{"id":62027,"date":"2024-07-29T14:09:28","date_gmt":"2024-07-29T21:09:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com\/?p=62027"},"modified":"2024-07-29T14:09:28","modified_gmt":"2024-07-29T21:09:28","slug":"how-did-they-decide-what-to-call-the-president","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com\/index.php\/2024\/07\/how-did-they-decide-what-to-call-the-president\/","title":{"rendered":"How Did They Decide What to Call the President?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Your Majesty, Caesar, King, Emperor, Lord Protector, Excellency, Duke, these are only a handful of monikers given to leaders of nations throughout history. Picking from such official titles and honorifics to apply to one\u2019s own leader when forming a new nation would seem rather straightforward\u2026 However, in a budding nation that vehemently rejected just about anything that was associated with the old world and its forms of government, deciding what to call their leader was anything but straightforward, and at one point brought the U.S. Senate to a screeching halt right from their earliest sessions. This is the fascinating, and mildly humorous, story of how the U.S. President got his then rather unique and extremely humble moniker amongst leaders of nations.<\/p>\n

Our story today begins on April 14, 1789. On that day, George Washington was sitting in his home at Mount Vernon in Virginia when the Secretary of the Continental Congress, Charles Thomson, arrived bearing a letter from the U.S. Senate that stated that Washington had won the recent election and was now leader of the nation under its new Constitution.<\/p>\n

This was lucky for the asset rich but cash strapped former General, as he would later write his nephew, George, when giving advice on running a plantation and life in general. In this letter, he particularly advised him to remain frugal in all things, and stated of his election “Indeed, necessity, if this had not happened, would have forced me into the measure [of frugality], as my means are not adequate to the expense at which I have lived since my retirement to what is called private life.” That said, he also noted in the letter, that becoming the nation’s first president under the new constitution was something “I dreaded would take place…”<\/p>\n

If you\u2019re curious here, the initial salary for the President was set at $25,000 per year (a little over half a million dollars today), and the Vice President was set to earn $5,000 per year. For reference, today the President has a salary of $400K per year, so slightly less than Washington. Whereas the Vice President earns $235,100, so over double the nation’s first Vice President in John Adams.<\/p>\n

In any event, two days after receiving news of his victory, Washington set out for Federal Hall in New York City where he was inaugurated on Thursday, April 30, 9 days after the runner up in the election, Adams, was inaugurated as Vice President.<\/p>\n

Right from the start issues of protocol bogged the Senate down. With, directly before Washington\u2019s inauguration, Adams rising and stating, \u201cGentlemen, I wish for the direction of the Senate. The President will, I suppose, address the Congress. How shall I behave? How shall we receive it? Shall it be standing or sitting?\u201d This apparently kicked off a heated discussion on how any of them should receive the President and whether they ought to mirror how Parliament in Britain receives their King, or be much less formal.<\/p>\n

According to Senator William Maclay of Pennsylvania, little headway was being made when suddenly a clerk arrived from the House, triggering yet another furious debate on how to receive him. Maclay states,<\/p>\n

\u201cA silly kind of resolution of the committee on that business had been laid on the table some days ago. The amount of it was that each House should communicate to the other what and how they chose; it concluded, however, something in this way: That everything should be done with all the propriety that was proper. The question [now] was, Shall this be adopted, that we may know how to receive the Clerk? \u2026Mr. Lee brought the House of Commons before us again. He reprobated the rule; declared that the Clerk should not come within \u2026 that the proper mode was for the Sergeant-at-Arms, with the mace on his shoulder, to meet the Clerk at the door and receive his communication; we are not, however, provided for this ceremonious way of doing business, having neither mace nor sergeant.\u201d<\/p>\n

Continuing to debate the matter at length with the Clerk left waiting, things came to a head when yet more officials arrived and yet more debate was had on how the Senate should receive them. Ultimately the President himself arrived with seemingly little headway made on any of it.<\/p>\n

While this may all seem quite ridiculous, all involved were extremely well aware every little thing they did was setting a precedent that could have major implications not just down the road, but potentially immediately, as with the President\u2019s title, which we\u2019ll get to shortly. But in brief for now, many in the nation already saw such a position as tantamount to just a King with another name, and countless news reports at the time even rumored some were considering that another revolution was needed to get rid of any such monarch and overly powerful central government. Even outside the nation, foreign powers were also derisive and making such a connection. As William V, Prince of Orange, for example, would write to John Adams, \u201cSir, you have given yourselves a king under the title of president.\u201d<\/p>\n

Washington himself would write to James Madison of his own conduct and concerns with all this, \u201cAs the first of everything in our situation will serve to establish a precedent, it is devoutly wished on my part that these precedents be fixed on true principles.\u201d<\/p>\n

Speaking of Madison, he would write to Thomas Jefferson on June 30, 1789 concerning trying to figure all this out, \u201cWe are in a wilderness, without a single footstep to guide us.\u201d Not just with matters of how to receive officials and titles, but of setting up everything from the judiciary system to the banks, from immigration laws to militia acts, right down to whether the nation should have a standing army or not. Let alone the entire etiquette and protocol of everything involved. They were largely starting from scratch on much of it, using the minimalist and rather revolutionary Constitution as their guiding document, and generally vehemently rejecting the way things were done before by other governments, in many cases simply because the other governments were doing it that way and they didn\u2019t want to be associated with such.<\/p>\n

As for the President\u2019s subsequent inaugural address in the Senate chamber after taking his oath of office, while today the general perception of Washington is of regal bearing and the picture of a powerful, confident, dignified leader, Maclay claims Washington was anything but during his inauguration speech, noting, \u201cthis great man was agitated and embarrassed more than ever he was by the leveled cannon or pointed musket. He trembled, and several times could scarce make out to read, though it must be supposed he had often read it before\u2026. When he came to the words \u2018all the world\u2019, he made a flourish with his right hand, which left rather an ungainly impression.\u201d<\/p>\n

Afterwards, Adams chose to officially refer to this inaugural address as the President\u2019s \u201cMost Gracious Speech,\u201d referencing the British way to refer to certain speeches of the King, such as King George III\u2019s address to parliament back in 1775 discussing the rebellious colonists. In this one, King George, among other things, noted, \u201cWhen the unhappy and deluded multitude\u2026 shall become sensible of their error, I shall be ready to receive the misled with tenderness and mercy! \u2026 as if such Province or Colony had never revolted.\u201d<\/p>\n

Washington himself in a letter to one Colonel Joseph Reed a few months later would use the \u201cmost gracious speech\u201d moniker for this Kingly address, writing, \u201cWe are at length favourd with a sight of his Majesty\u2019s most gracious Speech, breathing sentiments of tenderness & compassion for his deluded American Subjects\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

Adams simply wanted to apply the same such pomp and sense of grandeur to Washington\u2019s own address, even if it was apparently awkwardly delivered with some amount of anxiety.<\/p>\n

McClay\u2019s response to this \u201cMost Gracious Speech\u201d suggestion, however, was not just to reject it, but he states, \u201cI looked all around the Senate. Every countenance seemed to wear a blank. The Secretary was going on: I must speak or nobody would. \u201cMr. President [Adams], we have lately had a hard struggle for our liberty against kingly authority. The minds of men are still heated: everything related to that species of government is odious to the people. The words prefixed to the President\u2019s speech are the same that are usually placed before the speech of his Britannic Majesty. I know they will give offense. I consider them as improper. I therefore move that they be struck out, and that it stand simply address or speech, as may be judged most suitable.\u201d And that, \u201cThe enemies of the Constitution had objected to it the facility there would be of transition from it to kingly government and all the trappings and splendor of royalty… if such a thing as this appeared on our minutes, they would not fail to represent it as the first step of the ladder in the ascent to royalty.\u201d<\/p>\n

Adams, in turn, responded, according to Maclay (who noteworthy here loathed Adams as we\u2019ll get into shortly), \u201che was for a dignified and respectable government, and as far as he knew the sentiments of the people they thought as he did.\u201d<\/p>\n

After some debate, it was decided to get rid of any grandiose name for such Presidential speeches.<\/p>\n

This all brings us, finally, to the title of President itself.<\/p>\n

After Washington took his oath of office, in which he vowed to \u201cpreserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God\u201d, the Chancellor of New York, Robert Livingston, shouted to the gathered crowd, \u201cLong live George Washington, President of the United States!\u201d<\/p>\n

While perhaps lost on people today, at the time, this was a rather humble title, with \u201cpresident\u201d more akin to \u201cchairman\u201d or \u201cforeman\u201d and otherwise generally up to this point used commonly for much lesser positions in all walks of life.<\/p>\n

On this note, the word \u201cpresident\u201d ultimately comes from the Latin praesidere, meaning \u201cto sit before\u201d or \u201cto preside over\u201d- hence a presiding officer sitting over some group. This gave rise to the Old French \u201cPresident\u201d, meaning \u201cpresiding over\u201d or \u201cleader\u201d, and, in turn, borrowed in Middle English for the title for heads of institutions from almshouses to hospitals to religious houses to universities to banks to various trade groups. With, for example, one of the earliest examples in English being at Cambridge in 1464 where the head of Magdalene College at Cambridge was given the title of Master, and his second the title of President. Noteworthy here, Henry Dunster, the first titled president of Harvard, was a student at Magdalene. And it\u2019s been hypothesized that he chose the term President at Harvard, rather than \u201cmaster\u201d as his predecessor had held, from this, and to illustrate a level of humility in the position by choosing the lesser title.<\/p>\n

Whatever the case there, it would be in America that the title would begin to be elevated in this way to a role far higher in the power food chain than it typically was in the old world. This rise began with \u201cpresident\u201d being used as the title for the heads of certain colonies, such as Virginia, and later during the revolution the title for the head of states such as Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Hampshire before \u201cgovernor\u201d became the de facto for all states. From here, President was elevated further to the title for the chairman of congress under the Articles of Confederation. Important to note here, this position was not anywhere close to that given to George Washington and those after him under the new Constitution, in particular because Congress itself oversaw all the functions that individual executed. The President, at this time was, as alluded to in his full title, just the chairman of a sort of that committee- hence the name \u201cPresident\u201d was rather fitting given its then normal usage.<\/p>\n

Borrowing from the previous Articles, the new Constitution in Article II likewise gave the simple title of \u201cPresident\u201d to the nation\u2019s new leader when referenced throughout, and his runner up \u201cVice President\u201d- in both cases, again, a rather lowly term, and seemingly chosen exactly for this reason- to be simple and unassuming, as the group of traitors to King and Country weren\u2019t exactly keen on elevating any one individual too much over them. While the new President would have significantly more power than the old, names have implications, and anything too grandiose would not be seen in a positive light by many in the nation. And, indeed, as alluded to, given the power the President was being granted, many were already claiming the new supposed Republic was really just a monarchy given new clothes.<\/p>\n

There was a potential problem with this mindset, however, when it came to a simple title. And that is how other nations of the world would perceive the new leader of the executive branch, especially with such a humble title compared to their own. America\u2019s little experiment in their revolutionary form of government was already generally seen with extreme skepticism and derision in many countries of the old world. Thus, some, most notably Vice President John Adams, felt titles on the same level as those given to leaders of the Old World would help garner more respect in their eyes.<\/p>\n

He stated of this, \u201cThere are presidents of fire companies and cricket clubs\u2026\u201d And even something like \u201cExcellency\u201d wouldn\u2019t do, as then the person in the office \u201cwould be leveled with colonial governors or with functionaries from German princedoms.\u201d This perception, in turn, could lead to a weakening of the office at a time when the role was first being defined. Something greater was needed, at least according to Adams and his supporters.<\/p>\n

A couple key points to understand in this is, first, how important titles were back then, and even to Washington himself. In fact, a little over a decade before in 1776, General Washington, at a critical time in the early going of the revolution directly after the British landed with a massive force fully capable of crushing his army, refused to accept a letter from the commander of the British forces attempting a peaceful resolution before any blood shed merely because said commander, Admiral Richard Howe, had addressed the letter \u201cGeorge Washingto, Esq,\u201d not acknowledging Wasington\u2019s relatively new rank and position. After consulting with his officers over the slight, Washington refused to receive the letter. Instead, one Joseph Reed simply replied to British Lieutenant Philip Brown who was delivering the letter that there was no one in the Continental Army that answered to that address.<\/p>\n

Rather than commence battle, Howe tried at a compromise, but still couldn\u2019t give in for reasons we\u2019ll get to shortly in an exchange between Howe and Ben Franklin and John Adams. But for now, Howe sent the letter again, this time to \u201cGeorge Washington, Esq., etc., etc.\u201d. But this, too, was refused.<\/p>\n

Not getting anywhere with letters owing to the issue of title on the letter, Howe attempted a different tack- asking via one Captain Nisbet Balfour if Washington would instead be willing to meet with one of his representatives, Colonel James Patterson, in person to discuss things that way.<\/p>\n

Washington agreed and a meeting was set. However, upon learning from Colonel Patterson at the meeting that Howe had only been granted the power to offer pardons in negotiations for peace, Washington famously replied, \u201cThose who have committed no fault want no pardon.\u201d And it was on.<\/p>\n

Going back to Washington\u2019s Presidency, it was also noted by some that the title of President here was actually a major downgrade for Washington given his former title of \u201cGeneral\u201d and often referred to as \u201cYour Excellency\u201d while he was commander of the American forces during the Revolution.<\/p>\n

In another such instance of the importance of titles, not long after Howe\u2019s exchange with Washington, the British sued for peace and John Adams, Ben Franklin, and their third wheel Edward Rutledge went to meet with Howe. Among the first things they discussed right off the bat after dinner when formal talks would commence was their titles, without a resolution of such, no talks could commence. Howe stated of all this he had no power to consider the colonies independent as they had declared themselves when he was en route. And, thus, he could not even acknowledge them as such or their formal titles and positions. And if they objected on this point and insisted he use their titles, there was no point in proceeding any further with peace talks. He instead proposed he could otherwise consider them \u201cGentlemen of great Ability, and Influence in the Country\u201d, and that for his part he also considered them British subjects.<\/p>\n

The extremely laid back Franklin had no problem with this, noting, \u201cHis Lordship might consider the Gentlemen present in any view he thought proper, that they were also at liberty to consider themselves in their real Character, that there was no necessity on this occasion to distinguish between the Congress and Individuals, and that the Conversation might be held as amongst friends.\u201d<\/p>\n

On the other side, Adams would more abrasively state, \u201cYour lordship may consider me in what light you please,… except that of a British subject.\u201d<\/p>\n

Going back to Washington and his title, after his inauguration, The Gazette and Daily Advertiser would both refer to the President as \u201cHis Excellency\u201d and \u201cPresident\u201d.<\/p>\n

But the Senate needed to figure out more officially if any title beyond President was warranted.<\/p>\n

On the two sides of the argument were James Madison and the House as a whole, and within the Senate, William Maclay and supporters, advocating for no additional titles for the President. And on the other side, as noted, Vice President John Adams and his supporters who felt it critical the President needed a better title.<\/p>\n

As for Madison, as a brief aside, it\u2019s noteworthy that he is actually thought to have been the principal author of Washington\u2019s inaugural address, which comprised a rather short 1,419 words. In contrast, his original draft was over 70 rather meandering and rambling pages, which Madison stated he found a rather \u201cstrange production\u201d when he read it. In the end, Madison is thought to have rewritten the thing, keeping the essence, but significantly more concise and well organized.<\/p>\n

In any event, on the matter of titles, Madison at one point had also thought the President needed a better honorific, initially suggesting \u201cHis Elective Majesty\u201d- keeping some of the pomp, but noting this person was elected, not given the position by some birthright. However, he would later recant this stance and led the charge with the House on convincing them no additional monikers were needed, which was critical to the whole thing being shot down. Madison would state of this,<\/p>\n

\u201cI am not afraid of titles because I fear the danger of any power they could confer, but I am against them because they are not very reconcilable with the nature of our government, or the genius of the people; even if they were proper in themselves, they are not so at this juncture of time. But my strongest objection is founded in principle; instead of encreasing they diminish the true dignity and importance of a republic, and would in particular, on this occasion, diminish the true dignity of the first magistrate himself. If we give titles, we must either borrow or invent them\u2014if we have recourse to the fertile fields of luxuriant fancy, and deck out an airy being of our own creation, it is a great chance but its fantastic properties renders the empty fantom ridiculous and absurd. If we borrow, the servile imitation will be odious, not to say ridiculous also\u2014we must copy from the pompous sovereigns of the east, or follow the inferior potentates of Europe; in either case, the splendid tinsel or gorgeous robe would disgrace the manly shoulders of our Chief. The more truly honorable shall we be, by shewing a total neglect and disregard to things of this nature; the more simple, the more republican we are in our manners, the more rational dignity we acquire.\u201d<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, despite the House\u2019s objection, the Senate, perhaps not coincidentally meant to be representative of the more aristocratic class, soldiered on in search of a more esteemed title. Various honorifics within the Senate were proposed such as \u201cHis Mightiness\u201d, \u201cHis Most Benign Highness\u201d, \u201cHis Most Serene Highness, \u201cHis High Mightiness\u201d before ultimately, according to Maclay, the Senate settled on \u201cHis Highness the President of the United States of America and Protector of the Rights of the Same\u201d. Noteworthy here, Adams preferred a slight tweak of this, \u201cHis Highness the President of the United States of America and Protector of Their Liberties.\u201d<\/p>\n

Before we go further into the upcoming mildly humorous, and heated, debate, it\u2019s important to understand a few key things about the leaders of the two sides of the argument in the Senate. On the one hand, Vice President John Adams, being John Adams, was constitutionally incapable of keeping his mouth shut when he had an opinion, especially given that at that time so much was so critical to the young nation perhaps even surviving at all\u2026 I mean, you might as well ask Adams to stop breathing as to stop giving his unabashed opinion, no matter what anyone else thought. And, given the enormous brain that resided in his skull, he was remarkably adept at getting people to listen. As Founding Father Benjamin Rush would state of Adams, \u201cHe saw the whole of a subject at a single glance, and by a happy union of the powers of reasoning and persuasion often succeeded in carrying measures which were at first sight of an unpopular nature.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yet Adams really shouldn\u2019t have had any say here. You see, the Vice President had no real defined role outside of tie breaker in the Senate, as well as to simply exist in case anything happened to the President. Another blow to the man on this front was that Washington, especially in the first term, seemed to have little interest in including Adams in anything he was doing, or really get his thoughts on much, though this did slightly change later, such as in 1795, a year before Adams himself would become President, with Adams helping to convince Washington to support the rather controversial Jay Treaty between Britain and the United States.<\/p>\n

Adams would write his wife, Abigail, of his position as Vice President, \u201cMy country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, as everything was brand new for the country and the Constitution had very purposefully been a minimal document, not trying to handle everything, but just put forth a general set of guidelines and principles for the nation, Adams decided from the start to try to expand his constitutional role in the Senate via inserting himself in their debates, and even trying to lead them.<\/p>\n

This was something that rubbed a lot of Senators the wrong way, owing to a member of the executive branch essentially trying to lead and directly influence a body of the legislative branch.<\/p>\n

Going back to titles and the importance of them, Adams’ eventual choice to sign legislative documents as \u201cJohn Adams, Vice President of the United States\u201d was also seen as a major faux pas by some for this reason, owing to it only noting his role in the executive branch. In response to this, Adams would take to signing such documents more or less giving himself separate titles for both- \u201cJohn Adams, Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ultimately the Senate finally made peace with Adams in the form of making it so the Senate deliberations would not include the Vice President anymore\u2026 A rather major blow for a man of his stature and intellect. But, at least, Adams did get to cast more tie breaking votes within the Senate at 31 than any other Vice President since. This was largely owing to the Senate at the time being evenly split between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists.<\/p>\n

But before they managed to muzzle the unmuzzleable, there was the matter of how to address the President in the Senate\u2019s response letter to the President.<\/p>\n

This brings us to the lead of the other side of the argument within the Senate. Much of what we know of this discussion and, indeed, the detailed internal discussions of the Senate for the next couple years comes from the aforementioned Senator William Maclay\u2019s daily journal, which more or less violated the \u201cinviolable secrecy\u201d the Senate at the time was partially operating under until 1795 when Senate sessions were no longer closed to the public.<\/p>\n

An important thing to point out here was that Maclay was, shall we say, seemingly a bit biased, to put it mildly, and this may have affected the way he colored discussions at times. In particular when reading through his accounts, not just on this, but other such debates, Maclay seems to have a tendency to write his own thoughts and arguments extremely eloquently, but paint his opponent\u2019s as more than a little absurd and their arguments often poorly worded. This is perhaps no better illustrated than when it came to the likes of John Adams who Maclay, as noted, loathed. With Maclay\u2019s accounts very frequently, and sometimes explicitly, painting Adams and his arguments as seemingly coming from a bumbling buffoon, which was in stark contrast to how most of the rest of his contemporaries described the man. Yes, a man with little social grace, extremely abrasive, occasionally with seemingly no ability or caring to read the room- if Adams thought something was right, and the entire world thought he was wrong. He\u2019d stubbornly stick to his principles and then do his best to change everyone\u2019s mind. The epitome of Captain America\u2019s little speech in Amazing Spider-Man #537. If Adams felt something was right, to quote the Captain, it \u201cDoesn\u2019t matter what the press says. Doesn\u2019t matter what the politicians or mobs say. Doesn\u2019t matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like at tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world-\u2018No, you move.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

This element of Adams\u2019 character was perhaps no better illustrated than in his choice to defend the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre despite even his own extreme opposition to the British, ultimately being one of the leading patriots of the revolution. In the end, he just felt everyone deserved a fair and just trial no matter what. And he wanted to make sure the soldiers involved got that in a proper defense, even if it costs him his career and reputation. As Adams would later write to his wife on this: \u201cI…have consented to my own ruin, to your ruin, and to the ruin of our children…[but] the law…will not bend to the uncertain wishes, imaginations, and wanton tempers of men.\u201d<\/p>\n

Thus, while yes sometimes as abrasive as it\u2019s possible to be (and note, we\u2019ll get into this more in the Bonus<\/span> Facts with a sample of Adams\u2019 rather legendary scathing insults to his contemporaries) and could at times seem a little ridiculous to his peers, he was nonetheless insanely well respected and his intellect and skill in debate were considered among the best in the nation at the time. Yet that\u2019s not even close to how Maclay portrays Adams or his arguments pretty much anywhere in his journal.<\/p>\n

Maclay was also, much like Adams himself, certainly not shy of giving his very frank opinion of most of his fellow senators and on anything at all, noting most of them were \u201ca set of vipers\u201d who \u201ccared for nothing else but\u2026 the creation of a new monarchy in America.\u201d He also felt the U.S. Constitution would \u201cturn out [to be] the vilest of all traps that was ever set to ensare the freedom of an unsuspecting people.\u201d<\/p>\n

As for Adams specifically, Maclay became one of his most bitter political detractors for a number of reasons ranging from Adams\u2019 choice to not support moving the capital to Philadelphia, and rather, what would become Washington D.C., to Adams push to expand the powers of the federal government, to Adams\u2019 seeming overstepping trying to lead the Senate in the first place\u2026 This list goes on and on with regards to the countless clashes between the two. This all resulted in Maclay writing many rather scathing accounts of Adams.<\/p>\n

For some samples, Maclay wrote on May 2, 1789,<\/p>\n

\u201c[Adams] not well furnished with small talk more than myself and has a very silly kind of laugh. I have often looked with the utmost attention at him to see if his aspect, air, etc. could inspire me with an opinion of his being a man of genius; but \u2026 no; the thing seems impossible.\u201d<\/p>\n

In a dinner with Adams and others on March 4, he stated, \u201cI looked often around the company to find the happiest faces. \u2026 The President seemed to bear in his countenance a settled aspect of melancholy. No cheering ray of convivial sunshine broke through the cloudy gloom of settled seriousness. At every interval of eating or drinking he played on the table with a fork or knife, like a drumstick. Next to him, on his right, sat Bonny Johnny Adams, ever and anon mantling his visage with the most unmeaning simper that ever dimpled the face of folly.\u201d<\/p>\n

Later on May 11 he writes, Adams \u201ctakes on him to school the members from the chair. \u2026 Instead of that sedate, easy air which I would have him possess, he will look on one side, then on the other, then down on the knees of his breeches, then dimple his visage with the most silly kind of half smile which I can not well express in English. The ScotchIrish have a word that hits it exactly\u2014 smudging . God forgive me for the vile thought, but I can not help thinking of a monkey just put into breeches when I saw him betray such evident marks of self-conceit.\u201d<\/p>\n

Not holding back, on June 22 he writes, \u201cHis pride, obstinacy, and folly are equal to his vanity, and, although it is a common observation that fools are the tools of knaves \u2026 yet John Adams has served to illustrate two points at least with me\u2026 that a fool is the most unmanageable of all brutes, and that flattery is the most irksome of all service.\u201d<\/p>\n

In yet another account on September 18, he writes, \u201cYe gods, with what indignation do I review the late attempt of some creatures among us to revive the vile machinery [of royalty and nobility]. O Adams, Adams, what a wretch art thou!\u201d<\/p>\n

On March 2, 1790 he goes on, \u201cOur Vice President goes every day [to the House of Representatives], and the members spend their time in lampooning him before his face.\u201d<\/p>\n

In yet another instance on June 8, he states, \u201cJohn Adams has neither judgment, firmness of mind, nor respectability of deportment to fill the chair of such an assembly.\u201d<\/p>\n

This all finally brings us to the specific debate over the President\u2019s title. McClay writes, on May 8, 1789,<\/p>\n

\u201cEllsworth was enumerating how common the appellation of President was. The president [Adams] put him in mind that there were presidents of fire companies and of a cricket club. Mr. Lee, at another time, was saying he believed that some of the States authorized titles by their constitution. The President [Adams], from the chair, told him that Connecticut did. At sundry other times, he interfered in a like manner.<\/p>\n

Excellency was moved for as a title by Mr. Izard. It was withdrawn by Mr. Izard, and highness, with some prefatory word, proposed by Mr. Lee. Now long harangues were made in favor of this title…. It was insisted that such a dignified title would add greatly to the weight and authority of the Government, both at home and abroad. I declare myself totally of a different opinion. That at present it was impossible to add to the respect entertained for General Washington. If you gave him the title of any foreign prince or potentate a belief would follow that the manners of that prince and his modes of government would be adopted by the President. (Mr. Lee had just before I got up read over a list of the titles of all the princes and potentates of the earth, marking where the word highness occurred. The grand Turk had it. All the princes of Germany had it. The sons and daughters of crowned heads, etc.) That particular elective highness… would have a most ungrateful sound to many thousands of industrious citizens who had fled from German oppression. Highness was part of the title of a prince or princes of the blood, and was often given to dukes. It was degrading our President to place him on a par with any prince of any blood in Europe; nor was there one of them that could enter the lists of true glory with him.<\/p>\n

…This whole silly business is the work of Mr. Adams and Mr. Lee. Izard follows Lee, and the New England men, who always herd to gather, follow Mr. Adams. Mr. Thompson says this used to be the case in the old Congress.\u201d<\/p>\n

Speaking of Adams, he states Adams rose and addressed the Senate for quite some time on the matter, with the specific part of Adams\u2019 speech Maclay recounts being: \u201cGentlemen, I must tell you that it is you and the President that have the making of titles. Suppose the President to have the appointment of Mr. Jefferons at the Court of France. Mr Jefferson is, in virtue of that appointment, the most illustrious, the most powerful\u2026 But the president himself must be something that includes all the dignitaries of the diplomatic corps, and something great still. What will the common people of foreign countries- what will the sailors and soldiers say, George Washington, President of the United States, they will despise him. This is all nonsense to the philosopher; but so is all government, whatever.\u201d<\/p>\n

After Adams\u2019 speech Maclay claims he responded quite a bit more eloquently, \u201cLet us read the Constitution: “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States” The Constitution goes further. The servants of the public are prohibited from accepting them from any foreign State, king, or prince. So that the appellations and terms given to nobility in the Old World, are contraband language in the United States; nor can we apply them to our citizens, consistent with the constitution. As to what the common people, soldiers, and sailors of foreign countries may think of us, I do not think it imports us much. Perhaps the less they think, or have occasion to think of us, the better.<\/p>\n

…From the English, indeed, we may borrow terms that would not be wholly unintelligible to our own citizens. But will they thank us for the compliment? Would not the plagiarism be more likely to be attended with contempt than respect among all of them? It has been admitted that all this is nonsense to the philosopher. I am ready to admit that every high-sounding, pompous appellation, descriptive of qualities which the object does not possess, must appear bombastic nonsense in the eye of every wise man….\u201d<\/p>\n

In the end, as any good governing body should in all matters, after a good lengthy debate making sure to maximally take up as much of their precious time in it as possible, the Senate decided to table the matter and let someone else decide.<\/p>\n

McClay writes of this,<\/p>\n

\u201c…the Senate have been induced to be of the opinion that it would be proper to annex a respectable title for the office of President of the United States; but the Senate, desires of preserving harmony with the House of representatives, where the practice lately observed in presenting an address to the President was without the addition of title, think it proper for the present to act in conformity with the practice of the House. Therefore, resolved, that the present address be ‘To the President of the United States’ without addition of title.\u201d<\/p>\n

After the happy conclusion that went Maclay, James Madison and the Houses\u2019 way, Madison would write of this to Thomas Jefferson, \u201cIt will not have escaped you [that it] was addressed with the truly republican simplicity to George Washington, president of the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n

As for Jefferson, he would ring in on the Senate’s former preferred \u201cHis Highness the President of the United States of America and Protector of the Rights of the Same\u201d on July 29, 1789, stating, \u201cThe president\u2019s title as proposed by the Senate was the most superlatively ridiculous thing I ever heard of. It is a proof the more of the justice of the character given by Doctr. Franklin of my friend [John Adams] \u201calways an honest man, often a great one, but sometimes absolutely mad.\u201d\u201d<\/p>\n

Noteworthy in a December 5, 1811 letter to one Benjamin Rush which would precipitate Adams and Jefferson laying aside their differences and once again becoming the closest of friends, Jefferson would state he would change \u201ca single word only in Dr Franklin\u2019s character of [Adams]. I knew him to be always an honest man, often a great one, but sometimes incorrect & precipitate in his judgments.\u201d<\/p>\n

As for Washington himself, as noted, exceedingly aware that everything he did or said during his time in office would set the tone for the office for all who followed him, he likewise apparently was pleased with the simple title of \u201cThe President of the United States\u201d.<\/p>\n

And that\u2019s a tradition that has stuck to this day. While the idea of \u201cpresident\u201d being a humble term for a leader may be lost on most in modern times given how many nations since have adopted it for their leaders, starting with the U.S. then after Haiti in 1807 and spreading to dozens of other nations since, other remnants of the simplicity of the title have endured, such as with a simple \u201cMr. President\u201d or \u201cMr. Secretary\u201d or \u201cMr. Senator\u201d or just using these officials\u2019 names being the norm. This tradition has also bled over to countless official positions of the State in the United States, with the exception in some cases of the word \u201chonorable\u201d occasionally used to describe an individual outside of their official title. And as for \u201chonorable,\u201d at the time this was a fairly lowly term, generally used in cases like the youngest sons of noblemen, with the family rank title being given to the eldest sons.<\/p>\n

As for Adams, his arguments for a fancier title for the President would earn him the rather dubious unofficial title of \u201cHis Rotundity, the Duke of Braintree\u201d. This also bolstered the argument of his alleged love of monarchs, which would dog him throughout the rest of his political life, despite the man himself being one of the key architects of the revolution throwing off the monarchy, along with authoring, among other things, The Defence of the Constitutions of the United States, which not only helped define the U.S. Constitution, but was also very explicitly in the title meant to defend the new form of government against its monarchical detractors.<\/p>\n

As author of John Adams\u2019s Republic: The One, The Few, The Many, Richard Alan Ryerson states of the confusion here, Adams viewed the elite and wealthy of the United States as little different than the aristocracy of the old world. Not based on bloodline in this case, but finances. Further, it was probably not lost on Adams that most of the leaders of the revolution were not from among the oppressed, but rather, were that very wealthy form of aristocracy in the United States simply throwing off their rivals abroad. And, indeed, some of them even wealthier than many of the royalty they\u2019d sought to cast off. As historian and Pulitzer Prize winner Gordon Wood notes, \u201cThe social conditions that generally are supposed to lie behind all revolutions\u2014poverty and economic deprivation\u2014were not present in colonial America. There should no longer be any doubt about it: the white American colonists were not an oppressed people; they had no crushing imperial chains to throw off.\u201d<\/p>\n

Thus, denying the American aristocracy\u2019s existence was not only pointless in Adam\u2019s opinion, but counterproductive to the nation and its future. Somewhat controversial to some, Adams also viewed this class of individuals as an essential part of any society and one that could never be gotten rid of even if people wanted to. Thus, instead of removing them, they needed to be controlled to an extent. Essentially taking what such elite could offer in a positive way to society, while severely restricting their power in any way possible to get around the downsides of them, as more fully outlined in our video The Key to Humans Humaning.<\/p>\n

As Ryerson goes on, \u201cThe central objective of government for Adams was always the security and happiness of the whole society, including its weakest members. The only solution to living with aristocracy, therefore, was to control it. He would devote much of the next decade to exploring how this could be done in a republican culture.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, this stance and particular terms Adams used in his various writings when referring to the elite class, combined with his apparent support of things like incredibly pompous sounding titles for the President, all saw Adams painted by some as elitist, similar to his son, fellow future president John Quincy, after him.<\/p>\n

Ironically in all this, and especially given John Adams\u2019 stance on many things surrounding the role of President in the early going, when it came to pomp and circumstance in his own life, Adams, much like his son, seemingly abhorred such things. With Adams writing in his journal on June 30, 1770, \u201cFormalities and Ceremonies are an abomination in my sight. \u2014I hate them, in Religion, Government, Science, Life.\u201d<\/p>\n

John Quincy would go even further on this front then his father. For example, in the 1856 work Recollections of a Lifetime<\/i>, by Samuel Griswold Goodrich, he quotes an unknown author about what one could expect if invited to meet John Quincy Adams in the White House: \u201cHe sees a little man writing at a table, nearly bald, with a face quite formal and destitute of expression; his eyes running with water\u2014his slippers down at the heel\u2014his fingers stained with ink\u2014in summer wearing a striped sea-sucker coat, and white trowsers, and dirty waistcoat, spotted with ink\u2014his whole dress altogether not worth a couple of pounds; or in a colder season, habited in a plain blue coat, much the worse for wear, and other garments in proportion\u2026. This person, whom the ambassador mistakes for a clerk in a department, and only wonders, in looking at him, that the President should permit a man to appear before him in such dress, proves to be the President of the United States himself!\u201d<\/p>\n

And in further stark contrast to the public perception by some, John Quincy, like his father, was, in some respects, a quite simple man who, for example, despite being relatively well off often ate plain crackers for meals instead of fancy dinners, and who one of his favorite activities was to sit at home by himself and study his Bible- things which contrasted sharply with the elitist, corrupt, aristocratic \u201cprofessor\u201d version of John Quincy Adams that supporters of his political opponents pushed. Given this, the person who knew him best, his wife Louisa, lamented, \u201cIf he would only lend himself a little to the usages and manners of the people without hiding himself and\u2026 rejecting their civilities, no man could be more popular because his manners are simple, unostentatious, and unassuming.\u201d<\/p>\n

For more on all this, see our video: The Horribly Dressed, Socially Awkward, Genius President.<\/p>\n

But going back to John Adams, as ever, neither the news outlets nor political rivals have ever really cared about accuracy in public political discourse.<\/p>\n

But while in this case John Adams\u2019 suggestion on rather pompous and silly titles for the American elite may have been ridiculous as Jefferson had stated. In the end, as with his contributions to certain revolutions, which Adams would write of in an August 18, 1811 letter, \u201cHave I not been employed in Mischief all my days? Did not The American Revolution produce The French Revolution? and did not the French Revolution produce all the Calamities, and Desolations to the human Race and the whole Globe ever Since?\u201d Adams nonetheless concludes that thought with what he might have also said about his opinion about the ridiculous titles for the President he had once so ardently advocated for- \u201cI meant well, however.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bonus<\/span> Facts:<\/b><\/p>\n

Speaking of titles and John Adams\u2019 habit of never being able to keep his mouth shut when he had an opinion about something, or someone. He was also legendary for his scathing and unapologetically frank insults. For example, in a letter to fellow founding father Benjamin Rush, Adams stated after Washington\u2019s death, \u201cThat Washington was not a Scholar is certain. That he was too illiterate, unlearned, unread for his Station and reputation is equally past dispute.\u201d To be fair on this one, Washington himself would lament his failings as a General during the Revolution. And his reputation for indecision and seemingly not knowing what to do at critical moments of battle has often been pointed out.<\/p>\n

Adams would also note that so many of the so-called talents attributed to Washington by the masses had more to do mostly with his looks and things outside of Washington\u2019s control than much of actual substance to the man. Stating, \u201cTalents? you will say, what Talents? I answer. 1. An handsome Face. That this is a Talent, I can prove by the authority of a thousand Instances in all ages\u2026 2. A tall Stature, like the Hebrew Sovereign chosen because he was taller by the Head than the other Jews. 3 An elegant Form. 4. graceful Attitudes and Movement: 5. a large imposing Fortune consisting of a great landed Estate left him by his Father and Brother, besides a large Jointure with his Lady, and the Guardianship of the Heirs of the great Custis Estate, and in addition to all this, immense Tracts of Land of his own acquisition. There is nothing, except bloody Battles and Splendid Victories, to which Mankind bow down with more reverence than to great fortune\u2026. 6. Washington was a Virginian. This is equivalent to five Talents. Virginian Geese are all Swans. Not a Bearne in Scotland is more national, not a Lad upon the High Lands is more clannish, than every Virginian I have ever known. They trumpet one another with the most pompous and mendacious Panegyricks\u2026 7. Washington was preceeded by favourable Anecdotes. The English had used him ill, in the Expedition of Braddock. They had not done Justice to his Bravery and good Council. They had exaggerated and misrepresented his defeat and Capitulation: which interested the Pride as well as compassion of Americans in his favour. . . . 8 He possessed the Gift of Silence. This I esteem as one of the most precious Talents. 9. He had great Self Command. It cost him a great Exertion Sometimes, and a constant Constraint, but to preserve So much Equanimity as he did, required a great Capacity. 10. Whenever he lost his temper as he did Sometimes, either Love or fear in those about him induced them to conceal his Weakness from the World. Here you See I have made out ten Talents without saying a Word about Reading Thinking or writing\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

As for Adams\u2019 onetime extremely close friend Thomas Jefferson, he stated, \u201cHis soul is poisoned with ambition.\u201d Jefferson had his own thoughts on Adams, writing on March 4, 1797, Adams is \u201cdistrustful, obstinate, excessively vain, and takes no counsel from anyone.\u201d As noted in our videos America\u2019s Greatest Oddcouple covering Adams and Jefferson\u2019s strange and insanely close relationship, as well as our video America\u2019s First Power Couple, covering the story of John and Abigail Adams, Jefferson was wrong here on the last point. Adams relied on Abigail\u2019s equally keen intellect and well read mind on pretty much all matters when it came to looking for counsel from others. With, shortly after becoming President, Adams even desperately writing to his wife some 400 miles away in Quincy, \u201cI never wanted your Advice and assistance more in my life\u2026\u201d And, \u201cI can do nothing without you\u2026 Public affairs are so critical and dangerous that all our Thoughts must be taken up with them. I must intreat you, to loose not a moments time in preparing to come\u2026 assist me with your Councils\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

Going back to insults, Adams would state of Thomas Paine\u2019s famous Common Sense, \u201cWhat a poor, ignorant, malicious, crapulous mass.\u201d<\/p>\n

As for Alexander Hamilton, Adams stated, \u201cThat bastard brat of a Scottish peddler! His ambition, his restlessness and all his grandiose schemes come, I’m convinced, from a superabundance of secretions, which he couldn’t find enough whores to absorb!\u201d<\/p>\n

In another case, one General John Sullivan was captured by the British and was ultimately released to deliver a message to the Continental Congress about Admiral Howes\u2019 desire for a peace conference. While Sullivan was delivering this offer and advocating for it, fellow founding Father Benjamin Rush would state Adams \u201cwhispered to me a wish \u2019that the first ball that had been fired on the day of the defeat of our army, had gone through [Sullivan\u2019s] head.\u201d<\/p>\n

Going back to the rather hilarious Ben Franklin, after Adams became frustrated with Franklin\u2019s propensity to party all night and hang out with every French woman that came a knocking to meet with the world famous Franklin, Adams would write, “His whole life has been one continued insult to good manners and to decency\u2026 These things however are not the worst of his Faults\u2014 They shew however the Character of the Man; in what Contempt he holds the Opinions of the World, and with what Haughtiness he is capable of persevering through Life in a gross & odious System of Falsehood and Imposture\u2026 It would be Folly to deny, that he has had a great Genius, and that he has written several things in Philosophy and in Politicks, profoundly\u2014 But his Philosophy and his Politicks have been infinitely exaggerated, by the studied Arts of Empiricism, until his Reputation has become one of the grossest Impostures, that has ever been practised upon Mankind since the Days of Mahomet\u2026 so that I am persuaded he will remain as long as he lives, the Demon of Discord among our Ministers, and the Curse and Scourge of our foreign Affairs.\u201d<\/p>\n

Not restricting himself to people or famous works, as for the city of Philadelphia, he wrote \u201cPhyladelphia, with all its trade and wealth and regularity, is not Boston. The morals of our people are much better; their manners are more polite and agreeable… Our language is better, our taste is better, our persons are handsomer; our spirit is greater, our laws are wiser, our religion is better, our education is better. We exceed them in every thing, but in a market.\u201d<\/p>\nExpand for References<\/span>

\n

https:\/\/history.howstuffworks.com\/historical-figures\/john-adams.htm<\/p>\n

https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Presidency_of_John_Adams<\/u><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

https:\/\/founders.archives.gov\/documents\/Jefferson\/01-15-02-0221<\/p>\n

https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/George_Washington<\/u><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.pbs.org\/wgbh\/americanexperience\/features\/adams-vice-presidency\/<\/u><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

A Beautiful Book about a Beautiful Mind – “John Adams’s Republic: The One, the Few, and the Many” Reviewed<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n