Even George Washington couldn't get along with the SenateRoundup
tags: Congress, George Washington, Senate
Will President Obama's relations with the Senate change, now that Democrats have lost control of it? Probably not. And that's because he didn't have much of a relationship with it in the first place.
Neither did most of our previous presidents, even when the Senate was in their own party's hands. Tension between the chief executive and the upper body of Congress is baked into our national DNA. And elections don't seem to affect it all that much.
Before the nation's first president took office, the Senate voted to bestow upon George Washington the title of “His Majesty, the President of the United States of America, and the Protector of the Same.” But Washington's relationship with the Senate cooled just a few months later, when he visited the body to request its approval of a commission to negotiate land treaties with Native Americans.
Senators asked for time to consider the proposal, but Washington wanted their consent on the spot. He departed in a huff, leaving bad feelings on both sides. “I cannot be mistaken,” one senator wrote in his journal. “The President wishes to tread on the necks of the Senate.”
The new Constitution gave the Senate power to approve federal appointments, not just treaties. When the Senate rejected his nominee for a naval post in Georgia, Washington personally went to the body to ask why. One senator replied that its deliberations were secret, and they were none of the president's business anyhow. After that, Washington resolved never to visit the Senate again.
Similar acrimony arose between 19th century presidents and the Senate, even when the president (like our current chief executive) had served in the body himself. After nine-year Senate veteran John Tyler became the country's first unelected president, replacing the deceased William Henry Harrison, one senator proposed that Tyler be addressed as “The Vice President, on whom, by the death of the late President, the powers and duties of the office of President have devolved.” The Senate went on to reject four of Tyler's Cabinet nominees and four of his appointments to the Supreme Court.
Nor did it matter that Tyler's own party, the Whigs, controlled the Senate. Two decades later, as the Civil War raged, not a single member of the GOP-dominated Senate supported Abraham Lincoln's 1864 reelection bid. Lincoln was locked in a battle over postwar Reconstruction with his fellow Republicans, many of whom believed that his assassination would pave their way to victory. “By the gods,” GOP Sen. Ben Wade told Lincoln's vice president, Andrew Johnson, after he assumed the presidency, “there will be no trouble now in running the government!”
But there was, of course, into the next century and beyond. Upon ascending to the White House in 1901, Theodore Roosevelt clashed with his GOP Senate colleagues over his plans for banking regulation, the construction of the Panama Canal and more. Privately, Roosevelt called one Republican senator “a well-meaning, pin-headed, anarchistic crank, of hirsute and slab-sided aspect.” As one of Roosevelt's friends wrote, the president had “as much respect for the Senate as a dog has for a marriage license.” And the Senate returned the feelings, of course...
comments powered by Disqus
- A load of gold worth up to $54 million went missing during the Civil War. There may be a break in the case.
- How American High Schools Teach The Iraq War
- The waves of feminism, and why people keep fighting over them, explained
- Florida to replace Confederate statue in US Capitol
- 43% of Americans still think the Iraq War was a good idea
- “Civilisations" presenter David Olusoga blames Winston Churchill for war crimes in Africa
- University of Chicago’s Hanna Holborn Gray has written a memoir
- Historians’ assessment of Obama’s legacy
- Facebook’s Historian: Professor Heather Cox Richardson
- Historians at the Rochester Institute of Technology are bolstering Wikipedia’s archive of entries on women’s history