groups and the violent actions deployed to address them remains an element of the current election, where once again a brash outsider (who is also the incumbent) battles a respected party elder in good standing. </p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>Each president leaves a permanent mark on the office. The last two presidents have fully capitalized on the power of the internet to connect them to the people. How future presidents will use these tools, and whatever new tools are yet to come, is difficult to predict. It is easy to see how mediums like Twitter and YouTube can maintain a connection and can convey small pieces of information. </p>
<p>It is also possible to see the value in creating a community through social media to help broadcast a political message through networks of supporters and their friends. It is difficult, however, to think back upon the <a href="https://medium.com/@rickbrownell/great-presidential-speeches-that-moved-a-nation-e0de4c17426e">great speeches of America’s past presidents</a> and see how they could repackage those stirring moments into 280 characters.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/145368/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sarah Burns is a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Humane Studies. </span></em></p>The technical qualifications for presidential candidates are the same, but how people seek the nation’s highest office has shifted over the centuries.Sarah Burns, Associate Professor of Political Science, Rochester Institute of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1448432020-09-01T12:28:19Z2020-09-01T12:28:19ZIf Trump refuses to accept defeat in November, the republic will survive intact, as it has 5 out of 6 times in the past<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/355378/original/file-20200828-16-18t7cmf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=20%2C20%2C2773%2C2036&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Trump has refused to say he will accept the outcome of the upcoming election.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-donald-trump-speaks-during-a-news-conference-in-news-photo/1262801830?adppopup=true">Alex Wong/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>During the 2016 presidential campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/debate-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-230003">refused to promise</a> to accept the results of the election. Likewise, in 2020, his continued assault on the reliability and legitimacy of mail-in voting has laid the groundwork for <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-cant-delay-the-election-but-he-can-try-to-delegitimise-it-143747">challenging a loss</a> on the basis of voter fraud. He has also refused to promise to observe the <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-foreshadows-that-he-could-refuse-to-accept-the-results-of-the-2020-election-if-he-loses/ar-BB16VTrO**">2020 results</a>.</p>
<p>This has led <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/10/18535212/trump-2020-pelosi-lose-leave-office">some to worry</a> that a contested election would severely undermine faith in American democracy.</p>
<p>Yet the United States has a long history of such contested elections. With one exception, they have not badly damaged the American political system.</p>
<p>That contested 1860 election – which sparked the Civil War – happened in a unique context. As a political scientist who studies elections, I believe that, should President Trump – or less likely, Joe Biden – contest the results of the November election, American democracy will survive.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/355379/original/file-20200828-16-1nbcsgq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Joe Biden." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/355379/original/file-20200828-16-1nbcsgq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/355379/original/file-20200828-16-1nbcsgq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/355379/original/file-20200828-16-1nbcsgq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/355379/original/file-20200828-16-1nbcsgq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/355379/original/file-20200828-16-1nbcsgq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/355379/original/file-20200828-16-1nbcsgq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/355379/original/file-20200828-16-1nbcsgq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/former-vice-president-and-democratic-presidential-nominee-news-photo/1228133355?adppopup=true">Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Legitimacy and peaceful transitions</h2>
<p>Most contested presidential elections have not posed threats to the <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3234268?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents">legitimacy</a> of government. </p>
<p>Legitimacy, or the collective acknowledgment that government has a right to rule, is essential to a democracy. In a legitimate system, unpopular policies are largely accepted because citizens believe that government has the right to make them. For example, a citizen may despise taxes but <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209338797">still admit that they are lawful</a>. Illegitimate systems, which are not supported by citizens, can collapse or descend into revolution. </p>
<p>In democracies, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2013.09.006">elections</a> generate legitimacy because citizens contribute to the selection of leadership.</p>
<p>In the past, contested elections have not badly damaged the fabric of democracy because the rules for handling such disputes exist and have been followed. While politicians and citizens alike have howled about the unfairness of loss, they accepted these losses. </p>
<h2>Contested elections and continuity</h2>
<p>In <a href="https://www.270towin.com/1800_Election/">1800</a>, both Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr received the same number of votes in the Electoral College. Because no candidate won a clear majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-ii">followed the Constitution</a> and convened a special session to resolve the impasse by a vote. It took 36 ballots to give Jefferson the victory, which was widely accepted. </p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.270towin.com/1824_Election/">1824</a>, Andrew Jackson won a plurality of the popular and electoral vote against John Quincy Adams and two other candidates, but failed to win the necessary majority in the Electoral College. The House, again following the procedure set in the Constitution, <a href="https://theconversation.com/stolen-elections-open-wounds-that-may-never-heal-128613">selected Adams as the winner over Jackson</a>.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr.117.2.387">1876</a> election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden was contested because several Southern states failed to clearly certify a winner. This was resolved through inter-party negotiation conducted by an Electoral Commission established by Congress. While Hayes would become president, concessions were given to the South that effectively ended Reconstruction.</p>
<p>The contest between Democrat John F. Kennedy and Republican Richard Nixon in 1960 <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-drama-behind-president-kennedys-1960-election-win/">was rife with allegations of voter fraud</a>, and Nixon supporters pressed for aggressive recounts in many states. In the end, Nixon begrudgingly accepted the decision rather than drag the country through civil discord during the intense U.S.-Soviet tensions of the <a href="https://www.toledoblade.com/Print-Furniture/2000/11/10/Nixon-said-no-to-recount-in-1960-outcome/stories/200011100020">Cold War</a>. </p>
<p>Finally, in 2000, GOP candidate George W. Bush and Democratic candidate Al Gore tangled over disputed ballots in Florida. The Supreme Court terminated a recount effort and Gore publicly <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq5YdkYSyEE">conceded</a>, recognizing the legitimacy of Bush’s victory by saying, “While I strongly disagree with the Court’s decision, I accept it.”</p>
<p>In each case, the losing side was unhappy with the result of the election. But in each case, the loser accepted the legally derived result, and the American democratic political system persisted. </p>
<h2>The system collapses</h2>
<p>The election of <a href="https://www.270towin.com/1860_Election/">1860</a> was a different story. </p>
<p>After Abraham Lincoln defeated three other candidates, Southern states simply refused to accept the results. They viewed the selection of a president who would not protect slavery as illegitimate and ignored the election’s results. </p>
<p>It was only through the profoundly bloody Civil War that the United States remained intact. The dispute over the legitimacy of this election, based in fundamental differences between the North and South, cost <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/science/civil-war-toll-up-by-20-percent-in-new-estimate.html">600,000 American lives</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/355383/original/file-20200828-19-1r15eeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Dead Confederate soldiers lying on the ground in Gettysburg." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/355383/original/file-20200828-19-1r15eeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/355383/original/file-20200828-19-1r15eeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/355383/original/file-20200828-19-1r15eeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/355383/original/file-20200828-19-1r15eeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/355383/original/file-20200828-19-1r15eeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/355383/original/file-20200828-19-1r15eeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/355383/original/file-20200828-19-1r15eeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The contested 1860 presidential election led to the Civil War, where 600,000 died, including these Confederate soldiers at in Gettysburg’s ‘the devil’s den,’ June or July 1863.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.loc.gov/resource/cwp.4a39439/">Alexander Gardner, photographer/Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>What is the difference between the political collapse of 1860 and the continuity of other contested elections? In all cases, citizens were politically divided and elections were hotly contested. </p>
<p>What makes 1860 stand out so clearly is that the country <a href="https://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_united_states_history/150/">was divided over the moral question of slavery</a>, and this division followed geographic lines that enabled a revolution to form. Further, the Confederacy was reasonably unified <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html">across class lines</a>. </p>
<p>While the America of today is certainly divided, the distribution of political beliefs is far more <a href="https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1625.html">dispersed and complex</a> than the ideological cohesion of the Confederacy. </p>
<p>[<em>Insight, in your inbox each day.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=insight">You can get it with The Conversation’s email newsletter</a>.]</p>
<h2>Rule of law</h2>
<p>History suggests, then, that even if Trump or Biden contest the election, the results would not be catastrophic. </p>
<p>The Constitution is clear on what would happen: First, the president cannot simply declare an election invalid. Second, voting irregularities could be investigated by the states, who are responsible for managing the integrity of their electoral <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/750">processes</a>. This seems unlikely to change any reported results, as voter fraud is <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-vote-by-mail-explainer/explainer-fraud-is-rare-in-us-mail-in-voting-here-are-the-methods-that-prevent-it-idUSKBN2482SA">extraordinarily rare</a>. </p>
<p>The next step could be an appeal to the Supreme Court or suits against the states. To overturn any state’s initial selection, evidence of a miscount or voter fraud would have to be strongly established. </p>
<p>If these attempts to contest the election fail, on <a href="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/inaugurationconstit.html">Inauguration Day</a>, the elected president would lawfully assume the office. Any remaining ongoing contestation would be moot after this point, as the president would have full legal authority to exercise the powers of his office, and could not be removed short of impeachment. </p>
<p>While the result of the 2020 election is sure to make many citizens unhappy, I believe rule of law will endure. The powerful historical, social, and geographic forces that produced the total failure of 1860 simply are not present.</p>
<p><em>Correction: This story has been corrected to give the proper date for the contested election between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. It was in 1800.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/144843/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexander Cohen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Five of the six contested presidential elections in U.S. history were resolved and the country moved on – one ended in civil war. What will happen if the upcoming election is contested?Alexander Cohen, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Clarkson UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1445312020-08-26T12:23:24Z2020-08-26T12:23:24ZThe right to vote is not in the Constitution<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/354702/original/file-20200825-22-16e40vw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C0%2C5455%2C3645&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Voters in Nashville, Tennessee, faced long lines in March 2020.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/APTOPIXElection2020TennesseePrimary/c380e9918f264d63814aec1c8220650c/photo">AP Photo/Mark Humphrey</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you’re looking for the right to vote, you won’t find it in the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights.</p>
<p>Two of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-supreme-court-is-back-in-session-with-new-controversial-cases-that-stand-to-change-many-americans-lives-heres-what-to-expect-190819">most important cases</a> at the Supreme Court this year address voting rights, and both legal controversies focus on the right to vote. But rather than denials of the right to cast a ballot, they address the more subtle forms of manipulation grounded in how votes are counted. Underlying the public discussion of these election law controversies, and many others, is a misunderstanding about the Constitution: the assumption that the right to vote is clearly protected.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/moore-v-harper-2/">Moore v. Harper</a> questions the <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/justices-will-hear-case-that-tests-power-of-state-legislatures-to-set-rules-for-federal-elections/">constitutionality</a> of attempts to rein in <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-independent-state-legislature-doctrine-could-reverse-200-years-of-progress-and-take-power-away-from-the-people-186282">partisan gerrymandering</a>, manipulation of the geographic boundaries of electoral districts to advantage the party controlling the map. <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/merrill-v-milligan-2">Merrill v. Milligan</a> deals with <a href="https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-allows-states-to-use-unlawfully-gerrymandered-congressional-maps-in-the-2022-midterm-elections-182407">racial gerrymandering</a>, which changes electoral boundaries to <a href="https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/three-takeaways-merrill-v-milligan-oral-arguments/">advantage one race over another</a>.</p>
<p>The Bill of Rights recognizes the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment">core rights of citizens in a democracy</a>, including freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. It then recognizes several insurance policies against an abusive government that would attempt to limit these liberties: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment">weapons</a>; the privacy of <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/third_amendment">houses</a> and <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment">personal information</a>; <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment">protections</a> against <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment">false criminal prosecution</a> or <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/seventh_amendment">repressive civil trials</a>; and <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/eighth_amendment">limits on excessive punishments</a> by the government.</p>
<p>But the framers of the Constitution never mentioned a right to vote. They didn’t forget – they intentionally left it out. To put it most simply, the founders didn’t trust ordinary citizens to endorse the rights of others. </p>
<p>They were creating a radical experiment in self-government paired with the protection of individual rights that are often resented by the majority. As a result, they did not lay out an inherent right to vote because they feared rule by the masses would mean the destruction of – not better protection for – all the other rights the Constitution and Bill of Rights uphold. Instead, they highlighted other core rights over the vote, creating a tension that remains today.</p>
<h2>Relying on the elite to protect minority rights</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/294442/original/file-20190926-51429-1azrxng.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/294442/original/file-20190926-51429-1azrxng.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/294442/original/file-20190926-51429-1azrxng.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=733&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294442/original/file-20190926-51429-1azrxng.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=733&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294442/original/file-20190926-51429-1azrxng.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=733&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294442/original/file-20190926-51429-1azrxng.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=921&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294442/original/file-20190926-51429-1azrxng.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=921&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294442/original/file-20190926-51429-1azrxng.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=921&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">James Madison of Virginia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:James_Madison(cropped)(c).jpg">White House Historical Association/Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Many of the rights the founders enumerated protect small groups from the power of the majority – for instance, those who would say or publish unpopular statements, or practice unpopular religions, or hold more property than others. James Madison, a principal architect of the U.S. Constitution and the drafter of the Bill of Rights, was an intellectual and landowner who saw the two as strongly linked. </p>
<p>At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Madison expressed the prevailing view that “<a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_807.asp">the freeholders of the country would be the safest depositories of republican liberty</a>,” meaning only people who owned land debt-free, without mortgages, would be able to vote. The Constitution left voting rules to individual states, which had long-standing laws limiting the vote to those freeholders.</p>
<p>In the debates over the ratification of the Constitution, Madison trumpeted a benefit of the new system: the “<a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed63.asp">total exclusion of the people in their collective capacity</a>.” Even as the nation shifted toward broader inclusion in politics, Madison maintained his view that rights were fragile and ordinary people untrustworthy. In his 70s, he opposed the expansion of the franchise to nonlanded citizens when it was considered at Virginia’s Constitutional Convention in 1829, emphasizing that “<a href="https://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=FOEA-print-02-02-02-1924">the great danger</a> is that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the Minority.” </p>
<p>The founders believed that freedoms and rights would require the protection of an educated elite group of citizens, against an intolerant majority. They understood that protected rights and mass voting could be contradictory.</p>
<p>Scholarship in political science backs up many of the founders’ assessments. One of the field’s clear findings is that elites support the <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/on-the-conceptualization-and-measurement-of-political-tolerance/579D03FF1A6041C6DB3DD6CB1FBC98E1">protection of minority rights</a> far <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/193786?seq=1">more than ordinary citizens</a> do. Research has also shown that ordinary Americans are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08913819808443510">remarkably ignorant</a> of <a href="https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300072754/what-americans-know-about-politics-and-why-it-matters">public policies and politicians</a>, lacking even <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/09/15/public-ignorance-about-the-constitution/">basic political knowledge</a>. </p>
<h2>Is there a right to vote?</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/353690/original/file-20200819-42861-y7adp2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A painting of Andrew Jackson" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/353690/original/file-20200819-42861-y7adp2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/353690/original/file-20200819-42861-y7adp2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=728&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/353690/original/file-20200819-42861-y7adp2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=728&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/353690/original/file-20200819-42861-y7adp2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=728&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/353690/original/file-20200819-42861-y7adp2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=915&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/353690/original/file-20200819-42861-y7adp2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=915&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/353690/original/file-20200819-42861-y7adp2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=915&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Andrew Jackson of Tennessee.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Andrew_jackson_head.jpg">Ralph Eleaser Whiteside Earl/Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>What Americans think of as the right to vote doesn’t reside in the Constitution, but results from broad shifts in American public beliefs during the early 1800s. The new states that entered the union after the original 13 – beginning with Vermont, Kentucky and Tennessee – <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/evolution-of-suffrage-institutions-in-the-new-world/F7D4A2F6B807F84514340D1F2F084194">did not limit voting to property owners</a>. Many of the new state constitutions also explicitly recognized voting rights.</p>
<p>As the nation grew, the idea of universal white male suffrage – championed by the <a href="https://www.kqed.org/pop/62290/what-we-can-learn-about-trump-from-his-favorite-president-andrew-jackson">commoner-President</a> Andrew Jackson – became an article of popular faith, if not a constitutional right.</p>
<p>After the Civil War, the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxv">15th Amendment</a>, ratified in 1870, guaranteed that the right to vote would not be denied on account of race: If some white people could vote, so could similarly qualified nonwhite people. But that still didn’t recognize a right to vote – only the right of equal treatment. Similarly, the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxix">19th Amendment</a>, now more than 100 years old, banned voting discrimination on the basis of sex, but did not recognize an inherent right to vote.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/353681/original/file-20200819-42861-yb58zp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C21%2C4741%2C3129&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man stands at an outdoor voting booth." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/353681/original/file-20200819-42861-yb58zp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C21%2C4741%2C3129&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/353681/original/file-20200819-42861-yb58zp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/353681/original/file-20200819-42861-yb58zp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/353681/original/file-20200819-42861-yb58zp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/353681/original/file-20200819-42861-yb58zp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/353681/original/file-20200819-42861-yb58zp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/353681/original/file-20200819-42861-yb58zp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A voter casts a ballot at a mobile voting station in California in May 2020.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/USElection2020HouseCaliforniaSpecialElection/aa6802a99b304ff5a07d78a24f4571b8/photo">AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Debates about voting rights</h2>
<p>Today, the country remains engaged in a long-running debate about what counts as <a href="https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/28/the-missing-right-a-constitutional-right-to-vote/">voter suppression</a> versus what are <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/husted-v-philip-randolph-institute/">legitimate limits or regulations</a> on voting – like requiring voters to provide identification, barring felons from voting or <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/husted-v-philip-randolph-institute/">removing infrequent voters from the rolls</a>.</p>
<p>These disputes often invoke an incorrect assumption – that voting is a constitutional right protected from the nation’s birth. The national debate over representation and rights is the product of a long-run movement toward mass voting paired with the long-standing fear of its results.</p>
<p>The nation has evolved from being led by an elitist set of beliefs toward a much more universal and inclusive set of assumptions. But the founders’ fears are still coming true: Levels of support for the rights of <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/02/27/attitudes-toward-democratic-rights-and-institutions/pg_2020-02-27_global-democracy_01-8/">opposing parties</a> or <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/02/27/attitudes-toward-democratic-rights-and-institutions/pg_2020-02-27_global-democracy_01-5/">people of other religions</a> are strikingly weak in the U.S. as well as around the world. Many Americans support <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/01/30/survey-tepid-support-free-speech-among-students">their own rights</a> to free speech but want to <a href="https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter">suppress</a> the <a href="https://www.zogbyanalytics.com/news/951-the-zogby-poll-a-plurality-of-voters-support-cancel-culture-pluralities-of-republicans-and-very-conservative-voters-also-support-cancel-culture">speech of those</a> with whom <a href="https://www.zogbyanalytics.com/news/951-the-zogby-poll-a-plurality-of-voters-support-cancel-culture-pluralities-of-republicans-and-very-conservative-voters-also-support-cancel-culture">they disagree</a>. Americans may have come to believe in a universal vote, but that value does not come from the Constitution, which saw a different path to the protection of rights.</p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This is an updated version of an article originally published Aug. 26, 2020.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/144531/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Morgan Marietta does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The framers of the Constitution never mentioned a right to vote. They didn’t forget. They intentionally left it out.Morgan Marietta, Professor of Political Science, UMass LowellLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1438872020-08-06T12:33:23Z2020-08-06T12:33:23Z1864 elections went on during the Civil War – even though Lincoln thought it would be a disaster for himself and the Republican Party<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/351401/original/file-20200805-20-m2d7k5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C2%2C844%2C592&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Soldiers and African American workers standing near caskets and dead bodies covered with cloths during Grant's Overland Campaign. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.loc.gov/item/2019633431/">Matthew Brady/Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The outlook was not promising in 1864 for President Abraham Lincoln’s reelection. </p>
<p>Hundreds of thousands of Americans had been <a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/the-civil-war-year-by-year-1773748">killed, wounded or displaced</a> in a civil war with no end in sight. Lincoln was unpopular. Radical Republicans in his own party doubted his commitment to Black civil rights and condemned his friendliness to ex-rebels.</p>
<p>Momentum was building to replace him on the ballot with Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase. A <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Lincoln/lTQSlhUUEOQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=pomeroy+%22want+of+intellectual+grasp%22&pg=PA481&printsec=frontcover">pamphlet</a> went viral arguing that “Lincoln cannot be re-elected to the Presidency,” warning that “The people have lost all confidence in his ability to suppress the rebellion and restore the Union.” An embarrassed Chase offered Lincoln his resignation, which the president declined.</p>
<p>The fact remained that no president had won a second term since Andrew Jackson, 32 years and <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/">nine presidents</a> earlier. And no country had held elections in the midst of civil war.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/351398/original/file-20200805-237-1nthsww.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A Lincoln-Johnson campaign ticket" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/351398/original/file-20200805-237-1nthsww.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/351398/original/file-20200805-237-1nthsww.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=864&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/351398/original/file-20200805-237-1nthsww.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=864&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/351398/original/file-20200805-237-1nthsww.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=864&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/351398/original/file-20200805-237-1nthsww.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1086&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/351398/original/file-20200805-237-1nthsww.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1086&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/351398/original/file-20200805-237-1nthsww.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1086&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A Lincoln-Johnson campaign ticket.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.loc.gov/item/scsm000744/">King & Beird, Printers, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1864/Library of Congress</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Arguments for postponing</h2>
<p>Some urged that the June Republican convention be postponed until September to give the Union one more shot at military victory. Other Republicans went further, arguing that the country should “<a href="https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84020712/1864-04-26/ed-1/seq-1/#date1=1864&index=17&date2=1864&words=election+postpone+Postponing&searchType=basic&sequence=0&sort=date&state=&rows=20&proxtext=postpone+election&y=11&x=15&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=3">postpone</a> … a Presidential election for four years more … (until) the rebellion will not only be subdued, but the country will be tranquillized and restored to its normal condition.”</p>
<p>Holding the election during civil war would render “the vote … <a href="https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84020712/1864-04-26/ed-1/seq-1/#date1=1864&index=17&date2=1864&words=election+postpone+Postponing&searchType=basic&sequence=0&sort=date&state=&rows=20&proxtext=postpone+election&y=11&x=15&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=3">fraudulent</a>,” argued the New York Sunday Mercury, in a widely reprinted article. The nation would “flame up in revolution, and the streets of our cities would run with blood.”</p>
<p>But Lincoln’s party renominated him. He was a canny political strategist who calculated that nominating Democratic Unionist and military Governor of Tennessee Andrew Johnson for vice president would attract disaffected Democrats and speed national reunification.</p>
<p>Johnson proved to be a disastrous choice for Black civil rights, but in 1864 his candidacy shrewdly balanced the ticket.</p>
<p>Yet a military victory that could also help Lincoln’s standing and prospects was elusive. General Ulysses S. Grant led <a href="https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/overland-campaign-1864">the Overland Campaign</a> against Confederates, led by General Robert E. Lee, across much of eastern Virginia that spring. After 55,000 Union casualties – about 45% of Grant’s army – <a href="https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/petersburg-wearing-down-lees-army">Grant laid siege to Petersburg</a>.</p>
<p>By the time <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/democrats-nominate-mcclellan-to-challenge-lincoln-aug-31-1864-227488">Democrats met in August to nominate General George B. McClellan</a>, there was still no end in sight to the war. Lincoln had removed McLellan from command of the Union Army of the Potomac in 1862, but the general was still a commissioned officer. Yet McClellan’s party was in disarray. He opposed a peace settlement with the Confederacy while the Democratic Party platform committed him to it.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/351392/original/file-20200805-239-13982e8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Lincoln having a nightmare about being defeated." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/351392/original/file-20200805-239-13982e8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/351392/original/file-20200805-239-13982e8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/351392/original/file-20200805-239-13982e8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/351392/original/file-20200805-239-13982e8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/351392/original/file-20200805-239-13982e8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/351392/original/file-20200805-239-13982e8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/351392/original/file-20200805-239-13982e8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The artist portrays a president tormented by nightmares of defeat in the election of 1864. The print probably appeared late in the campaign.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.loc.gov/item/2003689256/">Currier & Ives/Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Defeat ‘seems exceedingly probable’</h2>
<p>Without scientific polling, Lincoln and his advisers predicted defeat. </p>
<p>At the end of August, Lincoln <a href="https://www.loc.gov/resource/mal.4359700/?sp=1&st=text">wrote</a> to his Cabinet, “it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect, as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he can not possibly save it afterwards.”</p>
<p>Abraham Lincoln understood that the war for the Union was about the integrity of a constitutional republic, not the president or the party. It was about “<a href="https://rmc.library.cornell.edu/gettysburg/good_cause/transcript.htm">a new birth of freedom</a>” and not about him. And that meant his victory in the election was less important to him than the fate of the entire country.</p>
<p>Yet Lincoln also made contingency plans in the event he lost, asking Frederick Douglass to help <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mal&fileName=mal1/356/3565200/malpage.db&recNum=0">free enslaved people</a> in rebel-held areas.</p>
<h2>Soldiers vote absentee</h2>
<p>It was a bitter campaign. Lincoln’s opponents tarred him with racist and bestial characterizations. Republicans fought back, charging Democrats with being treasonous.</p>
<p>But no slogan discrediting the opposition was as effective in building support for Lincoln as the September Union military victories at <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Mobile-Bay">Mobile Bay</a> and <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Atlanta">Atlanta</a>.</p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>General Grant <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/lincoln/campaigns-and-elections">made sure soldiers voting absentee</a> sent their mail-in ballots. He furloughed others to go home to vote in person.</p>
<p>Even on the eve of the election, there were still calls to delay or cancel the vote. </p>
<p>Lincoln, who would go on to win, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3253/3253-h/3253-h.htm#Glink2H_4_0273">assured</a> those critics, “We cannot have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/143887/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Calvin Schermerhorn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Lincoln’s chances of reelection in 1864 were dim. He was presiding over a bloody civil war, and the public was losing confidence in him. But he steadfastly rejected pleas to postpone the election.Calvin Schermerhorn, Professor of History, Arizona State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1324992020-03-13T19:23:16Z2020-03-13T19:23:16ZBarr isn’t the first powerful official to defy the courts and risk legitimizing contempt for the law<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/320239/original/file-20200312-111300-8ag48i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=23%2C23%2C3952%2C2676&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What message is Attorney General William Barr sending citizens in defying court order?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/attorney-general-bill-barr-waves-before-addressing-the-news-photo/1205433393?adppopup=true">Nicholas Kamm/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>What happens to the rule of law when even the top law enforcement official in the land refuses to obey it? </p>
<p>That’s the question raised in a stinging rebuke of Attorney General William Barr and his Justice Department that came from an unusual source earlier this year: Federal Appeals Court Judge Frank Easterbrook. </p>
<p>Easterbrook <a href="http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2020/D01-23/C:19-1642:J:Easterbrook:aut:T:fnOp:N:2462983:S:0">excoriated Barr and the department</a> for <a href="https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/appellate-court-calls-out-doj-for-flatly-refusing-to-implement-decision-in-immigration-case/">defying an order issued by his court</a>.</p>
<p>The order in question concerned the case of Jorge Baez-Sanchez, a man living in the U.S. illegally, who was convicted of aggravated battery of a police officer and scheduled to be <a href="https://casetext.com/case/baez-sanchez-v-kolitwenzew">deported</a>. Easterbrook quoted a letter from Attorney General Barr to the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals saying that the Seventh Circuit decision stopping that deportation was “incorrect” and need not be followed.</p>
<p>Responding to Barr’s assertion, Easterbrook insisted that while executive branch officials “are free to maintain … that our decision is mistaken … until the court reverses itself the Executive Branch must honor that decision.” Easterbrook said the Constitution gives courts the right to make conclusive decisions, which are not subject to disapproval or revision by another branch of government.</p>
<p>As someone who has studied what happens <a href="https://nyupress.org/9780814739853/when-governments-break-the-law/">when public officials violate the law</a>, I find
Barr’s defiance reminiscent of other times in American history when powerful figures challenged the authority of the courts. Such challenges risk undermining the authority of the Constitution in the eyes of everyday Americans.</p>
<h2>Challenging courts</h2>
<p>The courts’ authority to interpret the law is derived from an 1803 Supreme Court decision, <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/#tab-opinion-1958607">Marbury v. Madison</a>, not from the Constitution itself. <a href="https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=fac_articles">William Marbury</a>, who had been appointed a justice of the peace by outgoing President John Adams, was denied the official commission for that office by <a href="https://www.biography.com/us-president/james-madison">James Madison</a>, secretary of state in the incoming Jefferson administration. Marbury asked the Supreme Court to order Madison to deliver his commission. The court held that the <a href="https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/judiciary.html">Judiciary Act of 1789</a>, which Marbury said gave it the power to do so, violated the Constitution. As a result, it could not provide the relief Marbury sought.</p>
<p>And, since that decision, from time to time political leaders have <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1861/06/23/archives/jefferson-on-the-supreme-court.html">questioned the courts’ authority</a>. </p>
<p>President Andrew Jackson mounted one of the most important of those challenges when he refused to enforce <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/31/515/#tab-opinion-1936719">an 1832 Supreme Court ruling</a> that the states could not regulate Native American land.</p>
<p>After that ruling, Jackson <a href="https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/history2.html">took a swipe at</a>, the court’s chief justice: “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”</p>
<p>Moreover, that same year, Jackson vetoed an act of Congress granting a charter for the Second Bank of the United States on the grounds that the bank was unconstitutional. He did so despite an 1819 <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/316/#tab-opinion-1918127">Supreme Court decision</a> affirming its constitutionality.</p>
<p>In his veto message, Jackson invoked the separation of powers and <a href="https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/sources_document11.html">said</a>, “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the president is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.”</p>
<p>Jackson’s effort to stop the National Bank <a href="https://archive.org/details/lifeandrewjacks00partgoog/page/n5/mode/2up">ultimately prevailed</a> when it was replaced by an independent federal treasury system. </p>
<h2>Blocking Brown</h2>
<p>A little more than a century later, in the immediate aftermath of the 1954 landmark school desegregation ruling, <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/483/#tab-opinion-1940809">Brown v. Board of Education</a>, Southern political leaders, including members of Congress, followed Jackson’s example. </p>
<p>In 1956 they issued a “<a href="http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/marshall/manifesto.html">Southern Manifesto</a>,” which called Brown a “clear abuse of judicial power.” The manifesto <a href="https://www.naacpldf.org/ldf-celebrates-60th-anniversary-brown-v-board-education/southern-manifesto-massive-resistance-brown">commended states</a> for resisting forced integration of schools and claimed states had the right to defy federal court orders that they regarded as incorrect. </p>
<p>One of the most blatant examples of such resistance occurred in <a href="http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/marshall/littlerock1.html">Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957</a>. Responding to a federal district court which ordered the immediate integration of the schools, Governor Orval Faubus called out the National Guard to stop black children from attending Central High School.</p>
<p>When lawyers for those black children sought help from the United States Supreme Court, the court – anticipating Easterbrook’s response to Barr – <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/358/1/#tab-opinion-1942101">rebuked the Arkansas governor</a> and reaffirmed the desegregation order. </p>
<p>Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote that “Every act of government may be challenged by an appeal to law, as finally pronounced by this Court. Even this Court has the last say only for a time. Being composed of fallible men, it may err. But revision of its errors must be by orderly process of law.”</p>
<p>And, despite his own reservations about the Brown decision, President Dwight Eisenhower <a href="http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6335/">sent federal troops to Little Rock</a> to enforce the court order.</p>
<h2>Resisting rights</h2>
<p>In 2015, a deeply divided Supreme Court <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556">ruled</a> that the Constitution protected the right of same-sex couples to marry.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-legal-backlash-119468">Opposition to the decision</a> came quickly. Some local officials <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/30/us/same-sex-marriage-supreme-court-ruling-holdouts/index.html">announced</a> that, because same-sex unions violated their religious beliefs, they would not issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.</p>
<p>One of the resisters, Katie Lang, county clerk of Hood County, Texas, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/30/us/same-sex-marriage-supreme-court-ruling-holdouts/index.html">said</a> that the Supreme Court had “fabricated a new constitutional right” which could not “diminish, overrule, or call into question the First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion that formed the first freedom in the Bill of Rights in 1791.”</p>
<p>She was supported by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/south-gay-marriage-clarence-thomas/398936/">told</a> county clerks and judges that they did not have to issue same-sex marriage licenses or conduct wedding ceremonies “if they have religious objections to doing so.”</p>
<h2>Courting contempt</h2>
<p>Separation of powers, states’ rights and religious freedom each have been invoked as a justification for official noncompliance with court orders. Attorney General Barr <a href="https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/the-barr-memo-and-the-imperial-presidency/">adds his broad view of executive power</a> to that list of reasons. </p>
<p>Yet no matter what the reason, any time government officials defy the courts, they undermine the Constitution’s authority and send a powerful message to citizens. Today many Americans seem ready to heed that message, with a quarter of the respondents to national surveys now <a href="https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PPP_Release_National_21017.pdf">saying</a> that a president should be able to disobey court decisions with which he disagrees.</p>
<p>While the rule of law survived Jackson, massive resistance in the South, and defiance of the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision, there is something particularly perilous when the attorney general defies the courts. As a 1980 opinion of the department’s Office of Legal Counsel <a href="https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/attorney-general%E2%80%99s-duty-defend-and-enforce-constitutionally-objectionable-legislation">noted</a>, it is his responsibility “to defend and enforce both the Acts of Congress and the Constitution.”</p>
<p>That danger is compounded at a time when the president repeatedly expresses <a href="https://time.com/5461827/donald-trump-judiciary-chief-justice-john-roberts/">his view</a> that judges are really nothing more than partisans in black robes and derides them and their decisions. </p>
<p>Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis correctly <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/277/438/#tab-opinion-1932307">observed</a> almost a century ago that, “In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”</p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/132499/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Austin Sarat does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Could defiance of court orders at the highest level undermine the Constitution’s authority in the eyes of American citizens?Austin Sarat, Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science, Amherst CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1323062020-02-27T14:03:10Z2020-02-27T14:03:10ZCalling someone a ‘jackass’ is a tradition in US politics<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317153/original/file-20200225-24664-1u1pj1g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2591%2C1943&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What did you call me?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/donkey-jackass-domestic-animal-1588339153">emka74/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When Virginia Democrat Sen. Tim Kaine called President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/live-blog/trump-impeachment-trial-senate-votes-articles-impeachment-n1130646/ncrd1130896#liveBlogHeader">a “jackass”</a> in early February, Kaine engaged in a political practice that is as old as the nation. </p>
<p>Probably no animal is used more as an object of ridicule and derision in U.S. politics. Kaine’s epithet was hurled because Trump hadn’t shaken hands with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi before his 2020 State of the Union address. </p>
<p>Yet jackasses are so entangled in American political history that I must ask: Where would politics be in this country without jackasses?</p>
<h2>Object of ridicule</h2>
<p>While researching our forthcoming book, “<a href="https://www.chroniclebooks.com/products/the-art-of-the-political-putdown">The Art of the Political Putdown</a>: The Greatest Comebacks, Ripostes, and Retorts in History,” my late collaborator Will Moredock and I found several references to politicians who responded to a rival’s insult by comparing them to the <a href="https://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/mules-arent-burros">jackass, which is a male donkey</a>, or sometimes the closely related mule.</p>
<p>The word <a href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/jackass">jackass, or “male ass,”</a> according to one etymologist, goes back to 1727. By the 1820s, it was commonly being used to describe a “<a href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/jackass">stupid person</a>.”</p>
<p><a href="https://www.chroniclebooks.com/products/the-art-of-the-political-putdown">This was the intent of a retort</a> in the 1820s by Kentucky congressman Henry Clay to Massachusetts Congressman Daniel Webster.</p>
<p>Clay was sitting outside a Washington, D.C. hotel with Webster when a man walked by with a pack of mules. “Clay, there goes a number of your Kentucky constituents,” Webster said.</p>
<p>“Yes,” Clay replied, “they must be on their way to Massachusetts to teach school.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317161/original/file-20200225-24664-1cypg7b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317161/original/file-20200225-24664-1cypg7b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317161/original/file-20200225-24664-1cypg7b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=302&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317161/original/file-20200225-24664-1cypg7b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=302&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317161/original/file-20200225-24664-1cypg7b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=302&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317161/original/file-20200225-24664-1cypg7b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317161/original/file-20200225-24664-1cypg7b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317161/original/file-20200225-24664-1cypg7b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Henry Clay, left, and Daniel Webster served in Congress in the 1820s.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Henry_Clay_1848_restored.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A connection with Democrats</h2>
<p>In 1828, Andrew Jackson ran for president as the candidate of the new <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/us-politics/democratic-party">Democratic Party</a>, which had been created from splintered factions of the Democratic-Republican Party. </p>
<p>Jackson, the blunt-spoken backwoodsman and war hero, was <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/political-animals-republican-elephants-and-democratic-donkeys-89241754/">widely criticized as a “jackass”</a> for advocating populist reforms. </p>
<p>He responded by using the image of the jackass <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/15/this-day-in-politics-jan-15-1870-339085">on his campaign posters</a>.</p>
<p>“Jackson embraced the image as the symbol of his campaign,” <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/political-animals-republican-elephants-and-democratic-donkeys-89241754/">Jimmy Stamp wrote in Smithsonian magazine</a>, “rebranding the donkey as steadfast, determined, and willful, instead of wrong-headed, slow, and obstinate.” </p>
<p>Jackson won the election, and the jackass first became associated with Jackson and the Democratic Party. </p>
<p>More than 40 years later, after the Civil War, a political cartoon really popularized the image of the jackass as the symbol of the Democratic Party. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/316888/original/file-20200224-24701-11rtb8k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/316888/original/file-20200224-24701-11rtb8k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/316888/original/file-20200224-24701-11rtb8k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=651&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316888/original/file-20200224-24701-11rtb8k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=651&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316888/original/file-20200224-24701-11rtb8k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=651&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316888/original/file-20200224-24701-11rtb8k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=818&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316888/original/file-20200224-24701-11rtb8k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=818&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316888/original/file-20200224-24701-11rtb8k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=818&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A popular political cartoon helped people connect the image of a jackass with the Democratic Party.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Thomas Nast, Harper's Weekly</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 1870, Harper’s Weekly <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/political-animals-republican-elephants-and-democratic-donkeys-89241754/">published a Thomas Nast cartoon</a>, “A Live Jackass Kicking a Dead Lion.” It depicted Northern Democrats, nicknamed “Copperheads,” attacking the recently deceased former Cabinet member Edwin Stanton, a lion of Radical Republicans.</p>
<p>The donkey – a more polite and gender-neutral word for “jackass” – became the symbol of the Democratic Party. </p>
<p>The word “jackass” remained a term of ridicule.</p>
<h2>Twain defends the jackass</h2>
<p>Critics such as Mark Twain thought comparing men and politicians, in particular, to jackasses was unfair to jackasses. </p>
<p>“Concerning the difference between man and the jackass: some observers hold that there isn’t any,” <a href="http://www.twainquotes.com/Jackass.html">he said</a>. “But this wrongs the jackass.”</p>
<p><a href="http://www.twainquotes.com/Jackass.html">Twain also defended jackasses</a> in his 1894 novel “Pudd’n’head Wilson.” </p>
<p>“There is no character, howsoever good and fine, but it can be destroyed by ridicule, howsoever poor and witless,” he wrote. “<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/102/102-h/102-h.htm#link2H_4_0001">Observe the ass</a>, for instance: his character is about perfect, he is the choicest spirit among all the humbler animals, yet see what ridicule has brought him to. Instead of feeling complimented when we are called an ass, we are left in doubt.”</p>
<p>The jackass, however, remained a term of derision in American politics.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317165/original/file-20200225-24659-1nrauxb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317165/original/file-20200225-24659-1nrauxb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317165/original/file-20200225-24659-1nrauxb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=785&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317165/original/file-20200225-24659-1nrauxb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=785&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317165/original/file-20200225-24659-1nrauxb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=785&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317165/original/file-20200225-24659-1nrauxb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=987&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317165/original/file-20200225-24659-1nrauxb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=987&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317165/original/file-20200225-24659-1nrauxb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=987&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Speaker of the House Champ Clark.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ChampClark_(cropped).jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For instance, when Democratic Congressman Champ Clark of Missouri was speaker of the House of Representatives during the 1910s, an Indiana congressman interrupted the speech of an Ohio congressman by calling him a “jackass.”</p>
<p>Clark ruled the expression in violation of protocol, and the Indiana congressman apologized. </p>
<p>“I withdraw the unfortunate word, Mr. Speaker, but I insist the gentleman from Ohio is out of order.”</p>
<p>“How am I out of order?” the Ohioan asked.</p>
<p>“Probably a veterinarian could tell you,” the Indiana congressman responded.</p>
<h2>The jackass revisited</h2>
<p>Donald Trump’s presence in American politics has brought a resurgence in the word “jackass” – or at least the two things have happened simultaneously. </p>
<p>In 2015, then-presidential candidate Trump <a href="https://time.com/4993304/john-mccain-donald-trump-feud-remarks/">ridiculed the characterization</a> of Arizona Senator John McCain as a war hero. McCain served more than five years in a prisoner-of-war camp during the Vietnam War. </p>
<p>In reply, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who also was seeking the GOP presidential nomination, called Trump “<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-gives-out-lindsey-grahams-cell-phone-number-120414">the world’s biggest jackass</a>,” adding that even “jackasses are offended” by Trump. </p>
<p>Trump responded by making public <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-gives-out-lindsey-grahams-cell-phone-number-120414">Graham’s private cellphone number</a>.</p>
<p>During the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign, MSNBC aired an interview with a conservative voter who said she would vote for Trump and the GOP – even if Trump was at the top of the ticket. </p>
<p>“I am voting for the conservative party,” she said. “<a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ohio-voter-gets-msnbc-laughs-by-calling-trump-a-jackass">And if this jackass</a> just happens to be leading this mule train, so be it.”</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V2ojOvJD6vc?wmode=transparent&start=145" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">An Ohio voter declares her intentions in the 2016 election.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The connection between Trump and the jackass appeared in greeting cards, too. The Canadian company OutLayer sold a Christmas card that said, “Trump is a jackass. <a href="https://outerlayer.com/products/trump-is-a-jackass-holiday-card">Merry Christmas</a>.” </p>
<p>One 2020 bumper sticker, however, uses the Democratic donkey to tout Republicans in the November election. “<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20200224150831/https://www.amazon.com/Republican-President-Election-Conservative-American/dp/B07BGCGGMX">Don’t be a jackass</a>,” it says. “Vote Republican.”</p>
<p>[<em>Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklybest">Sign up for our weekly newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/132306/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Lamb does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>For more than two centuries, one particular epithet has resonated through US politics – and even helped inspire the unofficial mascot of a major political party.Chris Lamb, Professor of Journalism, IUPUILicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1286132020-02-11T13:53:14Z2020-02-11T13:53:14Z‘Stolen’ elections open wounds that may never heal<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/314480/original/file-20200210-109887-a5z11o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=38%2C19%2C4243%2C2824&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Election fraud is not usually as obvious as this.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/election-fraud-vote-rigging-concept-thief-1057742687">Victor Moussa/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Allegations are flying <a href="https://www.salon.com/2019/12/07/team-trump-wants-to-steal-another-election-impeachment-is-how-to-beat-them/">left</a> and <a href="https://apnews.com/2bc10ed20dbf4041935b37bec9542c53">right</a> about potential – or actual – efforts to unfairly and secretly influence the outcome of the 2020 election. It’s a time when political scientists and constitutional scholars like to look back on other times when the electoral process was, you might say, helped along by practices that either were or appeared to be underhanded. </p>
<p>There are not many examples of so-called “stolen elections” in U.S. history, but the ones that had irregularities and were controversial, in 1824 and 2000, had an oversized impact on the decades that followed.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/314242/original/file-20200207-27569-4e7sno.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/314242/original/file-20200207-27569-4e7sno.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/314242/original/file-20200207-27569-4e7sno.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=151&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/314242/original/file-20200207-27569-4e7sno.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=151&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/314242/original/file-20200207-27569-4e7sno.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=151&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/314242/original/file-20200207-27569-4e7sno.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=190&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/314242/original/file-20200207-27569-4e7sno.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=190&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/314242/original/file-20200207-27569-4e7sno.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=190&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The candidates in the 1824 presidential election: from left, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Andrew Jackson and William Crawford.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Conversation collage, from images on Wikimedia Commons</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The ‘corrupt bargain’</h2>
<p>Looking back to the first allegedly stolen election is a good reminder that U.S. elections used to be much more complicated than today. Yet there are still strong parallels.</p>
<p>There were four candidates running for president in 1824: <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Quincy-Adams">John Quincy Adams</a>, <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Henry-Clay">Henry Clay</a>, <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Andrew-Jackson">Andrew Jackson</a> and <a href="https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/Featured_Bio_CrawfordWilliam.htm">William H. Crawford</a>.</p>
<p>After the War of 1812, the United States entered a period historians now call “<a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/there-was-time-briefly-and-200-years-ago-when-american-politics-was-full-good-feelings-180964074/">the Era of Good Feelings</a>.” Among the public and politicians alike, there was a strong desire for national unity, and rare moment of declining partisanship. </p>
<p>To show his support for unity, President James Monroe, a Democratic-Republican who served from 1817 to 1825, asked Adams and Crawford to serve in his Cabinet, despite their rivalry within the Democratic-Republican Party. At the time, Clay, also a Democratic-Republican, was the speaker of the House of Representatives.</p>
<p>The fourth candidate was a comparative outsider. Jackson had made a name for himself as a <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/andrew-jackson">military commander</a>, both in the War of 1812 and afterward, fighting Native Americans in the southeastern U.S., before being elected as a Democratic-Republican senator from Tennessee in 1822. In his presidential campaign, he played up his Tennessee connections and <a href="https://thehermitage.com/learn/andrew-jackson/president/candidacy/">styled himself</a> as a man of the people and a political outsider. He claiming he would get rid of the “corrupt” aristocrats running the country.</p>
<p>The controversy began with the vote results. None of the four candidates got a majority of electoral or popular votes, though 41% of voters cast their ballots for Jackson, giving him the largest share of the votes and the clearest path to victory. Without an <a href="https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-how-come-donald-trump-won-if-hillary-clinton-got-more-votes-126658">Electoral College win</a> however, the decision came to the House of Representatives.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxii">12th Amendment</a> limited the House’s runoff decision to the top three candidates, eliminating Clay, who famously hated Jackson. Crawford had gotten even less of the popular vote, and had no way to win in the House. </p>
<p>There was, however, a directive put forth by the Kentucky legislature to Clay, their native son, to give all of their delegation’s votes to Jackson. Clay ignored this and persuaded the Kentucky delegates and many others in the House to vote for Adams. Jackson was shocked by the result and claimed that Clay had struck a bargain with Adams. Soon thereafter, Clay became the secretary of state for the Adams administration. </p>
<p><iframe id="R5Nal" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/R5Nal/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>After the election, Jackson attacked Adams and the Washington insider for what he called their “<a href="https://millercenter.org/president/jqadams/campaigns-and-elections">corrupt bargain</a>.” He and his allies left the Democratic-Republican Party and formed the party that is now the modern-day Democratic Party.</p>
<p>In 1828, Jackson ran as the Democratic candidate for president, and won, convincing a majority of voters that they needed someone like him to clean up the capital and help the common man. When he took office, he emphasized the capacity of the people to come to the right conclusions, shunning the idea that they needed to be controlled by elites. He wanted judges to stand for election and advocated for the abolition of the Electoral College. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/308218/original/file-20191223-11919-5bmw9n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/308218/original/file-20191223-11919-5bmw9n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/308218/original/file-20191223-11919-5bmw9n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/308218/original/file-20191223-11919-5bmw9n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/308218/original/file-20191223-11919-5bmw9n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/308218/original/file-20191223-11919-5bmw9n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=580&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/308218/original/file-20191223-11919-5bmw9n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=580&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/308218/original/file-20191223-11919-5bmw9n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=580&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The polls aren’t always right – 1948 was an early example, but not the last.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/North-Korea-Kims-Travels-Train-Photo-Gallery/d3691a777ae44eda825ae735e989207d/1/0">AP Photo/Byron Rollins</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Remember the hanging chad?</h2>
<p>Much like <a href="https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/truman-defeats-dewey">Harry Truman’s surprise victory</a> over Thomas Dewey in 1948, in the 2000 election Americans learned not to trust the polls. Many news organizations <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/11/12/666812854/the-florida-recount-of-2000-a-nightmare-that-goes-on-haunting">relied on exit polling to call Florida for Al Gore</a> prior to the close of polling in several Republican-leaning districts.</p>
<p>Florida had 25 electoral college votes at the time. From all the other states, <a href="https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/scores2.html">George W. Bush had 246 and Al Gore had 266, respectively</a>. Florida, therefore, would be the state that decided the election, one way or the other. In a rare example of individual votes swaying the election, the decision about who would be the president of the United States <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/11/12/666812854/the-florida-recount-of-2000-a-nightmare-that-goes-on-haunting">came down to just 537 votes</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/314243/original/file-20200207-27538-1rbjwkf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/314243/original/file-20200207-27538-1rbjwkf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/314243/original/file-20200207-27538-1rbjwkf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=697&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/314243/original/file-20200207-27538-1rbjwkf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=697&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/314243/original/file-20200207-27538-1rbjwkf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=697&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/314243/original/file-20200207-27538-1rbjwkf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=875&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/314243/original/file-20200207-27538-1rbjwkf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=875&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/314243/original/file-20200207-27538-1rbjwkf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=875&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Al Gore, right, gestures during a presidential debate against George W. Bush in October 2000.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Campaign-2016-Debate-Town-Hall/a50fba73796943f4b71a809a269a3f26/21/0">AP Photo/Ron Edmonds</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Lawyers from both parties soon flooded into the Sunshine State as the whole country waited for the results. Gore’s team wanted to force a recount, saying some counties’ ballots were hard for voters to understand, and had led some people, who thought they were voting for Gore, to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/09/us/2000-elections-palm-beach-ballot-florida-democrats-say-ballot-s-design-hurt-gore.html">accidentally vote for Pat Buchanan</a>, a religiously conservative third-party candidate.</p>
<p>There were also problems with the physical structure of some ballots, which required voters to punch a hole to mark the candidate they supported. Some people did not punch a clean hole, leaving bits of paper hanging on – which became known as “<a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/11/12/666812854/the-florida-recount-of-2000-a-nightmare-that-goes-on-haunting">hanging chads</a>.”</p>
<p>These small-scale anomalies in a small number of counties in just one state were critical to determine who would be president. A <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/09/us/contesting-vote-florida-supreme-court-s-decision-hand-recounts-ballots.html">legal back-and-forth</a> about how to recount the ballots raced through state and federal courts, culminating in a Supreme Court ruling. The justices determined the Florida recount plan was not good enough and <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html">stopped the recount</a>. Their decision effectively gave Bush the win in Florida, and therefore the Electoral College.</p>
<p>Critics noted that Bush had failed to win the popular vote, and that the Supreme Court vote was <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/Bush-v-Gore">split 5-4, with the conservative justices</a> in the majority delivering an outcome favorable to their political leanings. </p>
<h2>What now?</h2>
<p>In the 1824 election, historians see a country rebalancing itself politically and questioning what kinds of leaders the people wanted. In 2000, courts stepped into the most political of all processes: voting. </p>
<p>These elections’ outcomes divided the nation, in ways that were hard to heal, or perhaps never healed. When the winner lacks legitimacy and the loser can say the process was rigged, it is always bad for democracy. If there is, in one way or another, a “stolen” election in 2020 and the winner fails to bring the country together, it is unlikely the U.S. will see another Era of Good Feelings for a long time.</p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/128613/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sarah Burns is affiliated with The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statesmanship. </span></em></p>When the electoral process was helped along by practices that either were or appeared to be underhanded, the resulting wounds took a long time to heal – and may not ever have healed.Sarah Burns, Associate Professor of Political Science, Rochester Institute of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1203942019-07-17T16:03:39Z2019-07-17T16:03:39ZTrump wasn’t the first president to confront the Supreme Court – and back down<p>A key presidential election is approaching. The U.S. Supreme Court hears a case with powerful political implications. The court rules, but the populist president doesn’t care. Our national commitments – to the Constitution, to morality, to the rule of law – seem at risk.<br>
Then, the president backs down. The nation survives.</p>
<p>This might be the story of President Trump’s short-lived threat to get a citizenship question on the census <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146435093491277824">in defiance of the Supreme Court</a>. Instead, it’s the story of President Andrew Jackson and <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/31/515/">Worcester v. Georgia, decided in 1832</a>.</p>
<p>Like the modern relationship between the president and the court, the case dominated public debate, raising deep questions about the endurance of the rule of law. At the height of the crisis, former President John Quincy Adams wrote, “<a href="https://www.worldcat.org/title/memoirs-of-john-quincy-adams-comprising-portions-of-his-diary-from-1795-to-1848/oclc/24013181">The Union is in the most imminent danger of dissolution</a>.”</p>
<h2>Cherokee Nation challenges Georgia</h2>
<p>Worcester v. Georgia had its genesis in disputes between the Cherokee Nation and the state of Georgia.</p>
<p>Treaties between the <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/chr1791.asp">United States and the Cherokee Nation</a> solemnly guaranteed the the tribal nation independence on its reservation in Georgia. But Georgia wanted the <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-cherokees-vs-andrew-jackson-277394/">Cherokees gone, particularly after gold was discovered on their land</a>. </p>
<p>The United States tried to convince the Cherokees to move west, but most <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-cherokees-vs-andrew-jackson-277394/">refused to leave their homeland</a>.</p>
<p>In response, Georgia passed laws asserting its control over the reservation, <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/31/515/#tab-opinion-1936718">prohibiting the Cherokee government from meeting and posting guards over the gold mines</a>. President Andrew Jackson did nothing to stop this violation of U.S.-Cherokee treaties. Instead, at the request of the Georgia governor, <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/63490/their-own-good">he removed federal troops from the reservation</a>.</p>
<p>The Cherokees mounted <a href="https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/cherokee-nation-v.-georgia">a legal challenge</a>, and tried to take their case to the Supreme Court. Their lawyer, William Wirt, and the justices worried that President Jackson would not enforce a decision in favor of the Cherokees. </p>
<p>But, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=phmyynDXxG0C&pg=PA292&lpg=PA292&dq=william+wirt+%22In+a+land+of+laws,+the+presumption+is+that+the+decision+of+courts+will+be+respected%22&source=bl&ots=N9wo-sb3vW&sig=ACfU3U1gc7wYKM_VL76n5CvNUbW6cjVwWw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjg9pGkyrnjAhVUUs0KHSY5DMMQ6AEwAHoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=william%20wirt%20%22In%20a%20land%20of%20laws%2C%20the%20presumption%20is%20that%20the%20decision%20of%20courts%20will%20be%20respected%22&f=false">Wirt told the court</a>, “What is the value of that government in which the decrees of its courts can be defied and mocked at with impunity … It is no government at all.” </p>
<p><a href="https://www.oyez.org/justices/john_marshall">Chief Justice John Marshall</a>, however, ducked the issue, holding that the court <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/30/1/">lacked jurisdiction over the case</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/284379/original/file-20190716-173342-11kahjp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/284379/original/file-20190716-173342-11kahjp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/284379/original/file-20190716-173342-11kahjp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=743&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284379/original/file-20190716-173342-11kahjp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=743&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284379/original/file-20190716-173342-11kahjp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=743&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284379/original/file-20190716-173342-11kahjp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=934&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284379/original/file-20190716-173342-11kahjp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=934&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284379/original/file-20190716-173342-11kahjp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=934&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chief Justice John Marshall.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall#/media/File:John_Marshall_by_Henry_Inman,_1832.jpg">Henry Inman/Virginia Memory</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Georgia wasn’t done attacking the sovereignty of the Cherokees. In 1830, the state demanded that non-Indians take a loyalty oath to Georgia before going onto the Cherokee Reservation. Missionaries Samuel Worcester and Elizur Butler – both pro-Cherokee and anti-slavery – <a href="https://dlg.usg.edu/record/dlg_zlna_ch045">refused</a> <a href="https://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/worcester-v-georgia-indictment">to sign</a>. </p>
<p>The law made an exception for federal employees, and Worcester had served as federal postmaster, but Georgia persuaded the Jackson administration to <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2205966.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ab6a6b2170502f6c8fc9d56a202d1edb4">dismiss Worcester so the exception would not apply</a>. </p>
<p>The state sentenced the missionaries to four years of hard labor. Because the case pitted Georgia against Worcester, a citizen of Vermont, the Supreme Court could hear the case directly, rather than on appeal from the state courts. The court could <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/63490/their-own-good">finally rule on Georgia’s authority over Cherokee land</a>.</p>
<h2>The ‘supremacy of the laws’</h2>
<p>The case was argued in <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1832">1832, an election year</a>, and Jackson’s opponents campaigned on his disregard for the courts.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/284380/original/file-20190716-173355-l68123.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/284380/original/file-20190716-173355-l68123.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/284380/original/file-20190716-173355-l68123.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284380/original/file-20190716-173355-l68123.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284380/original/file-20190716-173355-l68123.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284380/original/file-20190716-173355-l68123.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284380/original/file-20190716-173355-l68123.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284380/original/file-20190716-173355-l68123.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Andrew Jackson.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#/media/File:Andrew_Jackson_Portrait.jpg">Alexander Hay Ritchie/United States Library of Congress</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Speeches at the National Republican Convention, where they nominated the candidate <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1832">Henry Clay to challenge Jackson</a>, condemned Georgia’s “inhuman and unconstitutional outrages” against the missionaries and praised Jackson’s opponent Clay as a man who would “<a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1227621?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents">assert the supremacy of the laws</a>.” </p>
<p>For Chief Justice John Marshall, approaching the end of his career, the case and the election might decide whether his <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=zCW3592c7CgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=kent+newmyer+marshall+heroic+age&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9uu3D0bnjAhVQGs0KHdkEBdwQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=worcester&f=false">legacy in building a strong and independent Supreme Court would survive him</a>. </p>
<p>Georgia, meanwhile, signaled its disdain for the court by refusing to even <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/63490/their-own-good">appear for oral argument in Worcester</a>. </p>
<p>The court’s <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/31us515">5-1 opinion</a> resoundingly vindicated the Cherokees. </p>
<p>Federal treaties, the chief justice wrote, “solemnly pledge the faith of the United States” to protect Cherokee self-government; the Constitution made those treaties “the supreme law of the land.” </p>
<p>Georgia’s attempt to govern the reservation, therefore, was “repugnant to the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.” </p>
<p>But Georgia did not care, and Jackson would not force it to release the missionaries. </p>
<p>When the Georgia Guard jailed Cherokees for celebrating the decision, Jackson wrote his brigadier general that the “decision of the supreme court has fell still born.” Newspapers across the country reported that <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2205966?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents">Jackson refused to enforce the decision</a>. That July, in vetoing another bill, Jackson declared that the <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/ajveto01.asp">court had no power over the president</a>.</p>
<p>The chief justice wrote despondently, “I yield slowly and reluctantly to the conviction that <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/63490/their-own-good">our Constitution cannot last</a>.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/284539/original/file-20190717-147318-1utoteg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/284539/original/file-20190717-147318-1utoteg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/284539/original/file-20190717-147318-1utoteg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=720&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284539/original/file-20190717-147318-1utoteg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=720&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284539/original/file-20190717-147318-1utoteg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=720&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284539/original/file-20190717-147318-1utoteg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=905&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284539/original/file-20190717-147318-1utoteg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=905&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284539/original/file-20190717-147318-1utoteg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=905&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cherokee Chief John Ross.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/pnp/pga/07500/07513v.jpg">Library of Congress</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Dangerous repercussions</h2>
<p>Perhaps Trump was channeling Jackson, his favorite president, when he tweeted that <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf">there would be a citizenship question on the census a week after the court ruled against his administration’s attempt to add one</a>. Certainly the assertion raised – as Trump has throughout his presidency – a threat to <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-says-he-is-thinking-of-executive-order-to-revive-census-citizenship-question/ar-AADUfJy">the constitutional balance of powers</a> </p>
<p>But Jackson quickly realized that failing to enforce federal law in Worcester had dangerous repercussions.</p>
<p>In December 1832, shortly after Jackson’s reelection, South Carolina passed the <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/ordnull.asp">Nullification Ordinance</a>, declaring federal tariffs illegal in the state. </p>
<p><a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/ajack001.asp">Jackson</a> <a href="https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/nullification.html">condemned the state</a> and supported a <a href="https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/22nd-congress/session-2/c22s2ch57.pdf">“Force Bill”</a> that, for the first time, gave federal marshals clear power to enforce U.S. laws. Any doubt that federal officials could not force Georgia to release the missionaries was gone.</p>
<p>Rather than force a public confrontation, Jackson’s allies went to Georgia Gov. Lumpkin and persuaded him to pardon the missionaries still languishing in jail. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/63490/their-own-good">constitutional crisis was averted</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/284534/original/file-20190717-147307-19eb9kj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/284534/original/file-20190717-147307-19eb9kj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/284534/original/file-20190717-147307-19eb9kj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=573&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284534/original/file-20190717-147307-19eb9kj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=573&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284534/original/file-20190717-147307-19eb9kj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=573&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284534/original/file-20190717-147307-19eb9kj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=720&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284534/original/file-20190717-147307-19eb9kj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=720&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284534/original/file-20190717-147307-19eb9kj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=720&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A historical marker in Georgia for the Cherokee Trail of Tears.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Author supplied</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Removal in a different way</h2>
<p>All did not end well for the Cherokees. </p>
<p>In 1835, while Cherokee Principal Chief John Ross was in Washington seeking protection from the U.S., Jackson’s agents got individual Cherokees to sign <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-cherokees-vs-andrew-jackson-277394/">a treaty agreeing to move to a new reservation west of the Mississippi</a>. </p>
<p>On the strength of the false treaty, the U.S. rounded up the Cherokee people and forced them west. The <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/Trail-of-Tears">Trail of Tears</a> – a forced march on which one in four Cherokees died – is a dark legacy of Worcester.</p>
<h2>Independence affirmed</h2>
<p>But today, Worcester v. Georgia also stands as a monument to both tribal sovereignty and judicial independence. At the height of the backlash against Brown v. Board of Education, Justice Hugo Black called Worcester one of Justice Marshall’s “most courageous and eloquent opinions,” which, “despite bitter criticism and the defiance of Georgia … <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/358/217/">came to be accepted as law.”</a></p>
<p>As Chief Justice John Roberts <a href="https://theconversation.com/roberts-rules-the-2-most-important-supreme-court-decisions-this-year-were-about-fair-elections-and-the-chief-justice-119708">reluctantly joins the progressive minority</a> on the court to reject political power grabs, he maintains Chief Justice Marshall’s legacy of judicial independence articulated in Worcester.</p>
<p>And as President Trump agrees reluctantly to respect the court – at least in the case of the census – he follows, in part, that long-ago legal victory of the Cherokee Nation. </p>
<p>[ <em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/120394/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bethany Berger does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>President Trump hinted that he would defy a Supreme Court ruling recently, though he later yielded to its authority. Andrew Jackson – Trump’s hero – likewise challenged the rule of law in the 1830s.Bethany Berger, Wallace Stevens Professor of Law, University of ConnecticutLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1158722019-05-02T10:44:05Z2019-05-02T10:44:05ZTrump’s dirty tricks: Unethical, even illegal campaign tactics are an American tradition<p>Donald Trump pulled some pretty unseemly stunts to win the 2016 United States presidential election. </p>
<p>He threatened to put his opponent, Hillary Clinton, in jail and publicly asked Russia to <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/03/trump-russia-emails-joke-cpac-speech">hack her emails</a>. After Russian operatives did something similar – stealing <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/mueller-report-shows-russians-trump-camp-were-friends-benefits-collusion-n996101">emails from Democratic National Committee servers</a> – the Trump campaign publicized the hacked emails, which were published on WikiLeaks. Trump aides also <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/opinion/mueller-trump-campaign-russia-conpiracy-.html">met with Russian spies</a> who promised information damaging to Clinton.</p>
<p>Some of these activities, which special counsel Robert Mueller <a href="https://graphics.axios.com/docs/mueller-report.pdf">uncovered</a> in his 22-month investigation into Trump, may have been illegal. </p>
<p>Other Trump attacks on Clinton were tawdry, unethical and, according to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/video/barr-to-graham-no-underlying-crime-by-trump-in-mueller-report-1515519043849">Attorney General William Barr</a> in his May 1 testimony to Congress, technically lawful. </p>
<p>The attacks were, for the Justice Department at least, dirty tricks.</p>
<p>Students of American history – including those who’ve read the college U.S. politics textbook <a href="http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/ngsp/americangovernment/">I co-authored</a> – will know that Trump has a lot of company in the dirty tricks department: Elections have always been nasty. </p>
<p>Since the earliest years of the republic, candidates have used <a href="https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/151920">deceptive, underhanded and dubiously legal tactics</a> to discredit their opponents.</p>
<h2>1800: Jefferson vs. Adams</h2>
<p>The 1800 race between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams was a <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/373588.Adams_vs_Jefferson">lowly beginning for the new American democracy</a>. </p>
<p>Jefferson was Adams’ vice president from 1797 to 1801. To defeat his boss without personally maligning the president of the United States, Jefferson let a journalist, <a href="https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/james-callender">James Callender</a>, do his dirty work.</p>
<p>Callender wrote rapidly partisan articles for the Richmond Reporter newspaper and in a self-published 1800 anti-Federalist pamphlet called “<a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Prospect_Before_Us.html?id=HLhEnQEACAAJ">The Prospect Before Us</a>.” One of his more creative attacks was to <a href="https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/John-Adams/David-McCullough/9780743223133">question Adams’ masculinity</a>. He accused Adams of being a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”</p>
<p>Callender’s anti-Federalist publications during the campaign led to his prosecution under the Sedition Act, according to the <a href="https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/james-callender#footnote5_3u77848">Thomas Jefferson Foundation</a>. In May 1800, he was sentenced to nine months in jail and a US$200 fine.</p>
<p>This bitter contest between president and vice president occurred because President Adams and Vice President Jefferson came from different political party. Back then, voters picked two candidates for president. The top vote-getter became president, the second-place finisher became vice president.</p>
<p>Congress changed this system changed after the dirty 1800 election, passing the <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-xii">12th Amendment</a>, which established <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Origins_of_the_Twelfth_Amendment.html?id=3n6GAAAAMAAJ">the current running mate system</a>. </p>
<h2>1828: Adultery, murder and pimping</h2>
<p>That didn’t make electoral politics any kinder. The 1828 race between President John Quincy Adams and the southern statesman Andrew Jackson was the United States’ <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/jqadams/campaigns-and-elections">nastiest and most personal election yet</a>.</p>
<p>Democratic President John Quincy Adams lost badly – but not before he did some serious damage to Jackson’s reputation. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272056/original/file-20190501-113864-1czatif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272056/original/file-20190501-113864-1czatif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272056/original/file-20190501-113864-1czatif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=811&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272056/original/file-20190501-113864-1czatif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=811&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272056/original/file-20190501-113864-1czatif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=811&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272056/original/file-20190501-113864-1czatif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1020&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272056/original/file-20190501-113864-1czatif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1020&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272056/original/file-20190501-113864-1czatif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1020&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Andrew Jackson’s wife, Rachel, was labeled an ‘American Jezebel’ in the 1828 election.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rachel_Jackson.jpg">Library of Congress</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Adam’s campaign surrogates <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/jqadams/campaigns-and-elections">accused Jackson of murder</a> and spread rumors that Jackson’s wife, Rachel – who had previously been married to another man – had never really divorced. </p>
<p>“As a result,” political commentator Rick Unger wrote <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/08/20/the-dirtiest-presidential-campaign-ever-not-even-close/">in Forbes magazine in 2012</a>, “the Democratic candidate was accused of being an adulterer and running away with another man’s wife, while Mrs. Jackson was labeled a bigamist.” </p>
<p>Jackson’s team retaliated by accusing Adams, a former ambassador to Russia, of having provided Russian Czar Alexander I up with young American virgins for his sexual pleasure.</p>
<p>These tactics probably amounted to <a href="https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html">criminal defamation</a>. In the United States, it is unlawful to tarnish a person’s reputation by spreading false information. But there is <a href="https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/facpubs/69/">no evidence that either camp sued</a>. </p>
<h2>Kennedy’s dirty tricks</h2>
<p>In the modern era, John F. Kennedy found subtler ways to discredit his opponents.</p>
<p>When running for Congress in 1946, Kennedy’s competitors in the Democratic primary included a Boston city councilman named <a href="https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/JFKOH/Russo%2C%20Joseph/JFKOH-JUR-01/JFKOH-JUR-01">Joseph Russo</a>. Kennedy’s father, the formidable and ambitious Joseph Kennedy, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2893826-the-kennedy-menv">paid a janitor</a> named Joseph Russo to run for Congress as well. </p>
<p>In the confusion over which Russo was the legitimate politician, votes were split. Kennedy won his seat. </p>
<p>Later, when Kennedy was a presidential candidate in 1960, his aides raised the temperature in the TV studio where he would soon face off against Vice President Richard Nixon in the nation’s first-ever televised debate. The Kennedy campaign <a href="https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/010027716">knew</a> that Nixon suffered from hyperhidrosis, a medical condition that causes a person to easily sweat. </p>
<p>As Nixon perspired and struggled under the bright lights and high heat, Kennedy looked <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/kennedy-nixon-debates">cool, calm and sweat-free</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272044/original/file-20190501-113839-1bg31l5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272044/original/file-20190501-113839-1bg31l5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272044/original/file-20190501-113839-1bg31l5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272044/original/file-20190501-113839-1bg31l5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272044/original/file-20190501-113839-1bg31l5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272044/original/file-20190501-113839-1bg31l5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272044/original/file-20190501-113839-1bg31l5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272044/original/file-20190501-113839-1bg31l5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">John F. Kennedy’s team turned up the heat in the TV studio before a televised 1960 debate with Richard Nixon, knowing he would sweat heavily.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Campaign-Great-Gaffes/c27f9e6f68df44aca79bc9fc3219e701/5/0">AP Images, File</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Nixon had been politically pranked before. </p>
<p>Dick Tuck, a notorious Democratic Party trickster, was “known to pose as a fire marshal at Nixon appearances and give reporters low estimates for the size of the crowds,” according to his <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-dicktuck/political-prankster-and-nixon-nemesis-dick-tuck-dead-at-age-94-idUSKCN1IV257">obituary by Reuters</a>.</p>
<h2>Party infighting</h2>
<p>As president, Nixon’s team would excel at much dirtier tricks.</p>
<p>To defeat Democrat Hubert Humphrey in the 1972 election, Nixon operatives <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/22/archives/dirty-tricks.html">caused trouble for his campaign</a> in ingenious ways. </p>
<p>At a fancy fundraising dinner for Democratic vice presidential candidate Edmund Muskie, Republican tricksters ordered the delivery of $300 in liquor, 200 pizzas and even a couple magicians – much to the dismay of organizers and the shock of the 1,300 very proper attendees.</p>
<p>The dirty tricks tradition continued into the 21st century, sometimes within the same party.</p>
<p>During the 2000 Republican presidential primary, George W. Bush’s campaign strategist Karl Rove spread rumors in South Carolina that John McCain’s adopted Bangladeshi daughter was <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/dirty-tricks-south-carolina-and-john-mccain/">his “illegitimate black child.”</a> </p>
<p>In 2010, an Arizona Republican political operative named Steve May <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/us/politics/07candidates.html">recruited homeless people to run for several offices</a> on the Green Party ticket, hoping to split the liberal vote. Angry Democrats said that nominating “sham” candidates violated state and federal election laws. </p>
<p>That case didn’t go to trial, but some dirty campaign tricks have spurred legal action. </p>
<p>After the Democratic-aligned <a href="https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2019/04/disbarred-lawyer-garve-ivey-jr-sentenced-to-12-months-behind-bars.html">Alabama lawyer Garve Ivey Jr.</a> in 1998 allegedly paid a call girl to file a false rape claim against the GOP’s candidate for lieutenant governor, Steve Windom, Ivey was charged with criminal defamation, bribery and witness tampering. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and fined $1,000. </p>
<p>While that misdemeanor conviction was later overturned, Ivey was disbarred in 2011 and later <a href="https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2019/02/disbarred-lawyer-garve-ivey-jr-convicted-on-felony-theft-charges-ordered-to-pay-38151520-in-restitution.html">jailed on unrelated charges of misusing client funds</a>.</p>
<p>The lesson here? </p>
<p>The ethical standard for election campaigns in the United States has always been low. Modern techniques like email hacking may be new, but using surrogates to trash your opponent is an electoral strategy as old as the republic itself.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115872/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steffen W. Schmidt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Amid all the Mueller report uncertainty, one thing is clear: Donald Trump did some wildly improper things to win the presidency. So did Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, JFK and George W. Bush.Steffen W. Schmidt, Lucken Endowed Professor of Political Science, Iowa State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/745952017-03-21T17:13:37Z2017-03-21T17:13:37ZSupreme Court justices in the pews and on the bench – and where Neil Gorsuch fits in<p>On Jan. 31, President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/supreme-court-nominee-trump.html?_r=0">nominated Judge Neil M. Gorsuch</a> of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court occasioned by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-senate-hearing.html">Senate hearing</a> on Judge Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court started on Monday, March 20.</p>
<p>As important as is a Supreme Court confirmation, Congress and the media have focused chiefly on the <a href="https://qz.com/900567/us-supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuchs-controversial-hobby-lobby-decision-explained/">numerous controversies</a> that have embroiled the new Trump administration. One media outlet even called Gorsuch’s confirmation process the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nomination/">“stealth Supreme Court nomination.”</a> </p>
<p>Judge Gorsuch has a <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-neil-gorsuch/">reputation as a judicial conservative</a> in the mold of Scalia. He has not ruled on several controversial issues such as gun rights, but the <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-future-214724">conventional wisdom</a> among court watchers is that if confirmed, the “young” (49-year-old) Gorsuch will swing the high court back to the right on many social issues and will impact Supreme Court jurisprudence for decades to come. As a result, progressive interest groups are scrambling to marshal their forces to <a href="https://qz.com/900567/us-supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuchs-controversial-hobby-lobby-decision-explained/">oppose Gorsuch’s confirmation</a>. </p>
<p>Judge Gorsuch has a notably strong record on one controversial subject, that being on church-state matters. His rulings have generally supported a more <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2017/january/trump-nominates-neil-gorsuch-supreme-court.html">“accommodationist”</a> approach to resolving church-state controversies, a position advocated by religious conservatives. In addition, during the White House announcement ceremony for his nomination, Judge Gorsuch remarked that he was <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2017/january/trump-nominates-neil-gorsuch-supreme-court.html">“thankful for my family, my friends, and my faith.”</a> </p>
<p>His statement raises the question of whether a judge is influenced to rule a particular way on church-state controversies by his or her religious faith.</p>
<p>I am a constitutional law professor who <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-second-disestablishment-9780195399677?cc=us&lang=en&">specializes in church and state matters</a>. I have also participated in more than 25 church-state cases before the Supreme Court as counsel and through friend-of-the-court briefs. </p>
<p>In my view, the religious faith of a justice, standing alone, tells us little about how he will vote in church-state cases or on other controversial social issues. It is a conservative religious worldview that is more likely to reinforce and validate an existing conservative judicial ideology.</p>
<h2>Gorsuch’s judicial decisions</h2>
<p>Following Trump’s announcement, conservative religious groups such as <a href="http://www.focusonthefamily.com/">Focus on the Family</a> and the <a href="http://www.frc.org/historymission">Family Research Council</a> praised Gorsuch’s nomination. The evangelical magazine Christianity Today declared that Gorsuch will be a justice <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2017/january/trump-nominates-neil-gorsuch-supreme-court.html">“that evangelicals will love.”</a> In contrast, progressive religious groups have <a href="https://www.au.org/church-state/march-2017-church-state/featured/supreme-mistake">voiced opposition</a> to Gorsuch’s nomination based on his church-state holdings.</p>
<p>Little is known about Gorsuch’s personal faith other than that he is religiously observant. <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4196096/Trump-s-Supreme-Court-pick-belongs-liberal-church.html">Gorsuch was raised Catholic</a>, attending a private Jesuit school in his youth. He became an Episcopalian while a graduate student at Oxford, the religion of his wife whom he met while in England. Currently the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/02/01/neil-gorsuch-belongs-to-a-notably-liberal-church-and-would-be-the-first-protestant-on-the-court-in-years/?utm_term=.b3f61ac6842d">judge attends a mainline Episcopal church</a> in Boulder, Colorado, that takes progressive stances on social issues. </p>
<p>The liberal orientation of Gorsuch’s church stands in contrast to his own record of judicial decision-making. During his 10-year tenure on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Gorsuch has taken a firm stance on behalf of protecting religious liberty claims against government regulations, a position that has made him a favorite of religious conservatives. Several of those cases have been highly controversial.</p>
<p>The infamous <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc/">Hobby Lobby case</a> is one example. In that case, the Supreme Court held that for-profit corporations may assert a religious liberty defense against having to comply with the contraceptive care insurance mandate under the Affordable Care Act. Judge Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion in the Tenth Circuit’s decision that went even further, urging that courts should defer to a person’s subjective claim that a law burdens his religious beliefs, regardless of how tangential that burden appears objectively. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/little-sisters-of-the-poor-home-for-the-aged-v-burwell/">Little Sisters of the Poor</a> is another example of a case that involved the question of a religious exemption from complying with the ACA. In that case, the Catholic order that operates nursing homes claimed that even applying for an exemption under the ACA from the government violated their religious beliefs. Gorsuch dissented when the Tenth Circuit declined to reconsider its decision rejecting the Little Sisters’ religious liberty claims. That dissent argued that the court had given insufficient deference to the Little Sisters’ own articulation of the burden on their religious beliefs.</p>
<p>He has also written or joined on opinions siding with the ability of governments to display religious symbols on public property, such as a <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/02/07/court-denies-rehearing-ten-commandments-case/97614964/">Ten Commandments monument</a> on courthouse lawns. According to <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-neil-gorsuch/">one bipartisan analysis</a> of Gorsuch’s record: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The common thread in these cases is one that matters very deeply to conservatives: a sense that the government can permit public displays of religion – and can accommodate deeply held religious views – without either violating the religion clauses of the Constitution or destroying the effectiveness of government [nondiscrimination] programs.” </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Religious affiliations in Supreme Court</h2>
<p>The question many people are asking is, will Gorsuch’s religious affiliation matter? First, let’s look at the religious makeup of the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>Currently, the <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/mayweb-only/29-22.0.html">Supreme Court comprises</a> five Catholics and three Jews (Justice Scalia was also Catholic). This has led some commentators to speculate on what this means for issues such as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0748081400000424">abortion regulations and church-state matters</a>. </p>
<p>The vast majority of justices have been <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/mayweb-only/29-22.0.html">Protestants</a>, which is not surprising considering the Protestant dominance of the culture until recently. President Andrew Jackson <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/mayweb-only/29-22.0.html">appointed the first Catholic</a> to the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Roger Taney) in 1836, a fact that did not go unnoticed. The next Catholic justice, Edward D. White, was appointed in 1894, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0748081400000424">some 58 years later</a>. (White was more controversial for being a former Confederate officer than for being Catholic) </p>
<p>The first Jewish justice was appointed in 1916 (Louis Brandeis), to be followed by Benjamin Cardozo in 1932, which established the unofficial <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/4466935">“Jewish seat”</a> on the court. From 1940 forward, there has always been at least one Catholic and one Jewish justice on the high court (absent a hiatus from 1969 to 1993 of a Jewish justice). </p>
<p>Those demographics have changed significantly over the past two decades. With the resignation of Justice John Paul Stevens in 2010, the court was left <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/weekinreview/11liptak.html">without a Protestant member</a> for the first time in its history. </p>
<h2>Here’s what history tells us</h2>
<p>In most instances, research shows, a justice’s religious faith has been a poor predictor of his or her judicial philosophy (and that would assume that one can draw accurate conclusions about what any religion requires of its adherents). </p>
<p>For example, is it safe to assume that a Catholic justice will vote against abortion and gay marriage because of the teachings of the Catholic Church?</p>
<p>Catholic Justice Frank Murphy (1940-1949) was a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0748081400000424">staunch New Deal liberal</a>, whereas Catholic Justice William Brennan (1956-1990) was likely the Supreme Court’s fiercest supporter of church-state separation and reproductive choice during his long tenure. </p>
<p>Currently, Catholic Justice Sonia Sotomayor is considered to be part of the court’s liberal wing. <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=jpcYAAAAIAAJ">Another notable liberal</a> was Justice Hugo Black (1937-1971), who was a Southern Baptist, while two conservative justices were William Howard Taft (1921-1930) (Unitarian) and William Rehnquist (1972-2005) (Lutheran). </p>
<p>And though Catholic Justice Anthony Kennedy usually sides with the conservatives, <a href="http://www.momentmag.com/symposium-religion-supreme-court/">he has voted</a> to uphold abortion rights and gay marriage. Likely the closest religious indicator of judicial philosophy has been among the court’s <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/4466935">Jewish justices</a>, who have overwhelmingly been liberal.</p>
<p>To be sure, there have been some exceptions. <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/23328097?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">Justice William Strong (1870-1880) was an evangelical Presbyterian</a> who served briefly as president of a religious organization that sought to amend the Constitution to declare the United States a “Christian nation.” </p>
<p>Similarly, <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/3660708">Justice David J. Brewer (1889-1910)</a> was an evangelical Congregationalist who declared in a court opinion that <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-second-disestablishment-9780195399677?cc=us&lang=en&">America was a Christian nation</a>, a matter he wrote about at length off the bench. And Justice Felix Frankfurter (1938-1962), a secular Jew, frequently <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/4466935">referenced his religious/ethnic heritage</a> in his strong support for church-state separation. </p>
<p>But those instances have generally represented the exceptions.</p>
<p>The safest conclusion to draw from history is that religious affiliation is probably a poor indicator of judicial philosophy. It generally does not preordain any judicial holdings. However, a conservative religious outlook may reinforce an existing conservative judicial ideology, and vice versa, particularly on social issues.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74595/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven K. Green does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Judge Gorsuch was raised Catholic and later became an Episcopalian. An expert on Church-State issues says don’t read too much into religion as an indicator of judicial philosophy.Steven K. Green, Professor of Law, Director of the Center for Religion, Law & Democracy, Willamette UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/624742016-07-21T10:08:08Z2016-07-21T10:08:08ZCan America’s deep political divide be traced back to 1832?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131294/original/image-20160720-31159-16b6rjv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The nation's political chasm – already wide – has grown even more since 2012. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-389333206/stock-photo-republican-democrat-political-division-concept-and-american-election-fight-as-as-two-mountain-cliff.html?src=pp-same_artist-411652531-aj_gn_N1JNyvPF3Kh1HYEg-1">'Partisanship' via www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>You’ve probably heard the popular aphorism “to the victor belongs the spoils of the enemy.”</p>
<p>But you might not know who first said it.</p>
<p>In 1832, the Senate debated President Andrew Jackson’s unpopular – and decidedly partisan – recess appointment of Martin Van Buren as minister to Great Britain. New York Senator William L. Marcy, a staunch ally of the president, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=6K4RAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA423&dq=martin%20van%20buren%20confirmation%20minister%20to%20great%20britain%201832&pg=PA453#v=onepage&q=enemy&f=false">defended the move with those words</a>.</p>
<p>Essentially, Marcy was justifying Van Buren’s appointment on the grounds that since Jackson had won the presidency, he could do whatever he wanted. </p>
<p>Marcy’s loyalty to Jackson and Van Buren helped Marcy to reap some rewards of his own: He would go on to become governor of New York and was eventually appointed secretary of war and secretary of state by Democratic Presidents James Polk and Franklin Pierce. He was even featured on the <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MtnKSnYgqbI/VD5483MnapI/AAAAAAAACqY/420ZEcFuyw8/s1600/1891%2B$1000%2BSilver%2BCertificate.JPG">US$1,000 bill</a>.</p>
<p>But Marcy’s aphorism also signified the growing partisanship taking place in 19th-century American political life, a divide that continues to frame how we think about politics today.</p>
<h2>The rise of the two-party system</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.people-press.org/interactives/political-polarization-1994-2015/">A recent Pew Research Center report</a> found that the average Republican is more conservative than 93 percent of Democrats and the average Democrat is more liberal than 94 percent of Republicans. <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/section-1-growing-ideological-consistency/">Pew has also noted</a> that the country has moved away from the center over the past 20 years: Democrats have shifted to the left by 30 percent and Republicans have shifted to the right by 23 percent, leaving little common ground between the two parties.</p>
<p>Political philosophers like Louis Althusser offer an explanation for this growing divide. <a href="https://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/marxism/modules/althusserideology.html">According to Althusser</a>, states – including democratic republics – will eventually position citizens as “always already subjects”: fractured, obedient and positioned by ideology to work against their own best interests. </p>
<p>In the United States, this may be what’s going on today. But it wasn’t always this way.</p>
<p>Writing in response to the British Parliament’s controversial 1767 <a href="http://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/townshend-acts">Townshend Acts</a>, founding father <a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/dickinson-empire-and-nation-letters-from-a-farmer">John Dickinson</a> helped colonial Americans see themselves as citizens rather than as subjects. American colonists, Dickinson argued, needed to begin acting as government “watchdogs.” </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Ought not the people therefore to watch? to observe facts? to search into causes? to investigate designs? And have they not a right of JUDGING from the evidence before them, on no slighter points than their liberty and happiness? </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the most ideal sense of the word, being a citizen meant combating corruption by squirreling out facts, investigating the motives of political figures and judging the actions of government through the lens of one’s own liberty and happiness. </p>
<p>The idea is to be independent, critical thinkers – not loyal and obedient subjects.</p>
<p>But between 1824 and 1828, Americans called for more political participation, only to cede some of this watchdog function, as new political leaders and new political parties ended up simply channeling these demands for political participation into political partisanship. During this period, politicians – including Marcy, Van Buren and Jackson – <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=JdVQmgnDv84C&printsec=frontcover&dq=emergence+of+the+party+system&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjclvzGofPNAhXm7YMKHTX6CRoQ6AEINjAF#v=onepage&q=emergence%20of%20the%20party%20system&f=false">helped establish the party system</a> we know today: two powerful parties, pitted against one another. (Today, it’s the Democrats and Republicans; back then, it was the Democrats and the Whigs.) </p>
<p>It wasn’t much different from being a subject, and advocates of this system demanded loyalty to the party above all else.</p>
<p>“We hold it a principle,” the Jacksonian newspaper the <a href="http://fultonhistory.com/Newspapers%2021/Albany%20NY%20Argus/Albany%20NY%20Argus%201824/Albany%20NY%20Argus%201824%20-%200054.pdf">Albany Argus</a> declared on February 17, 1824, “that every man should sacrifice his own private opinions and feelings to the good of his party and the man who will not do it is unworthy to be supported by a party, for any post of honor or profit.” </p>
<p>With the party system firmly established, it was difficult for any nonpartisan to win elected office. Voters and candidates would pick sides, taking for granted that a victory for the candidates of their party would protect their liberty and happiness. </p>
<p>Critical thinking, meanwhile, fell by the wayside.</p>
<h2>Your polarized news feed</h2>
<p>Early American newspapers served primarily to facilitate trade and commerce, being largely notices of goods for sale. In the 19th century, newspapers <a href="https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-11/Journalism/index8067.html?page_id=14">began to function as mouthpieces for political parties</a>. But by the turn of the 20th century, many newspapers switched their tack. Journalism adopted the “<a href="http://jou.sagepub.com/content/2/2/149.abstract">norm of objectivity</a>,” using muckraking and investigative reporting to hold those in power accountable. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, today, while <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2013/08/08/amid-criticism-support-for-medias-watchdog-role-stands-out/">the public still wants the media to act as a watchdog</a>, in many ways (<a href="http://niemanreports.org/articles/truth-or-consequences-where-is-watchdog-journalism-today/">but not all</a>) outlets have reverted to promoting partisanship. </p>
<p>The media, after all, is <a href="http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/22qxm7kq9780252024481.html">business</a> – and many outlets have become <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/02/03/are-fox-and-msnbc-polarizing-america/">increasingly partisan</a> because they’ve realized that it’s good for the bottom line. </p>
<p>And it’s not just news outlets that understand this, but news aggregators. For example, <a href="http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/users">66 percent of Facebook users</a> get the news primarily from their Facebook news feed. We know that the Facebook algorithm <a href="https://www.facebook.com/business/news/News-Feed-FYI-A-Window-Into-News-Feed">skews what we see</a> in order to keep us on the site longer. </p>
<p>So what impact does the algorithm have on the news we see in our feed? </p>
<p>Recently, the Wall Street Journal <a href="http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/?mod=e2fb#/obama">created an interactive graphic</a> (updated hourly) that shows the stark difference between news feeds for users the algorithm has labeled liberal and news feeds for those the algorithm has labeled conservative.</p>
<p>For example, on the day after Melania Trump’s controversial Republican National Convention speech, users whom the algorithm identified as liberal were “fed” an article calling Trump’s response to the plagiarism allegations “pathetic.” Meanwhile, conservatives received an article from Rush Limbaugh with the headline “Liberals Always Attack GOP Wives.” </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131161/original/image-20160719-7963-1rx67xe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131161/original/image-20160719-7963-1rx67xe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=369&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131161/original/image-20160719-7963-1rx67xe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=369&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131161/original/image-20160719-7963-1rx67xe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=369&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131161/original/image-20160719-7963-1rx67xe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131161/original/image-20160719-7963-1rx67xe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131161/original/image-20160719-7963-1rx67xe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A screen grab from the Wall Street Journal’s ‘Blue Feed, Red Feed’ interactive graphic shows the type of article you’ll be ‘fed,’ depending on how the algorithm has labeled your political preference.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/?mod=e2fb#/melania-trump">Wall Street Journal</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Who profits?</h2>
<p>Last month, <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-political-animosity-in-2016/">Pew came out with another survey</a>: 45 percent of Republicans said that Democratic policies threatened the nation; 41 percent of Democrats said the same about Republican policies. It’s a sharp increase from just two years ago, when 37 percent of Republicans thought that Democratic policies were a threat to the nation and 31 percent of Democrats claimed the same about Republicans. </p>
<p>A “threat to the nation” is a far cry from simple disagreement. After all, who threatens the nation? </p>
<p>Enemies threaten the nation.</p>
<p>Let’s return to Marcy’s aphorism and think about how it positions us in relation to political parties.</p>
<p><em>To the victor belongs the spoils of the enemy.</em></p>
<p>What does it do to us, to our politics, when we think of the people who hold different policy views as “enemies”? Enemies are evil, not merely people with good reasons for thinking differently. Enemies cannot be trusted. Enemies are irrational because if they <em>were</em> rational, then they would think like we do. We can’t negotiate with evil, untrustworthy, irrational enemies – and so we don’t. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130480/original/image-20160713-12392-1i1qnfk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130480/original/image-20160713-12392-1i1qnfk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130480/original/image-20160713-12392-1i1qnfk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=259&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130480/original/image-20160713-12392-1i1qnfk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=259&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130480/original/image-20160713-12392-1i1qnfk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=259&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130480/original/image-20160713-12392-1i1qnfk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=325&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130480/original/image-20160713-12392-1i1qnfk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=325&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130480/original/image-20160713-12392-1i1qnfk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=325&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Being a staunch partisan might get you on the $1,000 bill. But a system of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ is bad for democracy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/US-$1000-SC-1891-Fr-346e.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Ultimately, Marcy’s “to the victor belongs the spoils of the enemy” assumes, first and foremost, that we’re partisans, not citizens.</p>
<p>So <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0018%3Atext%3DS.+Rosc.%3Asection%3D84">who profits</a> from voters who act like partisans instead of citizens? </p>
<p>Well, since they’re claiming the spoils of office, political parties benefit. During the Republican National Convention, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie hinted that Donald Trump, if elected, <a href="http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN10003A">would seek a new law to purge the government of Obama appointees</a>. A partisan would believe that it’s Trump’s right to do so; he won, so he can rid the government of his “enemies.” What would a citizen think of Trump’s plan to rid the government of his enemies?</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the rest of us lose.</p>
<p>Perhaps instead of “to the victor belongs the spoils of the enemy,” we could learn to think of politics as “to those entrusted with great responsibility belongs the obligation to work for the common good.” It isn’t as poetic, but it also isn’t as partisan. </p>
<p>As the political party spectacle of two back-to-back presidential nominating conventions plays out, think about how each party invites us to act. Is it as a loyal, obedient soldier or an independent thinker? </p>
<p>Is it as a partisan subject, or as a citizen? </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aEAG2dLEEuY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Author Jennifer Mercieca’s TEDx talk ‘Be a Citizen, not a Partisan.’</span></figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62474/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Mercieca does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Elected officials and the media are in cahoots. Both have succumbed to a two-party system that treats voters not as independent thinkers, but as blind partisans.Jennifer Mercieca, Professor of Communication, Texas A&M UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/582452016-04-22T10:03:07Z2016-04-22T10:03:07ZWho was the first woman depicted on American currency?<p>When the <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/17/news/economy/woman-on-ten-dollar-bill/">Treasury Department announced</a> that a woman would grace the vignette of a newly designed US$10 bill in 2020 – rather than Founding Father Alexander Hamilton – there was a groundswell of support for the plan, as well as <a href="https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/current-events/down-with-hamilton-and-jackson-why-our-currency-may-be-changing/">heated debate</a>. </p>
<p>Even before Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew made his announcement, a nonprofit organization called “<a href="http://www.womenon20s.org">Women On 20s</a>” had launched a major online campaign urging the government to put a woman on U.S. currency. Its sights were set on the $20 bill, however. </p>
<p>Ultimately that campaign – as well as one by Hamilton boosters – was successful as the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/20/u-s-to-keep-hamilton-on-front-of-10-bill-put-portrait-of-harriet-tubman-on-20-bill/">government decided</a> to leave the first Treasury secretary on the $10 and instead replace the face of seventh president and slaveholder Andrew Jackson on the $20 with that of Harriet Tubman, a self-liberated woman who led other enslaved people to freedom on the Underground Railroad. Jackson’s portrait will remain, but on the back of the bill. </p>
<p>Despite still having to share the monetary space with Jackson, this is a significant step forward for our country, full of symbolism and a sense of progress – even if long overdue. </p>
<p>Like the election of the first African-American president eight years ago, having the image of a black woman front and center on our nation’s paper money was until recently a far-fetched dream that will soon become a reality. It will have tangible implications for women of all ages and backgrounds for a long time to come. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, however, throughout this important conversation and debate, there have been some inaccuracies about the history of women on paper money. </p>
<p>My purpose in writing this article as a historian who has researched the symbolic links between money, colonialism and nationalism is to offer a contextualized global and historical perspective on the depiction of women and African-Americans on currency. </p>
<p>It’s also to answer a frequent question: who actually was the first woman on a banknote issued in what is now the United States?</p>
<h2>Women on world currencies</h2>
<p>While women have been featured on coins around the world since ancient times, they did not appear on banknotes until the 17th century – about 700 years after the <a href="http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1914560_1914558_1914593,00.html">first paper money began circulating in China</a>.</p>
<p>Great Britain was first to do so by putting “Britannia,” the female personification of the island nation, on the <a href="http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/archive/Documents/history/britannia.pdf">inaugural banknotes issued by the Bank of England</a> after its founding in the late 17th century. </p>
<p>Depictions of both symbolic female figures like Britannia and actual women have since appeared on the paper money of many countries, from Albania to Zimbabwe. These representations can be divided into five main categories: as national personifications of mythical goddesses, which represent a nation, its people or empire; as allegorical images; as unnamed or general members of societies; as real, historical individuals; and as rulers.</p>
<p>National personifications, for example, include Britannia, Germania, Hibernia (Ireland), Columbia, (Mother) Russia and Scotia (Scotland). </p>
<p>The list of real-life women depicted on money is longer, ranging from ancient historical figures such as Warrior Queen Zenobia of the Palmyrene Empire in Ancient Syria to monarchs including Britain’s Queen Victoria and Russia’s Catherine the Great to national heroines like Jamaica’s Queen Nanny of the Maroons. The warrior queen led a small band of escaped African slaves in a successful guerrilla war against the British in the 18th century. She is also the subject of a 2015 documentary that I coproduced (with director Roy T. Anderson) called “<a href="https://www.facebook.com/nannythemovie">Queen Nanny: Legendary Maroon Chieftainess</a>.” </p>
<h2>Who was first in the U.S.?</h2>
<p>In the U.S., paper money has been issued by both governmental and private entities and has circulated in the country since 1690, including during the Civil War period, when the Confederacy printed its own currency. </p>
<p>While Tubman’s selection for depiction on the $20 bill is historic, she is not the first woman – either mythical or actual – to appear on paper money in the United States. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119707/original/image-20160421-26983-10j8l2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119707/original/image-20160421-26983-10j8l2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119707/original/image-20160421-26983-10j8l2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=250&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119707/original/image-20160421-26983-10j8l2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=250&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119707/original/image-20160421-26983-10j8l2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=250&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119707/original/image-20160421-26983-10j8l2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119707/original/image-20160421-26983-10j8l2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119707/original/image-20160421-26983-10j8l2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Martha Washington, the first First Lady, was the last woman to adorn an American note.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Pocahontas was the first nonmythical woman to earn that distinction on U.S. paper money, having been depicted on the back of the $20 bill from 1865 to 1869 and on the $20 bill in 1875. </p>
<p>Martha Washington was the only other woman to appear on U.S. federal paper money. She was on the front of the $1 Silver Certificate of 1886 and 1891 and (alongside that of her husband) on the back of the $1 Silver Certificate of 1896. Other women such as first ladies Rachel Jackson and Dolley Madison have been depicted on private banknotes.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119704/original/image-20160421-26983-11mmadu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119704/original/image-20160421-26983-11mmadu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119704/original/image-20160421-26983-11mmadu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=551&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119704/original/image-20160421-26983-11mmadu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=551&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119704/original/image-20160421-26983-11mmadu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=551&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119704/original/image-20160421-26983-11mmadu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=692&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119704/original/image-20160421-26983-11mmadu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=692&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119704/original/image-20160421-26983-11mmadu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=692&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Lucy Pickens was the first woman portrayed on paper currency in what is now the U.S.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CSA-T65-$100-1864.jpg">National Numismatic Collection, National Museum of American History</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, the first nonmythical, historical woman to appear on any paper currency within our current borders was not on a U.S. bill but rather on Confederate money: “Queen of the Confederacy” Lucy Holcombe Pickens (and South Carolina’s first lady) was portrayed on Confederate $1 bills of 1862 and 1863 and the $100 bill of 1862 through 1864. </p>
<p>In other words, contrary to news reports, Pickens was actually the first woman to be depicted on paper money issued in the U.S., and <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/06/18/martha-washington-united-states-dollar-bills-silver-dollar/28933355/.">not Pocahontas or Martha Washington</a>. </p>
<h2>African-American depictions on paper money</h2>
<p>Tubman’s image on the $20 bill is hugely significant when we consider that practically all previous images of African-American women and men depicted on U.S. paper currency were stock images of nameless slaves. </p>
<p>In the 1850s and 1860s, slaves were illustrated on private banknotes in southern states and on Confederate paper currency. In 1858, for example, the Bank of the Commonwealth in Virginia <a href="http://www.colorsofmoney.com/miamip1.htm">depicted a slave mother and child</a> on a $50 banknote. Free blacks were depicted on a $10 banknote issued by the Bank of Catasauqua in Pennsylvania in the late 1850s. An 1861 Confederate States of America $10 bill <a href="http://exhibitions.blogs.lib.lsu.edu/?page_id=707">depicted a slave picking cotton</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119800/original/image-20160422-17388-ntl7b0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119800/original/image-20160422-17388-ntl7b0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119800/original/image-20160422-17388-ntl7b0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=262&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119800/original/image-20160422-17388-ntl7b0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=262&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119800/original/image-20160422-17388-ntl7b0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=262&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119800/original/image-20160422-17388-ntl7b0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=329&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119800/original/image-20160422-17388-ntl7b0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=329&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119800/original/image-20160422-17388-ntl7b0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=329&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This Confederate bill from 1862 portrayed nameless slaves in the fields.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The signatures of four African-American men who served as registers of the Treasury have also appeared on the greenback. And during the Carter administration, Azie Taylor Morton became the first and only African-American to serve as U.S. treasurer. As such, her signature graced all currency issued during her tenure.</p>
<p>Aside from currency, there are other noteworthy historical and contemporary precedents for commemorating African-American women on our national symbols. </p>
<p>Many African-American women have been featured on U.S. postage stamps, especially under the Black Heritage series. Like national currencies, postage stamps are part of a government’s mass marketing of its history, identity, culture and achievements. The <a href="http://stamps.org/userfiles/file/albums/BlackHeritage.pdf">Black Heritage series</a> has depicted women such as Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Mahalia Jackson, “Ma” Rainey, Billie Holiday and Madam C.J. Walker. </p>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p>The portrait of a woman on current paper currency is long overdue. </p>
<p>With her image, the U.S. is now moving on from the depiction of African-Americans as slaves on Confederate banknotes to the portrait of a woman who fought for liberation from slavery. And that liberator’s appearance ends a long absence of African-Americans – and women of any race or ethnicity – from U.S. paper currency.</p>
<p>The Treasury Department says it aims to unveil the design of the currency by 2020, in time for the 100th anniversary of women’s suffrage, when the 19th Amendment was ratified by enough states to become part of the U.S. Constitution. The new $20 likely won’t enter circulation for another few years.</p>
<p>Even if it takes a while before we actually see these new $20 bills, the fact that Harriet Tubman’s visage will grace them underscores just how far we have come as one nation. And that she will replace a slaveowner makes it the perfect poetic and monetary justice.</p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: due to a typo, Andrew Jackson was initially inadvertently identified as the 17th president of the U.S. He was the seventh president.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58245/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Harcourt Fuller does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The announcement that Harriet Tubman will be the first woman on U.S. currency in more than a century recalls the history of female – and African-American – portrayals on money.Harcourt Fuller, Assistant Professor of History, Georgia State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/465602015-08-24T17:05:06Z2015-08-24T17:05:06ZSins of the Founding Fathers: The perils of judging past heroes by today’s standards<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92840/original/image-20150824-17779-189pey9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bronze statue of Jefferson in the Jefferson Memorial, Washington, DC.
Image ID: 138476909
Copyright: DonLand</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=q20GmAIl3qx6ZK9ECErysw&searchterm=jefferson%20memorial%20statue%20&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=138476909">DonLand/SHUTTERSTOCK</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Democratic parties in four states have recently <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/will-the-democratic-party-abandon-thomas-jefferson-andrew-jackson/399722/">removed</a> the names of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson from their annual fundraising dinners, a move now under consideration in at least five other states. </p>
<p>Proponents of this initiative argue that any party that seeks to identify itself with equality and diversity cannot afford to be associated with the <a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/founding-fathers-and-slaveholders-72262393/?no-ist">slave-holding</a> Jefferson or the <a href="http://www.historynet.com/indian-removal-act">Native American-persecuting</a> Jackson.</p>
<p>At issue in such debates are deep differences of opinion about the relationship between the past and the present. Those who seek to depose Jefferson and Jackson believe historical figures should be held to the same standards of conduct we apply today. </p>
<p>They regard slavery and the forced relocation of indigenous peoples as so heinous that anyone guilty of them, regardless the age in which they lived, should be censured.</p>
<p>Yet there are reasons to be more circumspect in our judgments about such figures. For one thing, Jefferson and Jackson, though far from perfect, made enduring contributions to our nation’s history. Jefferson, for example, drafted the Declaration of Independence, served as both the nation’s first secretary of state and third president and completed the Louisiana Purchase, effectively doubling the size of the United States.</p>
<p>Jefferson and his legacy have been one of the world’s most influential forces for democracy, republican government, and the rights of the individual. In addition to his political contributions, Jefferson vigorously promoted the sciences and arts and <a href="http://www.virginia.edu/uvatours/shorthistory/">founded</a> the University of Virginia. And though Jefferson owned slaves and <a href="http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-brief-account">may have even fathered</a> multiple children with a slave after his wife’s death, he opposed it in his writings.</p>
<p>In addition to founding the forerunner of today’s Democratic Party, Jackson was a <a href="http://thehermitage.com/learn/andrew-jackson/general/">military hero</a> who served two terms as the nation’s seventh president, <a href="http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/age-jackson/resources/andrew-jackson-and-bank-war">dismantled</a> the national bank, overcame an effort by South Carolina to <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/us/24c.asp">nullify </a>federal law, secured Florida from the Spanish, and paid off the national debt. Of course, Jackson was also a slave owner and he <a href="http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Indian.html">forced Indian tribes</a> from their lands, precipitating the so-called “<a href="http://www.cherokee.org/AboutTheNation/History/TrailofTears/ABriefHistoryoftheTrailofTears.aspx">trail of tears</a>.”</p>
<p>In censuring such men, we run the risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Should we strike George Washington from our coinage and change the name of the national capital because he was a slaveholder? Should we dismantle the Lincoln monument because our 16th president once favored the deportation of freed slaves? Should we shun the multiple US presidents who appear to have been involved in extramarital affairs?</p>
<p>While never disregarding any historical figure’s flaws, we should also remember that each generation of human beings depends on the cohorts that came before it for its religious and political institutions, its science and technology, and even for the very language it speaks. There is much to be gained from maintaining a balanced sense of respect and gratitude for the benefactions of our imperfect forebears.</p>
<p>Despite their shortcomings, men such as Jefferson and Jackson deserve our continued respect. Each rendered remarkable public service, and the time-honored stories about their lives represent cultural treasures that deserve to continue to be passed down from generation to generation of Americans. These narratives have the power to fire our imaginations and shape our characters in ways that abstract ethical and political principles rarely can.</p>
<p>There is no question that Jefferson had his flaws. In his dealings with his presidential predecessors Washington and Adams, he engaged in rank deceit and subterfuge. Yet he cherished books, collecting nearly 6,500 that eventually formed the nucleus of the Library of Congress. He is thought to have written no fewer than 19,000 letters during his lifetime. And he was also a doting grandfather who taught his grandchildren to play chess and loved organizing races for them.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92842/original/image-20150824-17771-88vqvm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92842/original/image-20150824-17771-88vqvm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92842/original/image-20150824-17771-88vqvm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=568&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92842/original/image-20150824-17771-88vqvm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=568&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92842/original/image-20150824-17771-88vqvm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=568&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92842/original/image-20150824-17771-88vqvm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=713&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92842/original/image-20150824-17771-88vqvm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=713&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92842/original/image-20150824-17771-88vqvm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=713&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Andrew Jackson statue, Washington DC.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=tjhDi8qW9bQtiu7ctpEQGA&searchterm=andrew%20jackson&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=179485361">Adam Parent/SHUTTERSTOCK</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Jackson too was a human being with human flaws. He once killed a man in a duel, and carried that same duelist’s bullet in his chest for much of his adult life. He was also the target of the first attempted presidential assassination, which he survived only because both of the assailant’s pistols – later found to be in good working order – misfired. And though Jackson signed the Indian Removal act, he also adopted two Native American children.</p>
<p>At stake in the debate over Jefferson and Jackson is an even larger principle. We live in an age that likes to label people as Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, and so on. Such labels often obscure more than they reveal. </p>
<p>Treating people in a one-dimensional fashion not only oversimplifies their politics but also threatens to rob them of their humanity. Character flaws deserve scrutiny, but they should not prevent us from admiring our nation’s heroes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46560/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Democratic parties in four states have recently removed the names of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson from their annual fundraising dinners, a move now under consideration in at least five other states…Richard Gunderman, Chancellor's Professor of Medicine, Liberal Arts, and Philanthropy, IUPUILicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.