essay about president power

As we transition our order fulfillment and warehousing to W. W. Norton, select titles may temporarily appear as out of stock. We appreciate your patience.

On The Site

The Growth of Presidential Power

May 17, 2016 | yalepress | American History , Political Science

Benjamin Ginsberg—

For most of the nineteenth century, the presidency was a weak institution. In unusual circumstances, a Jefferson, a Jackson, or a Lincoln might exercise extraordinary power, but most presidents held little influence over the congressional barons or provincial chieftains who actually steered the government. The president’s job was to execute policy, rarely to make it. Policy making was the responsibility of legislators, particularly the leaders of the House and Senate.

Today, the presidency has become the dominant force in national policy formation, not all domestic policy springs from the White House but none is made without the president’s involvement. And when it comes to foreign policy and, particularly security policy, there can be little doubt about presidential primacy. Of course, Congress retains the constitutional power to declare war, but the power has not been exercised in sixty-five years. During this period American military forces have been engaged in numerous conflicts all over the world—at the behest of the president.

How did this transformation come about? To some, the study of the presidency is chiefly the study of personality and leadership in an attempt to distinguish between the attributes and conduct of strong and weak presidents or great, near-great and not-so-great presidents. Richard Neustadt, an influential presidential scholar, epitomized this focus on leadership styles and personality when he declared in 1960 that presidential power was the “power to persuade.” In other words, the power of the presidency was derived from the charisma of the president. Some scholars pushed this personalistic approach even further by engaging in psychoanalytic studies of presidents to determine which personality attributes seemed to be associated with presidential success. James David Barber’s well-known book, The Presidential Character is an exemplar of this school of thought.

­The personal characteristics of presidents, though not unimportant, do not seem to offer an entirely satisfactory basis for explaining the transformation in the role of the president that has taken place in recent years. After all, while the power to persuade and other leadership abilities wax and wane with successive presidents, the power of the presidency has increased inexorably, perhaps growing more rapidly under the Roosevelts and Reagans and less so under the Fillmores and Carters of American politics but growing nonetheless. The president is, indeed, a person but the presidency is an office embedded in an institutional and constitutional structure and in an historical setting that limits some possibilities and encourages others. As Steven Skowronek has shown, leadership styles that are effective in one political era may be irrelevant or counterproductive in another.

Even presidential character and style are institutionally conditioned. Presidents today are generally more aggressive and ambitious than their predecessors because of an institutional change–a nominating process that tends to select for these characteristics by awarding the presidency to the survivor of years of harsh political struggles. And, as to the power to persuade, this formula was already beginning to be out of date in 1960 when it was introduced. The 1947 National Security Act had already vastly increased the president’s institutional power to command . Presidents were already becoming more imperial and less dependent upon the fine art of persuasion.

Accordingly, understanding the presidency requires what is generally called a historical-institutionalist approach. This perspective does not ignore leadership but, nevertheless, emphasizes history and institutions as the keys to understanding political phenomena. Presidential history is a guide to understanding the ways in which past events and experiences shape current perspectives and frame the possibilities open to presidents. Institutional rules, particularly the Constitution, help set the parameters for decision making and collective action.

Obviously, talented and ambitious presidents have pushed the boundaries of the office adding new powers that were seldom surrendered by their successors. But, what made this tactic possible was the inherent constitutional imbalance between the executive and Congress. Presidential power has grown less because of the leadership styles of particular presidents, and more because the Constitution puts Congress at an institutional disadvantage and provides the president with an institutional edge.

For example, presidents derive power from their execution of the laws. Decisions made by the Congress are executed by the president while presidents execute their own decisions. The result is an asymmetric relationship between presidential and congressional power. Whatever Congress does empowers the president; presidential actions, on the other hand, often weaken Congress. If it wishes to accomplish any goal, Congress must delegate power to the executive. Sometimes Congress accompanies its delegation of power with explicit standards and guidelines; sometimes it does not. In either eventuality, over the long term, a lmost any program launched by the Congress empowers the president and the executive branch, more generally, whose funding and authority must be increased to execute the law. In effect, every time Congress legislates it empowers the executive to do something, thereby contributing, albeit inadvertently, to the onward march of executive power.

As this example suggests, understanding America’s presidency requires us to do more than assess the relative merits of the presidents. It requires us to look carefully at the institution, its Constitutional place, and its history. The framers of the Constitution thought Congress would be the most important branch of government but the institutional structure they devised led to the gradual and inexorable growth of presidential power.

From Presidential Government by Benjamin Ginsberg , published by Yale University Press in 2016. Reproduced by permission.

Benjamin Ginsberg  is the David Bernstein Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University and chair of the Hopkins Center for Advanced Governmental Studies. He is the co-author of American Government: Power and Purpose, among other titles. He lives in Potomac, MD.

Further Reading:

Recent Posts

• The Petit Network
• Surely but Slowly: NATO Adapts to Strategic Competition
• The How and Why of Ukrainian Resilience and Courage
• What’s Happening to America’s Farms?
• Daily Life in Ancient Babylonia: Insights from the Temple of Ishtar
• Celebrating Women in Translation

Sign up for updates on new releases and special offers

Newsletter signup, shipping location.

Our website offers shipping to the United States and Canada only. For customers in other countries:

Mexico and South America: Contact W.W. Norton to place your order. All Others: Visit our Yale University Press London website to place your order.

Notice for Canadian Customers

Due to temporary changes in our shipping process, we cannot fulfill orders to Canada through our website from August 12th to September 30th, 2024.

In the meantime, you can find our titles at the following retailers:

• Barnes & Noble
• Powell’s
• Seminary Co-op

We apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your understanding.

Shipping Updated

Learn more about Schreiben lernen, 2nd Edition, available now. 

Explore the Constitution

• The Constitution
• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview
• Constitution Daily Blog
• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects

Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, module 8: the presidency and executive power.

Article II of the Constitution establishes the executive branch of the national government, headed by a single President. Article II outlines the method for electing the President, the scope of the President’s powers and duties, and the process of removing one from office. The President’s primary responsibility is to carry out the executive branch’s core function—namely, enforcing the nation’s laws. From the debates over how to structure the Presidency at the Constitutional Convention to modern debates over executive orders, this module will explore the important role of the President in our constitutional system. 

Download all materials for this module as a PDF

Learning Objectives

• Discuss Article II of the Constitution and outline the requirements to be president, the election process, and the President’s primary powers and duties.
• Examine the origins of the Presidency and describe the Founders’ vision for the  nation’s chief executive.
• Describe how the President’s role in our constitutional system has changed over time.
• Review the role of the Supreme Court and Congress in checking the President.
• Define what an executive order is, understand the roots of the President’s authority to issue executive orders, and study the role of executive orders in our government over time.
• Analyze competing constitutional visions of the Presidency over time.

8.1 Activity: Jobs of the President

• Student Instructions
• Teacher Notes

Purpose Article II “vest[s]” the “executive Power . . . of the United States” in a single president. It sets out the details for how we elect a president (namely, through the Electoral College) and how we might remove one from office (namely, through the impeachment and removal process). It also lists some of the president’s core powers and responsibilities. In this activity, you will explore the role of the president in our constitutional system. 

Process Read the first line of Article II of the Constitution. 

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Think about executive power and participate in a class discussion facilitated by your teacher. Answer the following questions:

• What reactions do you have to the opening text of Article II? What do you think it means?
• What is “the executive Power?”
• This text tells us that the Founding generation created a single chief executive—the president. Why do you think the founders decided to place the executive power in the hands of a single person rather than a committee? What are the benefits of a single chief executive? What are the potential downsides?
• What is the role/job of the executive branch? Who else is part of the executive branch?

After discussing the first line of Article II with your class, brainstorm a current list of roles/jobs for the president. Record them and share with your classmates.

Review the Info Brief: Presidential Roles document for a comprehensive list.

Launch Provide students with a summary of the three branches of government. Within the national government, the executive branch is responsible for enforcing the laws. We commonly think of the president as the most powerful elected office in all of the world. Yet, the Constitution actually grants far fewer explicit powers to the president in Article II than it does to the Congress in Article I.

Give students time to read the first line of Article II. 

Over the course of the week, ask students to try to match some of the key jobs of the president with what is spelled out in the Constitution.

Note: The 22nd Amendment limits the president to two terms in office. This is an example of a norm established by George Washington, held over time, violated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and then written into the Constitution. This is a great example to share with students of how a presidential norm may be written into the Constitution.

Activity Synthesis Ask students to discuss recent presidents and the roles they took on during their terms in office.

Activity Extension (optional) Now that students have a better understanding of the roles/jobs of the president, ask them to find a news article that demonstrates one or more roles of the president.

You can also ask students to speak to at least two adults and two peers outside of class, ask them the following questions, and write down their responses.

• What is the job of the president?
• What is the job of the executive branch?

8.1 Info Brief: Presidential Roles

8.2 activity: how does the presidency work.

Purpose In this activity, you will continue to explore the presidential jobs that are spelled out by the Constitution.

Process Review the text of Article II and the Interactive Constitution essays on Article II - The Executive Branch to help complete the Activity Guide: How does the Presidency Work? worksheet.

Review the following sections in the Constitution and the Interactive Constitution Common Essays:

• Text of the Constitution
• Common Interpretation

Compare your worksheet to the list you created as a class in the previous activity. Be prepared to discuss the similarities and differences as a class.

Launch Give students time to identify from memory as many roles/jobs of the president as they can remember from the previous activity. Compare that list to the list of roles/jobs that the adults and peers they asked identified.

Direct students to the text of Article II and the Interactive Constitution essays on Article II - The Executive Branch . Build a list of powers and duties for the president. Then, compare the crowdsourced list with the list developed from the primary and scholarly sources (the Constitution’s text and the Constitution essays). 

Review the following sections in the Constitution :

Activity Synthesis When the comparison is complete, students could build a “Job Posting Advertisement” for a presidential candidate. Have students share ads with their classmates for review and discussion. 

Activity Extension (optional) Review the resumes/background of several former presidents. Do you notice any patterns among the presidents? Does anyone stand out as having a unique background?  

8.2 Activity Guide: How does the Presidency Work?

8.3 video activity: the presidency.

Purpose In this activity, you will view a video on the presidency and what the Constitution says about it. 

Process Watch the following video about the presidency.

Then, complete the Video Reflection: The Presidency worksheet.

Identify any areas that are unclear to you or where you would like further explanation. Be prepared to discuss your answers in a group and to ask your teacher any remaining questions.

Launch Give students time to watch the video and take notes to support their notetaking skills.

Activity Synthesis Have students share their notes with a classmate and then review as a class. 

Activity Extension (optional) Now that students have a better understanding of the presidency, ask them to identify what informal qualifications a president should have to be successful. 

8.3 Video Reflection: The Presidency

8.4 activity: electoral college.

Purpose The delegates engaged in many debates over the presidency. One key debate involved the issue of how to elect the president. Today, many democratic nations elect their executives by direct popular vote. But we don’t. Instead, we use a system known as the “Electoral College.”  

In this activity, you will read two sources to understand the founders’ debates over how to elect a president and their vision for the Electoral College. You will also reflect on the Electoral College now versus back when it was created.

• Info Brief: Electoral College
• NCC Scholar Exchange: The Electoral College
• Interactive Constitution Essay on the Electoral College
• Review the Info Brief: Key Debate Notes and examine the key debates around electing the president and other compromises among delegates that led to the Electoral College.
• Be prepared to discuss what you have read and viewed.

Launch Give students time to read the briefing sheet on the Electoral College and watch this short video.  Review the key readings and debates and then examine the ideas and compromises as a group.

Activity Synthesis Have students share their thoughts about the proposals for how to elect a president and discuss positive and negative aspects of each. Ask students if they think the Electoral College, as it functions today, should be eliminated, changed, or stay the same. 

Activity Extension (optional) Have students run for president and then have the rest of the class divided into the states to vote for their preferred candidate, replicating the Electoral College. Have each candidate select (or select for them) a campaign manager. The campaign manager's job is to build a strategy for targeting which states they think will be most useful to gain the electoral votes needed. Have the campaign teams visit only five groups of students (replicating scarcity of time and money on the campaign trail), making strategy a key component in securing victory. Have students vote by state groups and individually to examine who wins the popular vote and who wins the Electoral College.

8.4 Info Brief: Electoral College

8.4 info brief: key debate notes, 8.5 activity: test of presidential power.

Purpose There are still many ongoing debates over presidential power. When it comes to presidential power, the core constitutional question often comes down to this: Can the president do that? Over time, the Supreme Court has provided some guidance on how to analyze this important question.

In this activity, you will examine a major test of presidential power, the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) , also known as “ The Steel Seizure Case .” 

Process Begin by reading excerpts from Primary Source: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) and reviewing your notes from Activity 8.3 and reference your notes from the Info Brief: Methods of Constitutional Interpretation from module one. If you would like to watch the video again, starting at timestamp 12:25. 

This landmark case took place during the Korean War. Steel workers were going on strike and President Truman responded by seizing the steel mills. He argued that a steel strike was a threat to national security because the Army needed steel to conduct the war. Therefore, he had the constitutional authority to act on his own—in other words, without explicit congressional approval—under his Article II commander in chief power.  

After reviewing the primary source and video, complete the Case Brief: Test of Presidential Power  worksheet.

Launch Give students time to read excerpts from Primary Source: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), review your notes from the earlier video, and answer the questions provided.

Activity Synthesis Have students share their responses to the questions and discuss as appropriate.  Ask students how the presidency today compares to the founders’ vision.

Activity Extension (optional) Have students review other court cases related to presidential power.

• United States v. Nixon
• Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
• Morrison v. Olson
• Zivotofsky v. Kerry

8.5 Primary Source: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)

8.5 info brief: methods of constitutional interpretation, 8.5 case brief: tests of presidential power, 8.6 activity: analyzing executive orders.

Purpose One of the key debates over presidential power today involves the president’s use of executive orders. Defenders of presidential power argue that executive orders are central to the president’s core responsibilities of overseeing the executive branch and enforcing laws already passed by Congress. Critics of presidential power often argue that presidents (of both parties) use executive orders to stretch their powers—using them to command executive-branch officials to promote policies that they can’t get Congress to enact into law. In this activity, you will examine executive orders and how they have evolved over time. 

Process In your group, review the following resources:

• Executive Orders Data
• Info Brief: Executive Orders
• Interactive Constitution Article II, Section 3 by William Marshall

Record your answer to the following questions and prepare to discuss.

• What is an executive order?
• Where does the president get her authority to issue executive orders?
• Which president used executive orders the most? The least?
• Who are the three that used them the least?
• Has the use of executive orders changed over time? Can you chart the numbers to see a pattern?
• Are there any eras where you see a boost in executive orders? Why do you think that would be the case? What do you know about that time period? 
• How have executive orders changed the role/job of the president? What are some of the benefits of executive orders? What are some of the dangers?

Then, review Activity Guide: Quotes on Visions of Presidential Power . Try to guess which quote belongs to which key historical figure. As a class, compare the different viewpoints on presidential power.

Launch Give students time to review executive orders resources and answer the questions. Three sources to review are as follows:

Activity Synthesis Have students record their answer to the following questions and review as full class.

Ask students to summarize the information from the lesson in three to five sentences. 

Activity Extension (optional) When it comes to presidential power, the constitutional question often comes down to this: Can the president do that?

Discuss the following examples with your class.

• Can her administration issue a sweeping regulation to regulate air pollution? 
• What about one to require everyone in the nation to wear a mask? Or to stay at home? 
• Can she send American troops to another country to overthrow that dictator?

Review a news item about executive orders today and see what leading questions are being posed on the balance of executive powers. 

8.6 Info Brief: Executive Orders

8.6 activity guide: quotes on visions of presidential power, 8.7 test your knowledge.

Congratulations for completing the activities in this module! Now it’s time to apply what you have learned about the basic ideas and concepts covered.

Complete the questions in the following quiz to test your knowledge.

This activity will help students determine their overall understanding of module concepts. It is recommended that questions are completed electronically so immediate feedback is provided, but a downloadable copy of the questions (with answer key) is also available.

8.7 Interactive Knowledge Check: The Executive Branch and Electoral College

8.7 printable knowledge check: the executive branch and electoral college, previous module, module 7: the legislative branch: how congress works, next module, module 9: the judicial system and current cases.

Article III of the Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the national government, which is responsible for interpreting the laws. At the highest level, the judicial branch is led by the U.S. Supreme Court, which consists of nine Justices. In the federal system, the lower courts consist of the district courts and the courts of appeals. Federal courts—including the Supreme Court—exercise the power of judicial review. This power gives courts the authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws passed (and actions taken) by the elected branches. The Cons...

Go to the Next Module

More from the National Constitution Center

Constitution 101

Explore our new 15-unit core curriculum with educational videos, primary texts, and more.

Search and browse videos, podcasts, and blog posts on constitutional topics.

Founders’ Library

Discover primary texts and historical documents that span American history and have shaped the American constitutional tradition.

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

Powers of the President of the United States

Us constitution.

The power of the United States President comes from the United States Constitution:

Image courtesy National Archives website

Enumerated Powers From the US Constitution

Under Article II of the United States Constitution. The President:

• Has the power to approve or veto bills and resolutions passed by Congress
• Through the Treasury Department, has the power to write checks pursuant to appropriation laws.
• Pursuant to the Oath of Office, will preserve, protect, and defend the Consitution of the United States.
• Serves as Commander-in-Chief of the United States military, and militia when called to service.
• Is authorized to require principle officers of executive departments to provide written opinions upon the duties of their offices
• Has the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in the cases of inpeachment.
• Has the power to make treaties, with the advise and consent of Congress.
• Has the power to nominate ambassadors and other officials with the advise and consent of Congress.
• Has the power to fill vacancies that happen when the Senate is in recess that will expire at the end of the Senate's next session.
• Shall periodically advise Congress on the state of the union and give Congress recommendations that are thought necessary and expedient.
• Has the power to convene one or both houses of Congress during extraordinary occasions, and when Congress cannot agree to adjourn has the power to adjourn them when he thinks the time is proper.
• Has the duty to receive ambassadors and other public ministers.
• Has the duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed.
• Has the power to commission the officers of the United States.
• View transcript of the United States Constitution from the National Archives
• Next: Resources >>
• Last Updated: Aug 10, 2023 11:11 AM
• URL: https://libguides.law.widener.edu/potus-power

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

13.1 The Powers of the Presidency

Learning objectives.

After reading this section, you should be able to answer the following questions:

• How is the presidency personalized?
• What powers does the Constitution grant to the president?
• How can Congress and the judiciary limit the president’s powers?
• How is the presidency organized?
• What is the bureaucratizing of the presidency?

The presidency is seen as the heart of the political system. It is personalized in the president as advocate of the national interest, chief agenda-setter, and chief legislator (Tulis, 1988). Scholars evaluate presidents according to such abilities as “public communication,” “organizational capacity,” “political skill,” “policy vision,” and “cognitive skill” (Greenstein, 2009). The media too personalize the office and push the ideal of the bold, decisive, active, public-minded president who altruistically governs the country (Smith, 2009).

Two big summer movie hits, Independence Day (1996) and Air Force One (1997) are typical: ex-soldier presidents use physical rather than legal powers against (respectively) aliens and Russian terrorists. The president’s tie comes off and heroism comes out, aided by fighter planes and machine guns. The television hit series The West Wing recycled, with a bit more realism, the image of a patriarchal president boldly putting principle ahead of expedience (Parry-Giles & Parry-Giles, 2006).

Figure 13.1

Whether swaggering protagonists of hit movies Independence Day and Air Force One in the 1990s or more down-to-earth heroes of the hit television series The West Wing , presidents are commonly portrayed in the media as bold, decisive, and principled.

Wikimedia Commons – public domain.

Presidents are even presented as redeemers (Sachleben & Yenerall, 2004; Smith, 2009). There are exceptions: presidents depicted as “sleazeballs” or “simpletons” (Larson, 2000).

Enduring Image

Mount Rushmore

Carved into the granite rock of South Dakota’s Mount Rushmore , seven thousand feet above sea level, are the faces of Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt. Sculpted between 1927 and 1941, this awe-inspiring monument achieved even greater worldwide celebrity as the setting for the hero and heroine to overcome the bad guys at the climax of Alfred Hitchcock’s classic and ever-popular film North by Northwest (1959).

This national monument did not start out devoted to American presidents. It was initially proposed to acknowledge regional heroes: General Custer, Buffalo Bill, the explorers Lewis and Clark. The sculptor, Gutzon Borglum, successfully argued that “a nation’s memorial should…have a serenity, a nobility, a power that reflects the gods who inspired them and suggests the gods they have become” (Dean, 1949).

The Mount Rushmore monument is an enduring image of the American presidency by celebrating the greatness of four American presidents. The successors to Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt do their part by trying to associate themselves with the office’s magnificence and project an image of consensus rather than conflict, sometimes by giving speeches at the monument itself. A George W. Bush event placed the presidential podium at such an angle that the television camera could not help but put the incumbent in the same frame as his glorious predecessors.

George W. Bush Speaking in Front of Mt. Rushmore

The enduring image of Mount Rushmore highlights and exaggerates the importance of presidents as the decision makers in the American political system. It elevates the president over the presidency, the occupant over the office. All depends on the greatness of the individual president—which means that the enduring image often contrasts the divinity of past presidents against the fallibility of the current incumbent.

News depictions of the White House also focus on the person of the president. They portray a “single executive image” with visibility no other political participant can boast. Presidents usually get positive coverage during crises foreign or domestic. The news media depict them speaking for and symbolically embodying the nation: giving a State of the Union address, welcoming foreign leaders, traveling abroad, representing the United States at an international conference. Ceremonial events produce laudatory coverage even during intense political controversy.

The media are fascinated with the personality and style of individual presidents. They attempt to pin them down. Sometimes, the analyses are contradictory. In one best-selling book, Bob Woodward depicted President George W. Bush as, in the words of reviewer Michiko Kakutani, “a judicious, resolute leader…firmly in control of the ship of state.” In a subsequent book, Woodward described Bush as “passive, impatient, sophomoric and intellectual incurious…given to an almost religious certainty that makes him disinclined to rethink or re-evaluate decisions” (Kakutani, 2006; Bush at War, 2002).

This media focus tells only part of the story. [1] The president’s independence and ability to act are constrained in several ways, most notably by the Constitution.

The Presidency in the Constitution

Article II of the Constitution outlines the office of president. Specific powers are few; almost all are exercised in conjunction with other branches of the federal government.

Table 13.1 Bases for Presidential Powers in the Constitution

Presidents exercise only one power that cannot be limited by other branches: the pardon. So controversial decisions like President Gerald Ford’s pardon of his predecessor Richard Nixon for “crimes he committed or may have committed” or President Jimmy Carter’s blanket amnesty to all who avoided the draft during the Vietnam War could not have been overturned.

Presidents have more powers and responsibilities in foreign and defense policy than in domestic affairs. They are the commanders in chief of the armed forces; they decide how (and increasingly when) to wage war. Presidents have the power to make treaties to be approved by the Senate; the president is America’s chief diplomat. As head of state, the president speaks for the nation to other world leaders and receives ambassadors.

The Constituion

Read the entire Constituion at https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution .

The Constitution directs presidents to be part of the legislative process. In the annual State of the Union address, presidents point out problems and recommend legislation to Congress. Presidents can convene special sessions of Congress, possibly to “jump-start” discussion of their proposals. Presidents can veto a bill passed by Congress, returning it with written objections. Congress can then override the veto. Finally, the Constitution instructs presidents to be in charge of the executive branch. Along with naming judges, presidents appoint ambassadors and executive officers. These appointments require Senate confirmation. If Congress is not in session, presidents can make temporary appointments known as recess appointments without Senate confirmation, good until the end of the next session of Congress.

The Constitution’s phrase “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” gives the president the job to oversee the implementation of laws. Thus presidents are empowered to issue executive orders to interpret and carry out legislation. They supervise other officers of the executive branch and can require them to justify their actions.

Congressional Limitations on Presidential Power

Almost all presidential powers rely on what Congress does (or does not do). Presidential executive orders implement the law but Congress can overrule such orders by changing the law. And many presidential powers are delegated powers that Congress has accorded presidents to exercise on its behalf—and that it can cut back or rescind.

Congress can challenge presidential powers single-handedly. One way is to amend the Constitution. The Twenty-Second Amendment was enacted in the wake of the only president to serve more than two terms, the powerful Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR). Presidents now may serve no more than two terms. The last presidents to serve eight years, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, quickly became “lame ducks” after their reelection and lost momentum toward the ends of their second terms, when attention switched to contests over their successors.

Impeachment gives Congress “sole power” to remove presidents (among others) from office. [2] It works in two stages. The House decides whether or not to accuse the president of wrongdoing. If a simple majority in the House votes to impeach the president, the Senate acts as jury, House members are prosecutors, and the chief justice presides. A two-thirds vote by the Senate is necessary for conviction, the punishment for which is removal and disqualification from office.

Prior to the 1970s, presidential impeachment was deemed the founders’ “rusted blunderbuss that will probably never be taken in hand again” (Labowitz, 1978). Only one president (Andrew Johnson in 1868) had been impeached—over policy disagreements with Congress on the Reconstruction of the South after the Civil War. Johnson avoided removal by a single senator’s vote.

Presidential Impeachment

Read about the impeachment trial of President Johnson at http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Senate_Votes_on_a_Presidential_Impeachment.htm .

Read about the impeachment trial of President Clinton at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton .

Since the 1970s, the blunderbuss has been dusted off. A bipartisan majority of the House Judiciary Committee recommended the impeachment of President Nixon in 1974. Nixon surely would have been impeached and convicted had he not resigned first. President Clinton was impeached by the House in 1998, though acquitted by the Senate in 1999, for perjury and obstruction of justice in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Figure 13.2

Bill Clinton was only the second US president to be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors” and stand trial in the Senate. Not surprisingly, in this day of huge media attention to court proceedings, the presidential impeachment trial was covered live by television and became endless fodder for twenty-four-hour-news channels. Chief Justice William Rehnquist presided over the trial. The House “managers” (i.e., prosecutors) of the case are on the left, the president’s lawyers on the right.

Much of the public finds impeachment a standard part of the political system. For example, a June 2005 Zogby poll found that 42 percent of the public agreed with the statement “If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment” (Polling Report, 2005).

Impeachment can be a threat to presidents who chafe at congressional opposition or restrictions. All three impeached presidents had been accused by members of Congress of abuse of power well before allegations of law-breaking. Impeachment is handy because it refers only vaguely to official misconduct: “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

From Congress’s perspective, impeachment can work. Nixon resigned because he knew he would be removed from office. Even presidential acquittals help Congress out. Impeachment forced Johnson to pledge good behavior and thus “succeeded in its primary goal: to safeguard Reconstruction from presidential obstruction” (Benedict, 1973). Clinton had to go out of his way to assuage congressional Democrats, who had been far from content with a number of his initiatives; by the time the impeachment trial was concluded, the president was an all-but-lame duck.

Judicial Limitations on Presidential Power

Presidents claim inherent powers not explicitly stated but that are intrinsic to the office or implied by the language of the Constitution. They rely on three key phrases. First, in contrast to Article I’s detailed powers of Congress, Article II states that “The Executive Power shall be vested in a President.” Second, the presidential oath of office is spelled out, implying a special guardianship of the Constitution. Third, the job of ensuring that “the Laws be faithfully executed” can denote a duty to protect the country and political system as a whole.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court can and does rule on whether presidents have inherent powers. Its rulings have both expanded and limited presidential power. For instance, the justices concluded in 1936 that the president, the embodiment of the United States outside its borders, can act on its behalf in foreign policy.

But the court usually looks to congressional action (or inaction) to define when a president can invoke inherent powers. In 1952, President Harry Truman claimed inherent emergency powers during the Korean War. Facing a steel strike he said would interrupt defense production, Truman ordered his secretary of commerce to seize the major steel mills and keep production going. The Supreme Court rejected this move: “the President’s power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” [3]

The Vice Presidency

Only two positions in the presidency are elected: the president and vice president. With ratification of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment in 1967, a vacancy in the latter office may be filled by the president, who appoints a vice president subject to majority votes in both the House and the Senate. This process was used twice in the 1970s. Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned amid allegations of corruption; President Nixon named House Minority Leader Gerald Ford to the post. When Nixon resigned during the Watergate scandal, Ford became president—the only person to hold the office without an election—and named former New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller vice president.

The vice president’s sole duties in the Constitution are to preside over the Senate and cast tie-breaking votes, and to be ready to assume the presidency in the event of a vacancy or disability. Eight of the forty-three presidents had been vice presidents who succeeded a dead president (four times from assassinations). Otherwise, vice presidents have few official tasks. The first vice president, John Adams, told the Senate, “I am Vice President. In this I am nothing, but I may be everything.” More earthily, FDR’s first vice president, John Nance Garner, called the office “not worth a bucket of warm piss.”

In recent years, vice presidents are more publicly visible and have taken on more tasks and responsibilities. Ford and Rockefeller began this trend in the 1970s, demanding enhanced day-to-day responsibilities and staff as conditions for taking the job. Vice presidents now have a West Wing office, are given prominent assignments, and receive distinct funds for a staff under their control parallel to the president’s staff (Light, 1984).

Arguably the most powerful occupant of the office ever was Dick Cheney. This former doctoral candidate in political science (at the University of Wisconsin) had been a White House chief of staff, member of Congress, and cabinet secretary. He possessed an unrivaled knowledge of the power relations within government and of how to accumulate and exercise power. As George W. Bush’s vice president, he had access to every cabinet and subcabinet meeting he wanted to attend, chaired the board charged with reviewing the budget, took on important issues (security, energy, economy), ran task forces, was involved in nominations and appointments, and lobbied Congress (Gellman & Becker, 2007).

Organizing the Presidency

The presidency is organized around two offices. They enhance but also constrain the president’s power.

The Executive Office of the President

The Executive Office of the President (EOP) is an umbrella organization encompassing all presidential staff agencies. Most offices in the EOP, such as the Office of the Vice President, the National Security Council, and the Office of Management and Budget, are established by law; some positions require Senate confirmation.

Learn about the EOP at http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop .

Inside the EOP is the White House Office (WHO) . It contains the president’s personal staff of assistants and advisors; most are exempt from Congress’s purview. Though presidents have a free hand with the personnel and structure of the WHO, its organization has been the same for decades. Starting with Nixon in 1969, each president has named a chief of staff to head and supervise the White House staff, a press secretary to interact with the news media, and a director of communication to oversee the White House message. The national security advisor is well placed to become the most powerful architect of foreign policy, rivaling or surpassing the secretary of state. New offices, such as President Bush’s creation of an office for faith-based initiatives, are rare; such positions get placed on top of or alongside old arrangements.

Even activities of a highly informal role such as the first lady , the president’s spouse, are standardized. It is no longer enough for them to host White House social events. They are brought out to travel and campaign. They are presidents’ intimate confidantes, have staffers of their own, and advocate popular policies (e.g., Lady Bird Johnson’s highway beautification, Nancy Reagan’s antidrug crusade, and Barbara Bush’s literacy programs). Hillary Rodham Clinton faced controversy as first lady by defying expectations of being above the policy fray; she was appointed by her husband to head the task force to draft a legislative bill for a national health-care system. Clinton’s successor, Laura Bush, returned the first ladyship to a more social, less policy-minded role. Michelle Obama’s cause is healthy eating. She has gone beyond advocacy to having Walmart lower prices on the fruit and vegetables it sells and reducing the amount of fat, sugar, and salt in its foods.

Bureaucratizing the Presidency

The media and the public expect presidents to put their marks on the office and on history. But “the institution makes presidents as much if not more than presidents make the institution” (Ragsdale & Theis III, 1997; Burke, 2000).

The presidency became a complex institution starting with FDR, who was elected to four terms during the Great Depression and World War II. Prior to FDR, presidents’ staffs were small. As presidents took on responsibilities and jobs, often at Congress’s initiative, the presidency grew and expanded.

Not only is the presidency bigger since FDR, but the division of labor within an administration is far more complex. Fiction and nonfiction media depict generalist staffers reporting to the president, who makes the real decisions. But the WHO is now a miniature bureaucracy. The WHO’s first staff in 1939 consisted of eight generalists: three secretaries to the president, three administrative assistants, a personal secretary, an executive clerk. Since the 1980s, the WHO has consisted of around eighty staffers; almost all either have a substantive specialty (e.g., national security, women’s initiatives, environment, health policy) or emphasize specific activities (e.g., White House legal counsel, director of press advance, public liaison, legislative liaison, chief speechwriter, director of scheduling). The White House Office adds another organization for presidents to direct—or lose track of.

The large staff in the White House, and the Old Executive Office Building next door, is no guarantee of a president’s power. These staffers “make a great many decisions themselves, acting in the name of the president. In fact, the majority of White House decisions—all but the most crucial—are made by presidential assistants” (Kessel, 2001).

Most of these labor in anonymity unless they make impolitic remarks. For example, two of President Bush’s otherwise obscure chief economic advisors got into hot water, one for (accurately) predicting that the cost of war in Iraq might top $200 billion, another for praising the outsourcing of jobs (Andrews, 2004). Relatively few White House staffers—the chief of staff, the national security advisor, the press secretary—become household names in the news, and even they are quick to be quoted saying, “as the president has said” or “the president decided.” But often what presidents say or do is what staffers told or wrote for them to say or do (see Note 13.13 “Comparing Content” ).

Comparing Content

Days in the Life of the White House

On April 25, 2001, President George W. Bush was celebrating his first one hundred days in office. He sought to avoid the misstep of his father who ignored the media frame of the first one hundred days as the make-or-break period for a presidency and who thus seemed confused and aimless.

As part of this campaign, Bush invited Stephen Crowley, a New York Times photographer, to follow him and present, as Crowley wrote in his accompanying text, “an unusual behind-the-scenes view of how he conducts business” (Crowley, 2001). Naturally, the photos implied that the White House revolves completely around the president. At 6:45 a.m., “the White House came to life”—when a light came on in the president’s upstairs residence. The sole task shown for Bush’s personal assistant was peering through a peephole to monitor the president’s national security briefing. Crowley wrote “the workday ended 15 hours after it began,” after meetings, interviews, a stadium speech, and a fund-raiser.

We get a different understanding of how the White House works from following not the president but some other denizen of the West Wing around for a day or so. That is what filmmaker Theodore Bogosian did: he shadowed Clinton’s then press secretary Joe Lockhart for a few days in mid-2000 with a high-definition television camera. In the revealing one-hour video, The Press Secretary , activities of the White House are shown to revolve around Lockhart as much as Crowley’s photographic essay showed they did around Bush. Even with the hands-on Bill Clinton, the video raises questions about who works for whom. Lockhart is shown devising taglines, even policy with his associates in the press office. He instructs the president what to say as much as the other way around. He confides to the camera he is nervous about letting Clinton speak off-the-cuff.

Of course, the White House does not revolve around the person of the press secretary. Neither does it revolve entirely around the person of the president. Both are lone individuals out of many who collectively make up the institution known as the presidency.

Key Takeaways

The entertainment and news media personalize the presidency, depicting the president as the dynamic center of the political system. The Constitution foresaw the presidency as an energetic office with one person in charge. Yet the Constitution gave the office and its incumbent few powers, most of which can be countered by other branches of government. The presidency is bureaucratically organized and includes agencies, offices, and staff. They are often beyond a president’s direct control.

• How do the media personalize the presidency?
• How can the president check the power of Congress? How can Congress limit the influence of the president?
• How is the executive branch organized? How is the way the executive branch operates different from the way it is portrayed in the media?

Andrews, E. L., “Economics Adviser Learns the Principles of Politics,” New York Times , February 26, 2004, C4.

Benedict, M. L., The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson (New York: Norton, 1973), 139.

Burke, J. P., The Institutional Presidency , 2nd ed. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000).

Bush at War (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002).

Crowley, S., “And on the 96th Day…,” New York Times , April 29, 2001, Week in Review, 3.

Dean, R. J., Living Granite (New York: Viking Press, 1949), 18.

Gellman, B. and Jo Becker, “Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency,” Washington Post , June 24, 2007, A1.

Greenstein, F. I., The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to Barack Obama , 3rd ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009).

Kakutani, M., “A Portrait of the President as the Victim of His Own Certitude,” review of State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III, by Bob Woodward, New York Times , September 30, 2006, A15.

Kessel, J. H., Presidents, the Presidency, and the Political Environment (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2001), 2.

Labowitz, J. R., Presidential Impeachment (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1978), 91.

Larson, S. G., “Political Cynicism and Its Contradictions in the Public, News, and Entertainment,” in It’s Show Time! Media, Politics, and Popular Culture , ed. David A. Schultz (New York: Peter Lang, 2000), 101–116.

Light, P. C., Vice-Presidential Power: Advice and Influence in the White House (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984).

Parry-Giles, T. and Shawn J. Parry-Giles, The Prime-Time Presidency: The West Wing and U.S. Nationalism (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2006).

Polling Report, http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm , accessed July 7, 2005.

Ragsdale, L. and John J. Theis III, “The Institutionalization of the American Presidency, 1924–92,” American Journal of Political Science 41, no. 4 (October 1997): 1280–1318 at 1316.

Sachleben, M. and Kevan M. Yenerall, Seeing the Bigger Picture: Understanding Politics through Film and Television (New York: Peter Lang, 2004), chap. 4.

Smith, J., The Presidents We Imagine (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2009).

Tulis, J. K., The Rhetorical Presidency (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988).

• On the contrast of “single executive image” and the “plural executive reality,” see Lyn Ragsdale, Presidential Politics (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1993). ↵
• The language in the Constitution comes from Article I, Section 2, Clause 5, and Article I, Section 3, Clause 7. This section draws from Michael Les Benedict, The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson (New York: Norton, 1973); John R. Labowitz, Presidential Impeachment (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1978); and Michael J. Gerhardt, The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis , 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000). ↵
• Respectively, United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp, 299 US 304 (1936); Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952). ↵

American Government and Politics in the Information Age Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Mischiefs of Faction

How powerful is the US president?

A look at other constitutions explains why American executives are so ineffectual.

by Zachary Elkins

Which parts of the US Constitution have aged least well? In prior posts in this series, Jennifer Victor nominates slavery and suffrage and Seth Masket the electoral college . But it is also the case that our treasured “checks and balances” have become, well, unbalanced. Consider that we seem incapable of agreeing upon legislation that addresses the pressing issues of the day — everything from immigration to our crumbling infrastructure to health care. And forget about climate change.

Some of this dysfunction may be the result of persistent polarization and tribal “partyism.” But a primary cause is constitutional and rooted in the anemic lawmaking powers that our 1787 document grants to the president. This is only obvious once we compare the presidency to executives in other constitutional countries. It may seem strange to consider augmenting executive power during one of the most controversial administrations in US history, but now is exactly the time to evaluate the idea, when we can clearly understand the consequences.

One of the twists of fate from the founders’ summer project of 1787 is that they opted for a president over a prime minister. At some moments that summer, it looked like they might choose the latter. This fundamental difference between presidentialism and parliamentarism matters.

Prime ministers, as lead legislators, have power to set and implement the legislative agenda directly. US presidents can mostly just react to legislation through their veto power, though admittedly the threat of a veto could serve as a downstream constraint that legislators take into account upstream. This lack of initiation power was exhibited starkly last week when Senate Majority Leader McConnell informed the president that the Senate would not — contrary to the president’s tweet — be taking up comprehensive health care reform.

Most presidential systems have adapted the US model by explicitly allowing presidents to introduce legislation. Professors Terry Moe and William Howell have suggested a fix: fast-track privileges guaranteeing presidential proposals a vote in Congress.

Even in countries where presidents can initiate bills, their proposals are not as successful as are those of prime ministers. Consider some data collected by Sebastian Saiegh on the “batting average” of a large sample of executives over 30 years — that is, the percentage of executive-initiated legislative proposals that are ultimately enacted. As we might expect, the data shows that prime ministers have more success than do presidents. The US president, who cannot even come up to bat, is obviously not included in the analysis.

So, the US president has little direct power to affect legislation, at least initially. But what interests me is that the office also lacks many of the indirect legislative powers of presidents in other countries. We can think of indirect powers as providing “outside options” to legislation as well as threats/protections vis a vis the legislature; both sets of powers increase a president’s leverage in legislative bargaining.

Consider eight such powers. Outside options in other constitutions for executives include: 1. issuing legislative decrees; 2. calling a national referendum; 3. declaring a national emergency; and 4. proposing an amendment to the constitution.

Threats (or shields from threats) might include: 5. dissolving the legislature; 6. challenging the constitutionality of a law; 7. providing immunity for the executive from criminal prosecution; and 8. restricting legislative oversight.

And one could add other powers, such as the line-item veto.

The US president has none of these, at least constitutionally (which is critical). Other constitutions — for better or worse — include some or all of these. The chart below shows the sum of these eight powers for executives in presidential constitutions. The US score of zero, sitting lonely at the left side of the histogram, helps explain why our executives are not able to herd legislators in the direction of their agenda.

The US president’s anemic powers were evident during the Obama years. The shift to a Republican-controlled House in 2010 set in motion a perpetual standoff between Obama and Congress. One low-water mark may have been the brinkmanship over raising the debt ceiling during the summer of 2011. Each side needed the other’s approval to shape a budget bill and each, presumably, preferred an agreement to none at all.

As it happens, President Obama did have a constitutional outside option. Under one interpretation of the 14th Amendment (not President Obama’s, evidently), the president could have raised the debt ceiling unilaterally, to ensure the “validity of the public debt of the United States” ( 14th Amendment, Section 4 ). President Obama rejected this Constitutional option, which, according to Paul Krugman, amounted to a “systematic destruction of his own bargaining power.”

President Trump has a very different bargaining style. During the standoff over border wall funding, he has made aggressive use of his emergency powers. These powers, importantly, are not enshrined in the Constitution but rather in ordinary legislation, which renders them far less sacrosanct. It is not at all clear that the Supreme Court will find President Trump’s aggressive use of that statute to be consistent with his constitutional powers.

The emergency power example reminds us that our leadership over the years has tried to build a more muscular presidency outside of the Constitution. In addition to using statutory emergency powers, presidents have engaged in the dubious practice of “signing statements” that indicate their intent to honor only parts of legislation. The growth of extra-constitutional powers is what Arthur Schlessinger had in mind when he coined the phrase “imperial presidency” in 1973. Schlessinger worried that accumulating executive power outside of the constitution defined emperors as against presidents.

Other presidential countries have periodically revised the US model to constitutionalize many indirect legislative powers. Brazil, for example, along with the US and averages for presidential and parliamentary systems, has gradually built a strong set of presidential powers over legislation. It will be interesting to observe how President Bolsonaro wields such powers.

Which brings us to political considerations. Debates about constitutional prerogatives do not happen behind a veil of ignorance. Many constitutional drafters have in mind the next (or current) president. It didn’t take much for the Philadelphia drafters to imagine that George Washington, the archetypal consensus choice, would fill the office.

The reverence in which they held Washington makes it all the more ironic that they endowed the office so weakly. In our times, it is hard to imagine any legislator advocating for more executive power for their tribal opponent. Still, it may be that that is just what we need if we are to build and maintain bridges, update immigration laws, enact consensus legislation regarding guns, and solve problems in health care provision. Or we could continue to use our Congress to write bills to name post offices.

Most Popular

• The massive Social Security number breach is actually a good thing
• The difference between American and UK Love Is Blind
• Kamala Harris’s speech triggered a vintage Trump meltdown
• The staggering death toll of scientific lies
• This chart of ocean heat is terrifying

Today, Explained

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

This is the title for the native ad

More in Mischiefs of Faction

That’s good news for Brazilian democracy.

A good event for the upper tier of candidates, a bad one for Biden, and a forgettable one for the ones you’ve already forgotten.

We’re starting to see the direction of a committee dedicated to changing Capitol Hill.

But US evangelicals have been more loyal to Trump than Brazil’s evangelicals have been to President Bolsonaro, so this move may not work.

Democrats are trying to learn from 2016 and prevent the same problems in the nomination race.

For the second presidential cycle in a row, there’s a record-breaking number of candidates in the nominee race.

Help inform the discussion

• X (Twitter)

Presidential Essays

George Washington was born to Mary Ball and Augustine Washington on February 22, 1732. As the third son of a middling planter, George probably should have been relegated to a footnote in a history book. Instead, he became one of the greatest figures in American history.

A series of personal losses changed the course of George’s life. His father, Augustine, died when he was eleven years old, ending any hopes of higher education. Instead, Washington spent many of his formative years under the tutelage of Lawrence, his favorite older brother. He also learned the science of surveying and began a new career with the help of their neighbors, the wealthy and powerful Fairfax family. Lawrence’s death in 1752 again changed George’s plans. He leased Mount Vernon, a plantation in northern Virginia, from Lawrence’s widow and sought a military commission, just as Lawrence had done.

Washington served as the lieutenant colonel of the Virginia regiment and led several missions out west to the Ohio Valley. On his second mission west, he participated in the murder of French forces, including a reported ambassador. In retaliation, the French surrounded Washington’s forces at Fort Necessity and compelled an unequivocal surrender. Washington signed the articles of capitulation, not knowing that he was accepting full blame for an assassination. His mission marked the start of the Seven Years’ War.

Washington then joined General Edward Braddock’s official family as an aide-de-camp. In recognition of Washington’s extraordinary bravery during Braddock’s disastrous defeat at the Battle of the Monongahela in 1755, Lieutenant Governor Robert Dinwiddie appointed him as the commander of the Virginia Regiment. He served with distinction until the end of 1758.

In early 1759, George entered a new chapter in his life when he married Martha Custis, a wealthy widow, and won election to the Virginia House of Burgesses. George and Martha moved to Mount Vernon and embarked on an extensive expansion and renovation of the estate. Their life with her children from her previous marriage, John Parke Custis and Martha Parke Custis, was loving and warm.

Washington’s position in the House of Burgesses took on additional importance as relations between the colonies and Great Britain deteriorated after the end of the Seven Years’ War. The British government had incurred enormous debts fighting across the globe and faced high military costs defending the new territories in North America that it had received in the peace settlement. To defray these expenses, the British Parliament passed a series of new taxation measures on its colonies, which were still much lower than those paid by citizens in England. But many colonists protested that they had already contributed once to the war effort and should not be forced to pay again, especially since they had no input in the legislative process.

Washington supported the protest measures in the House of Burgesses, and in 1774, he accepted appointment as a Virginia delegate to the First Continental Congress, where he voted for non-importation measures, such as abstaining from purchasing British goods. The following year, he returned to the Second Continental Congress after British regulars and local militia forces clashed in Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts. He approved Congress’s decision to create an army in June 1775 and was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army.

For the next eight years, Washington led the army, only leaving headquarters to respond to Congress’s summons. He lost more battles than he won and at times had to hold the army together with sheer will, but ultimately emerged victorious in 1783 when the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War.

Washington’s success as a commander derived from three factors. First, he never challenged civilian authority. The new nation deeply distrusted military power, and his intentional self-subordination kept him in command. Second, the soldiers and officers adored him. The soldiers’ devotion to their commander was so apparent that some congressmen rued that it was not the Continental Army, it was George Washington’s army. Finally, Washington understood that if the army survived, so too would the cause for independence. He did not have to beat the British Army, he just had to avoid complete destruction.

At the end of the war, Washington returned his commission to the Confederation Congress and resumed life as a private citizen in Virginia. In an age of dictators and despots, his voluntarily surrender of power rippled around the globe and solidified his legend. Unsurprisingly, when the state leaders began discussing government reform a few years later, they knew Washington’s participation was essential for success.

In 1786, the Virginia legislature nominated a slate of delegates to represent the state at the Constitutional Convention. Washington’s close friend, Governor Edmund Randolph, ensured that George’s name was included. In May 1787, Washington set out for Philadelphia, where he served as the president of the convention. Once the convention agreed to a draft constitution, he then worked behind the scenes to ensure ratification. Washington believed the new constitution would resolve many of the problems that had plagued the Confederation Congress, but he also knew that if the states ratified the constitution, he would once again be dragged back into public service.

On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth and requisite state to ratify the new Constitution of the United States, forcing each state to schedule elections for the new federal offices. Unsurprisingly, Washington was unanimously elected as the first president. He took the oath of office on April 30, 1789.

As the first president, Washington literally crafted the office from scratch, which was an accomplishment that cannot be overstated because every decision was an opportunity for failure. Instead, Washington set a model for restraint, prestige in office, and public service. As president, Washington also oversaw the establishment of the financial system, the restoration of the nation’s credit, the expansion of US territory (often at the expense of Native Americans), the negotiation of economic treaties with European empires, and the defense of executive authority over diplomatic and domestic affairs.

Washington set countless precedents, including the creation of the cabinet, executive privilege, state of the union addresses, and his retirement after two terms. On September 19, 1796, Washington published his Farewell Address announcing his retirement in a Philadelphia newspaper. He warned Americans to come together and reject partisan or foreign attempts to divide them, admonitions that retain their significance into the twenty-first century. He then willingly surrendered power once more.

When Washington left office, his contemporaries referred to him the father of the country. No other person could have held the Continental Army together for eight years, granted legitimacy to the Constitution Convention, or served as the first president. It is impossible to imagine the creation of the United States without him.

Yet, Washington’s life also embodies the complicated founding that shapes our society today. He owned hundreds of enslaved people and benefitted from their forced labor from the moment he was born to the day he died. His wealth, produced by slavery, made possible his decades of public service. Washington’s financial success, and that of the new nation, also depended on the violent seizure of extensive territory from Native American nations along the eastern seaboard to the Mississippi River. Washington’s life and service as the first president represents the irony contained in the nation’s founding. The United States was forged on the idea that “all men are created equal,” yet depended on the subjugation and exploitation of women and people of color.

On February 22, 1732, Mary Ball Washington gave birth to the first of her six children, a boy named George. George’s father, Augustine, had been married once before and had three older children from his previous marriage. Over the next several years, the large family moved a few times, before settling at Ferry Farm on the banks of the Rappahannock River near Fredericksburg, Virginia.

When George was eleven, his life changed radically. His father died, and George’s older brothers inherited most of Augustine’s estate, including Little Hunting Creek Plantation, which later became Mount Vernon. George inherited one of the smaller estates and ten enslaved individuals who worked the farm.

Without a large inheritance, George relied on his family and connections to make his way in the world. Unlike his older brothers, he did not have the opportunity to study at a university. He spent his teenage years learning how to manage a plantation from his mother and mastering the science of surveying with the assistance of his neighbor, Colonel William Fairfax.

In 1751, George accompanied his favorite older brother, Lawrence, on a trip to Barbados. While in the Caribbean, George came down with smallpox. He survived and left the island with lifelong immunity, but the disease probably left him unable to father children and with a firsthand conviction about the dangers of the disease.

The trip to Barbados was also formative for Washington’s future. He toured the military structures on the island and was increasingly interested in a military career. Initially, George wanted to join the British Navy, and Lawrence promised to help secure him a position. Mary, George’s mother, had strong reservations about the physical abuse her son might receive in the navy and the limited possibilities for advancement. She was probably right, as life in the navy was often brutal and short-lived.

With his dreams of naval glory dashed, Washington looked west.

Early Career

By George’s seventeenth birthday, he received his first official commission to survey Culpeper County. He had learned the skills under the supervision of Colonel William Fairfax, his neighbor and one of the leading figures in Virginia. Just a few years later, Washington had completed almost 200 surveys of more than 60,000 acres.

In 1752, George’s older brother Lawrence died, and Washington appeared to lose interest in surveying as a profession and pursued a military career instead. In October 1753, he offered his services to Lieutenant Governor Robert Dinwiddie of Virginia, who planned to send an emissary to meet with the French in the Ohio Valley. The governor accepted Washington’s offer, and he headed west. Over the next few months, Washington became convinced that the French were planning a large military force to attack the British. Eager to warn Dinwiddie, George left the protection of the expedition and made his way on foot with one guide for company. After nearly drowning, freezing, and starving, he arrived in Williamsburg on January 16, 1754.

For his daring service, Washington was promoted to lieutenant colonel and ordered to raise men for an upcoming mission to drive the French out of the Ohio Valley. On his way to the Monongahela River, Washington encountered a French scouting party and determined that they had to be stopped before they revealed his location. He met up with Tanacharison, a local Native American chief, and they made their way to a French camp at Jumonville Glen. According to Washington’s later retelling of the events, when Washington intended to accept the French surrender, the Native American forces attacked and scalped many French soldiers. During the attack, the French commander, Sieur de Jumonville, was killed.

After the attack, Washington hastily built a small defensive enclosure he named Fort Necessity. On July 3, 1754, French forces surrounded the fort, and by the end of the day, Washington asked for terms of surrender. The French allowed the British forces to leave the fort in return for admitting to the assassination of Jumonville, an official ambassador. The terms were written in French, which Washington could not read. Washington never accepted this explanation, insisting that the French forces were spies and that the terms were unclear. The attack marked the start of the Seven Years’ War.

After the debacle at Jumonville, Washington joined Brigadier General Edward Braddock’s official family as an aide-de-camp. He accompanied Braddock on his march out west to capture the French Fort Duquesne (now Pittsburgh). French and Native American forces attacked the British line, killing most of the British officers and inflicting horrific casualties during the Battle of Monongahela. Washington won acclaim and promotion for his courage under fire and his efforts to manage an unruly retreat. For the next several years, he served as commander of the Virginia colonial forces before returning his commission at the end of 1758.

Mount Vernon

After leaving the military, Washington had a new position, a new fiancé, and a new home that demanded his attention. He won election to the Virginia House of Burgesses and took his seat in February 1759—one month after his wedding to the wealthy widow Martha Custis. The marriage was advantageous for George’s prospects, but also appears to have developed into a love match, or an amiable partnership at the very least. They wrote and spoke of each other with affection and desired each other’s company.

After their wedding, George and Martha resided at his plantation, Mount Vernon, which he had inherited when Lawrence’s widow died in 1761. Washington had grand plans for his new endeavors as a plantation owner. Over the previous several years, he had purchased dozens of enslaved individuals, and Martha brought 84 of the 300 enslaved laborers she owned to Mount Vernon, which added more manpower for the house and fields. Washington planned to expand the land and the house and revolutionize the farming practices. He began by purchasing lands surrounding the original 3,000 acres of the Mount Vernon estate, starting in 1757. By the time of his death, he owned nearly 8,000 acres.

Washington also quadrupled the size of the original house, from a one-and-a-half story, four-room house, to a 11,000-square-foot mansion, and he updated all the finishings and furnishings. Martha’s wealth funded the improvements, and she likely contributed to the décor and design decisions.

As Washington expanded his home to reflect his elite status, he also reformed his farm’s operations. He was one of the earliest plantation owners to recognize that tobacco damaged the soil. Spurred on by the falling prices, Washington ordered his enslaved laborers to switch over to grains, and he experimented with the latest techniques of fertilization and crop rotation methods.

Although Washington employed overseers to monitor the daily work of the enslaved workers in the field, he also assumed an active role in plantation supervision. He demanded regular reports of worker productivity and rode a large loop on horseback every day to check on the far corners of his estate.

Revolutionary War

Despite the Washingtons’ wealth, they found themselves in debt to British merchants due to the mercantilist system which governed the British Empire. The British government forced colonies to buy from and sell to British merchants, and the distance across the Atlantic Ocean exacerbated the inequalities within the system. For example, Washington sent his tobacco to a British merchant, who offered a low price. But by then, the tobacco was already in port, and Washington had no leverage. Similarly, he ordered fine goods like clothes, shoes, and jewelry from retailers in London, who supplied the goods and the bill. Again, Washington was forced to accept their prices. Washington was very sensitive about his status and honor and chafed at his inferior economic position.

These tensions boiled over when the British Parliament passed a series of taxation measures to pay down the debt accrued during the Seven Years’ War. From the British perspective, they had spent a fortune defending the colonies from the French. They believed that the colonists should contribute to these expenses. Additionally, colonists’ taxes were quite low—a fraction of what citizens in England paid.

But many colonists saw the taxes as confirmation that Britons viewed them as second-class citizens. The colonists had contributed to their own defense during the Seven Years’ War, and now Parliament demanded they contribute yet again.

Washington was not known for his oratory skills, but he encouraged the House of Burgesses to resist the taxation measures, and he personally abstained from purchasing British goods as part of a non-importation agreement. Colonists in Massachusetts went one step further. On December 16, 1773, a group of colonists boarded ships carrying East India Tea and dumped 342 chests of tea into the harbor. In retaliation, the British Parliament passed the Coercive Acts, also known as the Intolerable Acts. The acts closed the port of Boston and revoked self-government in Massachusetts until the colony paid restitution for the damaged tea.

These extreme measures appeared to punish the entire colony for the actions of a few unruly rebels, and they reminded the colonies that they were subjected to the whims of the British government. To formulate a unified response, the colonies agreed to send representatives to a Continental Congress. As one of the first delegates from Virginia, Washington agreed to form a Continental Association to manage communication between the colonies about the economic boycott of British goods. The delegates also crafted a petition to the king, imploring him to repeal the Intolerable Acts.

While the colonists waited for a response from the king, which never arrived, events in New England once against accelerated the conflict. In April 1775, British soldiers and local patriot militia clashed in Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts. The war had officially begun.

Commander-in-Chief

On June 14, the Second Continental Congress created the Continental Army. The next day, Thomas Johnson of Maryland nominated Washington as the first Commander-in-Chief. The delegates supported Washington’s nomination because he was one of the most experienced military commanders in the colonies. But his loyalty was also unquestioned, as he was born in North America and had never served in the British Army. Plus, he was a Virginian. Cooperation and unity among the colonies were required if they were going to win the war. Virginians were from the largest state and more likely to support the cause and the army if one of their own was at the helm.

Although Washington accepted the commission with the expected humility, he also welcomed the command. His choice to wear a uniform to the convention was no accident. After accepting the position, he wrote to Martha, “I could not think of departing from [Philadelphia] without dropping you a line; especially as I do not know whether it may be in my power to write again… I retain an unalterable affection for you, which neither time or distance can change.” He then made his way to Cambridge, Massachusetts, to meet the troops already fighting the war against the British.

Washington was sorely disappointed by the army that greeted him upon his arrival at headquarters. The troops were disorganized, the conditions unsanitary, discipline was in short supply, and the officers were squabbling amongst themselves over their titles. His first course of action was to enforce some semblance of order on the amateur army.

He then turned his attention to the stalemate in Boston. The Americans forces had settled in defensive positions on the hills surrounding Boston, while the British forces were holed up in Boston. Washington sent Henry Knox, one of his favorite generals, to retrieve recently captured artillery from Fort Ticonderoga. Once Knox completed the mission, Washington ordered his forces to install the artillery overlooking the Boston Harbor—in secret, in the dead of night. General Thomas Gage, the British commander, abandoned Boston once he discovered his navy was in the line of fire.

The American victory at Boston validated the cause for independence and proved the Battles of Lexington and Concord were not a fluke. But by the end of 1776, American spirits were suffering. Washington planned one last-ditch effort to boost morale. Many of his troops’ enlistments were about to expire, and nearly half of his army would disappear on January 1. Additionally, Washington knew the fledgling nation needed an emotional victory before the army entered winter camp.

Under the cover of night on Christmas, Washington and the ragged American forces crossed the Delaware River, attacking and defeating the British troops in Trenton, New Jersey. A few days later, General Charles Cornwallis counterattacked, but Washington escaped and marched on British reinforcements at Princeton. With the element of surprise, the Continental Army won back-to-back victories. Although the battles did not alter the course of the war, they offered powerful encouragement to a disheartened people.

Although Washington won important battles, such as Boston, Trenton, and Princeton, he lost more. The British forced him to abandon forts, artillery, and eventually New York City during the summer of 1776. The following year, the British sailed south and captured Philadelphia, forcing Congress to flee west. After enjoying the comforts and entertainment the city had to offer, the British Army abandoned Philadelphia. As they marched back to New York in 1778, Washington attacked the rear of the British line and was defeated at the Battle of Monmouth.

Without the benefit of a navy, Washington could not have held New York City or Philadelphia indefinitely, but strategic errors exacerbated his losses. In New York, he divided his forces and failed to properly reconnoiter the terrain. In Philadelphia and at the Battle of Monmouth, he devised battle plans too complicated for his army to execute.

Despite the mounting losses, the army survived, thanks to Washington’s other leadership strengths. He might not have been a great tactician, but he was a brilliant manager. From the beginning of Washington’s command, he understood his own limitations and surrounded himself with talented subordinates who brought expertise and experience that supplemented his own. He then cultivated good relationships and an esprit de corps among his troops.

Washington remained with the army for the duration of the war and never moved into comfortable winter quarters until his troops had their lodgings established. He refused a salary for the duration of the war and lobbied Congress for the army’s salary and pensions. The troops adored Washington for his commitment to them. Washington also cultivated a family atmosphere every winter. At his insistence, Martha and many of the officers’ wives joined them at winter quarters, where they hosted holiday balls and riding parties to foster a personal connection.

Foreign allies proved to be a critical part of the officer corps. Foreign officers, like Baron von Steuben, offered their expertise on drilling and helped whip the Continental Army into a sophisticated fighting force, while the Marquis de Lafayette brought much-needed funds and served as a diplomatic link to France.

Lafayette’s effective lobbying helped bring the French into the war, which made the conflict an international one and forced British forces to defend the mainland, as well as their holdings in the far east and the Caribbean. No longer could they direct their undivided attention toward their wayward North American colonies.

Washington also showed a willingness to evolve—how he thought about the army, his tactics, and his strategy. From almost the very beginning, Washington struggled to feed, clothe, and arm his forces, let alone find enough men to serve. To meet the demand, many northern states encouraged the enlistment of free and enslaved Black Americans, and many offered freedom in return for service for the duration of the war. Concerns about slave uprisings stymied similar measures in the South, but even southern states allowed free Black Americans to serve toward the end of the war. Black Americans also played an oversized role in the first American Navy, including 150 Black men in Virginia alone.

Initially, Washington opposed enlisting Black men as soldiers. But the shortage of soldiers forced him to reconsider this position, and the valor of Black troops challenged many of Washington’s ideas about race. Prior to the war, Washington showed little compunction about buying and selling enslaved individuals. But as the war progressed, he began to consider the injustices of slavery and the possibility of free Black Americans. After the war, he committed to keeping families together on his plantation and refused to buy or sell additional individuals. This evolution would continue over the course of his presidency and his retirement.

Washington also showed flexibility when it came to the direction of the war. By 1780, the war in the North had settled into a stalemate, and King George III and his ministers believed that the southern population remained loyal to the crown and hoped that Loyalist militias would flock to support a British attack. From December 1778 to the fall of 1781, the British Navy captured Charleston, South Carolina, and Savannah, Georgia, laid waste to ports along the Virginia coast, and invaded deep into the Virginia countryside.

Victory at Yorktown

Washington sent his best general, Nathanael Greene, to conduct a guerilla-style campaign against General Charles Cornwallis in the South. While Cornwallis won many of the skirmishes, Greene extracted a heavy cost and forced Cornwallis to retreat from North Carolina to Virginia to recoup his losses. Cornwallis made camp on the tip of a peninsula, near Yorktown, and waited for the British Navy to arrive with supplies and troops from General Henry Clinton in New York.

While Washington proposed recapturing New York City, the French commanders had other ideas. The French army commander, the Comte de Rochambeau, reported to Washington, but in name only. Washington needed the French Navy, led by the Comte de Grasse, to launch a successful attack on a British position. Both de Grasse and Rochambeau preferred to take on the British in the Chesapeake Bay.

While the combined Franco-American forces marched south, the French fleet sailed from the Caribbean and drove the British Navy from the Chesapeake Bay. The French naval victory at the Battle of the Chesapeake closed off Cornwallis’s means of escape and the ability to supply his forces by water. On September 14, Washington arrived in Williamsburg, Virginia. Over the next several weeks, the French and American artilleries bombarded the British position, while the armies dug trenches closer and closer to the British lines. Finally, on October 17, a white handkerchief of surrender flew over the British wall.

After the overwhelming victory at Yorktown, Washington returned with his army to New York, where they set up headquarters just out of reach of the British, who were still holed up in the city. Although the fighting in North America had mostly stopped, Washington remained on guard against British trickery. He also worked to keep boredom at bay amongst the troops, as a restless and bored army could prove dangerous.

Washington’s concerns came to fruition in early 1783, when a group of officers conspired to challenge the Confederation Congress, an event which became known as the Newburgh Conspiracy. Most soldiers, both infantry troops and officers, were owed months, if not years, of back pay. They worried that Congress might attempt to disband the army without paying its debts when the war came to an end. Washington rushed to defuse the tensions by convening a gathering, where he delivered an address and shared a letter of support from Congress. To read the text, he pulled out his glasses and said to his men, “Gentleman, you must pardon me, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in service to my country.” This theatrical tug on the soldiers’ heartstrings diffused any plot to overthrow the civilian government.

Six months later, American diplomats signed the Treaty of Paris, ending the Revolutionary War and securing independence for the colonies from Great Britain. In December 1783, Washington traveled to Annapolis, Maryland, and returned his commission to Congress. In the age of dictators, military despots, and monarchs, his voluntary surrender of power was extraordinary.

The American victory in the war was the product of three critical factors. First, Washington quickly grasped that if the army survived, so too would the cause for independence. Second, the American colonies were too large and dispersed to invade and subdue, especially because Britain wanted to wage a war for hearts and minds, but they could not retain good relations with the colonists and suppress a rebellion through force. Finally, French participation forced Britain to wage a war on several fronts, stretching its supply chains across the globe.

The United States declared itself independent in July 1776, but the Treaty of Paris transformed that imagined independence into a reality. Congress had incurred considerable debt equipping and feeding the army, purchasing ammunition, and waging war. Now that the fighting was complete, that debt was due. The coffers were empty however, and the economy was in shambles.

European empires and Native American nations lingered in the wings, eager to take advantage of US weakness. Spain denied American ships access to the Mississippi River, which farmers depended on to transport their goods for sale. British forces encouraged Native American nations to defend their homelands from white encroachment and supplied funds and arms for these attacks.

Westerners demanded Congress address their security and economic needs, which placed Congress in a bit of a bind. People in the eastern regions did not share the same concerns, and they refused to pay for an army to defend the western border when settlers were responsible for instigating conflict with Native American nations. They also preferred Congress focus on negotiating treaties that would open Caribbean and European ports to Americans merchants, rather than the Mississippi River. As tensions between different regions increased, European empires encouraged troublemakers to consider seceding from the new country and returning to their protection.

Congress had no ability to address any of these rising tensions because it had no money to pay its existing debts, fund an army to protect western settlements, or pay for diplomacy. The Articles of Confederation did not authorize Congress to collect taxes. Congress could approve requisitions, basically requests, but it had no enforcement power, making the requests optional. By the mid-1780s, the states ignored the requisitions and focused on paying down their own debts instead.

Washington had long foreseen that congressional limitations would be a problem. As he prepared to return his commission in 1783, he wrote a circular to the governors of the states urging them to adopt the requisite reforms to empower Congress to govern. The states did not heed his warning. Even if some states favored reform, it was not an option. Amending the Articles of Confederation required unanimous consent—which states refused to give.

Shays' Rebellion

In 1786, Congress’s impotency came to a head when a group of farmers, led by Revolutionary War veteran Daniel Shays, shut down the courts in western Massachusetts to prevent the seizure of local farms for overdue tax bills. The Massachusetts government pleaded with Congress to send troops to quell the rebellion, but Congress had no funds to pay for troops and left Massachusetts to its own devices.

The government’s inaction horrified Washington who wrote to his friend Henry Knox, “If government shrinks, or is unable to enforce its laws; fresh manœuvres will be displayed by the insurgents— anarchy & confusion must prevail.”

The revolt was crushed after wealthy Boston merchants raised a private army, but the event convinced many Americans that serious reform was needed. Accordingly, Congress sent out invitations for a convention in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787.

Constitutional Convention

Many leaders understood that Washington’s participation was essential to the convention’s success, and the Virginia state legislature agreed and included his name on the slate of delegates. With much reluctance, Washington departed Mount Vernon on May 9. Official quorum for the convention was reached on May 25, and the delegates elected Washington as president of the Constitutional Convention. As president, Washington attended every single session.

Several debates dominated the discussions at the Convention: the proper balance of federal power versus state power; the balance between executive versus legislative power; the balance between big versus little states; and the role of slavery in all the previous equations.

After rebelling against a king, Americans had been reluctant to create another strong centralized power. However, the Articles of Confederation had demonstrated that a weak federal government would not work either. To address these dueling motivations, the delegates agreed to give key powers to the federal government—like raising funds, organizing a national army, dictating foreign policy, and enforcing the laws—but then also included a specific clause that reserved the remaining powers to the states.

Although Congress agreed on this compromise, many “anti-Federalists,” or those opposed to stronger federal power, still worried about the potential for federal overreach. This criticism later threatened to derail ratification. In response, Madison helped pass the first ten amendments to the Constitution in 1789, known as the Bill of Rights, which guaranteed personal liberties against federal encroachment.

The second debate focused on how authority would be delegated in a strong federal government. The war experience had convinced many that Congress was too inefficient to make many decisions quickly, but a strong single executive resembled a monarchy. The delegates compromised by giving both branches important powers, as well as the ability to check each other through vetoes and impeachment.

The delegates then turned their attention to apportioning power in Congress among the states. Small states, like Delaware and Vermont, worried larger states, like Virginia and New York, would bully them. On the other hand, bigger states wanted their larger populations to provide more voting power. After months of debates, the delegates agreed to base House of Representative apportionment on population, which would give more power to larger states, but each state would receive equal representation in the Senate.

Complicating all these debates was the ever-present specter of slavery. Southerners demanded the enslaved populations in their states count toward the population numbers. While many of the northern states had larger populations and more influence in 1787, the expanding enslaved population in the South threatened to dominate the House of Representatives in the future. Yet, northerners worried if they did not compromise, southern delegates would leave the convention, ending all hope of reform. They compromised and agreed to count enslaved individuals as 3/5 of a white individual for the purpose of representation in Congress.

Even if they had wished to, the delegates could not ignore slavery. Many of the delegates brought enslaved servants to Philadelphia to prepare food, mend clothing, care for their horses, and run errands. Additionally, a large population of free and enslaved Black Americans lived and worked in Philadelphia. Even in a northern city such as Philadelphia, slavery was entwined with every aspect of life.

While the final product was not everything Washington had hoped, he wrote to his friends that he “sincerely believe[d] it is the best that could be obtained at this time.” Washington’s contributions to the convention were twofold: his presence lent the convention credibility and his support helped secure ratification of the proposed Constitution.

On September 17, the convention wrapped its proceedings and submitted the Constitution to Congress for its consideration. Washington penned a cover letter expressing his support and included his signature as an effective endorsement of the project. After returning to Mount Vernon, Washington continued his efforts. He sent copies of the Constitution to his network urging their support. When he read articles or pamphlets that argued in favor of ratification, he forwarded them to editors and encouraged their publication.

The proposed Constitution provided for a single elected executive. Everyone knew if the states ratified the Constitution, then Washington would be the first president. Americans had trusted him with enormous authority once before and believed they could do so again.

The 1788 Election

In 1788, there were no political parties or campaigns like we think of today. The only real issue was whether candidates were Federalists, meaning they had supported the Constitution, or anti-Federalists, who had opposed ratification or demanded amendments.

Between December 15 and January 10, 1789, each state cast their ballots for electors, who voted for candidates based on their personal reputations. Sixty-nine votes were cast for president; they were unanimous for George Washington.

The vice-presidential vote split between John Adams (34), John Jay (9), Robert Harrison (6), and John Rutledge (6). George Clinton was the only anti-Federalist candidate to receive votes (3).

On April 14, Washington received official confirmation from Congress that he had been elected the first President of the United States. While unsurprised at the outcome, Washington approached his inauguration with dread. He wrote to Henry Knox that he felt like a “culprit who is going to the place of his execution.”

Washington suspected that every choice he made as president would establish precedent for his successors. Because the Confederation had failed, the new federal government was the nation’s second chance, and Washington knew most nations did not get a second chance. He genuinely believed one mistake might cause the country to crumble.

Washington’s primary goal was to establish the presidency on firm footing, cultivate respect from citizens and observers abroad, and execute the laws with firmness. Mostly, he wanted the nation to survive.

The 1792 Election

Four years later, President Washington planned to retire and return home to Mount Vernon. But all his closest advisors, including Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, convinced him that the country still needed his leadership to survive. Reluctantly, he agreed to stand for election one more time.

Washington played no role in the campaign in accordance with political culture at the time. Even without his participation, he was elected unanimously once again with 132 electoral votes—the only president to be elected unanimously, twice.

No one dared run against Washington, his stature was still unparalleled, but the contest over the vice presidency was much more vigorous than four years prior. At stake was the direction and expansive nature of federal power. One faction had organized behind Hamilton and supported his financial legislation, which created a national bank and granted Congress extensive fiscal powers. The other faction, loosely led by Jefferson and Madison, opposed this vision of federal authority.

The Hamilton faction, still known as the Federalists, cast 77 votes for John Adams. Jefferson and Madison’s faction, which later became known as the Democratic-Republicans or Jeffersonian Republicans, cast 50 votes for George Clinton, 4 votes for Jefferson, and 1 vote for Aaron Burr.

The challenges Washington faced during his second term made the burdens of his first term seem like child’s play. He maintained neutrality between increasingly belligerent European empires, as well as between increasing hostile domestic political factions. He defended executive authority and crushed the first domestic rebellion on his watch. When the question of a third term arose in 1796, Washington refused.

On April 30, 1789, Washington took the oath of office in New York City, the country’s capital until it moved to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1790. Right away, his biggest challenge was fleshing out the president’s daily activities and interactions. Article II of the Constitution says little about how the president should carry out the hefty responsibilities entrusted to the office.

The president would need assistance managing his duties, but the delegates to the Constitutional Convention rejected several proposals to create a cabinet. Instead, they created the Senate to serve as a council on foreign policy and empowered the president to request written advice from the department secretaries.

Washington witnessed the Convention debates and understood the delegates’ expectations. Accordingly, he planned his first visit to the Senate to consult on foreign policy about a treaty with Native American nations in August 1789. The senators proved unwilling to provide immediate feedback and requested that the president return the following week for their recommendation. Furious, Washington concluded the Senate could not provide the instantaneous advice diplomacy required.

Instead, Washington requested written advice from his department secretaries. He surrounded himself with talented advisors, then sought out their knowledge to make informed decisions—demonstrating his awareness of his own limitations. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of War Henry Knox, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph were intelligent, well-respected, and skilled. For example, Washington had only left the United States once as a teenager when he traveled to Barbados, and he had limited proficiency with foreign languages. Jefferson had served as a minister at the principle European courts and spoke French, the language of eighteenth-century diplomacy. Similarly, Washington did not have advanced training or higher education. Randolph had held almost every legal position in Virginia and successfully represented powerful clients, including Washington, as a private attorney. Washington depended on Jefferson’s firsthand foreign policy insights and Randolph’s legal expertise when grappling with complicated diplomatic and constitutional questions.

The secretaries represented different cultural, economic, and regional interests. Americans felt little loyalty toward the new federal government, but by choosing secretaries that pulled from different parts of the nation, Washington began to build tenuous emotional ties between the people and the government. While we might not think of Washington’s administration as particularly diverse, his contemporaries did, and they appreciated that cabinet deliberations included their perspective.

Washington quickly discovered that written correspondence was too cumbersome to manage the challenging issues on his plate. By January 1790, Washington was inviting the secretaries to one-on-one consultations. Then on November 26, 1791, he convened the first cabinet meeting to discuss the state of the economic and diplomatic relationships between the United States and France, Great Britain, and Spain.

In addition to creating the cabinet, Washington was also singularly responsible for the formation of the first Supreme Court of the United States. Washington appointed eleven justices during his two terms in office and carefully selected individuals to represent almost all the original thirteen states. He also appointed jurists who had supported the ratification of the Constitution and interpreted the document as a grant of extensive executive authority. While the early Supreme Court experienced regular turnover, Washington’s nominees ensured that the early Court was dedicated to preserving federal authority.

Financial Considerations

Washington’s relations with Congress shifted as he increasingly turned to his cabinet for support. Early in his presidency, Washington had regularly consulted with James Madison and other leaders in Congress. As his agenda took shape, factions in Congress lined up in support or opposition.

The financial powers of the federal government sparked the most disagreement. The new Constitution empowered Congress to raise taxes and pass legislation that managed the national economy. Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton had a three-part plan to restore the economy and make full use of those powers. First, the federal government would assume the states’ debts remaining from the war to ensure they were paid in full. Madison and Jefferson, leaders of a growing opposition faction, opposed this measure as unfair to states, like Virginia, which had already paid most of its debts.

Next, Hamilton planned to repay all bonds at face value. During the war, Congress had issued bonds to many veterans and investors. As confidence in Congress’s ability to repay the bonds plummeted, many bond holders sold them to speculators at a fraction of the original price. Hamilton insisted that the current holders of the bonds be paid in full, meaning many speculators (often wealthy northerners) stood to make a fortune. Again, Madison and Jefferson opposed Hamilton’s plan, arguing that the original bond holders deserved the money, not speculators.

Finally, Hamilton proposed the creation of a national bank that would provide ready credit to the government. The Madison-Jefferson faction opposed the creation of the bank on the grounds that it went beyond the powers the Constitution granted to Congress.

While Hamilton was pushing for the passage of these three bills, Congress was also debating the future location of the nation’s capital. Hamilton negotiated a compromise: Madison would arrange the votes for assumption of the states’ debts and full payment of securities, while Hamilton swung support behind Madison’s preferred location for the new capital on the banks of the Potomac River.

Congress also passed the legislation to create the national bank, over significant opposition from inside Washington’s cabinet. Jefferson objected to the cabinet and wrote an opinion outlining his position. Hamilton replied with a 13,000-word opinion that convinced Washington to sign the legislation on February 25, 1791, creating the First National Bank.

Relations with Native Americans

Whereas Congress passed legislation to craft a new financial system, Washington and the executive branch managed military affairs. Almost immediately tensions between Native Americans and settlers in the Northwest demanded the president’s attention. In 1789, Arthur St. Clair, governor of the Northwest Territories, negotiated the Treaty of Fort Harmar, which forced Native American tribes off their homelands.

Washington did not believe in racial equality between whites and Native Americans, but he also placed them higher on a racial hierarchy than Black Americans. He advocated for protected Native American lands, contrary to the terms of the Treaty of Fort Harmar, largely to avoid conflict between land-hungry settlers and Native American nations. Nonetheless, when violence broke out, President Washington enforced the terms of the treaty. In 1791, St. Clair led 1,400 men into the Ohio wilderness, where Native Americans mowed them down in a surprise attack in November.

When news of St. Clair’s defeat in the Battle of the Wabash reached Philadelphia, Congress increased the size of the army and Washington named Major General Anthony Wayne the new commander. In the summer of 1794, Wayne and his forces defeated the Native American confederacy at the Battle of Fallen Timbers. The Shawnee, Miami, Ottawa, Chippewa, Iroquois, Sauk, and Fox peoples moved west, while white settlers rushed to seize their lands.

The Whiskey Rebellion

Other military matters closer to home also demanded Washington’s attention. In 1791, Congress had passed an excise tax on whiskey distilleries. Western farmers hated the tax, as they distilled their excess grain into alcohol, which could be bartered or shipped to eastern ports for sale. They launched protests almost as soon as the tax went into effect. In July 1794, the protests turned violent when a group of rebels, led by Major James McFarlane, a Revolutionary War veteran, clashed with troops at the home of John Neville, the local tax collector. Shots were fired, and men on both sides were killed, before rebels set fire to Neville’s house.

When news of the skirmish reached Washington, he convened the cabinet to determine how to proceed. The cabinet agreed the crisis required presidential action, rather than leaving it for the states or Congress to manage. At Secretary of State Randolph’s encouragement, Washington sent a peace delegation to meet with the rebels before employing force, to demonstrate that he had exhausted all diplomatic options.

In August 1794, the peace commission sent word back to the president that their mission had failed. Washington summoned the militias of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey and rode out on October 1 to meet them. He inspected the troops, then turned around and returned to Philadelphia. The militias marched west to subdue the rebellion under the command of General “Light Horse” Harry Lee and Alexander Hamilton. They arrested hundreds of insurgents, but most charges were dismissed due to lack of evidence. Before retiring, Washington issued pardons for the convicted rebels. Once he had enforced the government’s constitutional right to collect taxes, he could afford to be merciful.

Slavery did not play a role in Washington’s domestic policy. The Constitution prohibited the eradication of the international slave trade before 1808, and emancipation legislation was largely a matter of state legislation. Although slavery was not on the cabinet’s agenda, it was a part of daily life. Every time the secretaries arrived for a cabinet meeting or official event, enslaved workers took their coats, offered beverages, and prepared meals. Enslaved groomsmen tended to the horses and carriages that carried officials to Congress Hall. And enslaved sailors manned the ships in port that delivered the linens and fine goods that adorned elite homes in Philadelphia.

Farewell Address

In 1792, Washington planned to leave the presidency and asked James Madison to draft a farewell address. However, Washington changed his mind after his closest advisors convinced him that the country still needed his leadership to survive. Reluctantly, he agreed to stand for election one more time and to serve one more term.

In early 1796, President Washington revealed to colleagues that he would not seek another term, and this time would not be persuaded otherwise. He tasked Hamilton with writing a new farewell address, and he shared Madison’s original draft. By 1796, Jefferson had retired as secretary of state and joined Madison at the head of the new Democratic-Republican Party. Washington worried that they might criticize his Farewell Address, so he instructed Hamilton to use a few paragraphs from Madison’s original address as a preventative measure.

Washington’s address warned against the pernicious influence of political parties. He admonished Americans not to allow their political differences to drive a wedge between them. He reminded them that they had more in common with each other than differences. Washington issued a similar warning about avoiding emotional ties to foreign nations. Americans should not allow their affection or antagonism toward foreign nations to overpower their bonds with one another. Finally, Washington encouraged the American people to defend the sanctity of the Constitution as the best protection of their liberties and freedom.

On September 19, 1796, he published the address in Claypoole’s American Daily Advertiser , a neutral newspaper that would reach the maximum number of citizens. A few Democratic-Republicans grumbled about Washington’s comments on political parties, but the public response was overwhelmingly popular. Most Americans lauded the address and Washington’s decision to relinquish power, and mourned the loss of his leadership.

Washington’s foreign policy focused on protecting the independence of the new nation and avoiding expensive and deadly wars. During Washington’s first term, European powers sought every opportunity to undermine American sovereignty. British forces provided ammunition and funds for Native American nations to attack western towns. Spanish imperial forces denied critical trade access to the Mississippi River, and settlements in Florida welcomed enslaved people who escaped from the southern colonies.

The French Revolution

While those challenges tested Washington’s patience, they were nothing compared to the threat posed by the French Revolution and the subsequent war between France and Great Britain. In 1789, King Louis XVI summoned the Estates-General (the French version of the legislature). Over the next few years, the assembly passed constitutional reforms before forming the French Republic in September 1792.

Initially, Americans cheered the French Revolution as the natural successor to the American version, especially since many revolutionaries, such as the Marquis de Lafayette, had played important roles in both revolutions. However, the French Revolution devolved into anarchy and violence, culminating in the execution of the king and queen in 1793. Following the royal executions, a more radical regime assumed power under the leadership of Maximilien Robespierre, known as the Reign of Terror for its regular executions of suspected spies and traitors. By July 1794, when Robespierre was deposed, at least 16,000 people had been executed, most by the infamous guillotine. 

The violence of the French Revolution horrified many Americans. Federalists, like Washington and Hamilton, distrusted the radicalism of the French Revolution and feared the anarchy would spread to North American shores. Democratic-Republicans, like Jefferson, opposed the violence but remained more loyal to the French. Both sides demonstrated their preferences through clothing—the Federalists wore black cockades on their hats or pinned to their dresses, while the Democratic-Republicans adopted the blue, red, and white cockade.

These conflicting loyalties clashed in February 1793, when the Revolutionary regime in France declared war on Great Britain. Soon the conflict threatened to engulf the United States. With the war looming, Washington convened his cabinet in April 1793 and asked for the secretaries’ advice on how to remain neutral. The secretaries unanimously agreed the nation must avoid war but disagreed on how best to enforce that neutrality. Hamilton advocated for a strict neutrality, which would favor the British, while Jefferson preferred a looser neutrality, which would benefit the French.

The arrival of the new French minister to the United States complicated their attempts to keep the nation, and its citizens, out of the conflict. The French minister, Citizen Edmond Charles Genêt, arrived in Charleston, South Carolina, in April 1793 and disregarded Washington’s proclamation of neutrality. He traveled to Philadelphia and used its port to arm and outfit a fleet of French privateers, which were private ships sailing and attacking British ships under a French license. Genêt also ignored Jefferson’s repeated warnings to cease his activities. In August 1793, Washington and the cabinet requested Genêt’s recall from France—the first time the United States had requested the recall of a foreign minister.

In April 1793, Washington and the cabinet also crafted a series of rules of neutrality, which prohibited the arming of privateers and naval ships of belligerent nations and permitted the commerce of private vessels not intended for warfare. When Congress convened later that fall, they codified those rules into law, which governed periods of neutrality until the Civil War. By accepting the neutrality rules, Congress essentially approved of Washington’s handling of the crisis and ceded authority over foreign policy to the executive branch.

Relations with Britain

While Washington and the cabinet were fighting to keep relations with France neutral, tensions with Britain accelerated. The Anglo-American relationship had never fully recovered after the end of the Revolution, and three sticking points threatened to devolve into a new conflict. First, once the colonies left the British empire, they lost trading privileges in British ports. American merchants insisted on free and neutral trade policy and demanded access to ports, especially in the Caribbean.

The second point of contention were the unfulfilled terms of the Treaty of Paris (1783). The treaty dictated that the British would turn over military forts in the Ohio Valley and pay restitution to southern slave owners for the enslaved individuals who had escaped on British ships. Americans would repay their prewar debts they owed to British merchants. Yet by 1794, the forts remained in British hands, southern slave owners remained uncompensated, and British merchant debts remained unpaid. From their base in the western forts, British officials provided aid and munitions to Native American nations to attack US borders.

The third point of contention was the British seizure of ships sailing back and forth between the United States and France. Americans insisted the ships were neutral, whereas the British insisted the ships were carrying war materials and aiding the French in their ongoing war.

In 1794, Washington sent Chief Justice John Jay to London to negotiate a diplomatic solution. Jay signed a new treaty on November 19, 1794 and sent it back to the United States for ratification. In June 1795, the Senate ratified the treaty in an emergency session, and Washington applied his signature in August. The treaty created commissions to adjudicate prewar debts owed to British merchants, opened British ports to limited American trade, and required British forces to withdraw from western forts on American territory.

Jay had entered the negotiations with almost zero leverage, so the concessions he extracted from the British were remarkable. But many southerners believed their interests had not been as well represented as those of northerners. Additionally, many Democratic-Republicans believed that the treaty violated the spirit of neutrality and the Franco-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce (1778). After months of contentious debates, in May 1796, the House of Representatives finally agreed to raise the funds to fulfill American obligations.

Simultaneously, Thomas Pinckney negotiated another, much more popular treaty with Spain. The resulting agreement, known as the Treaty of San Lorenzo or Pinckney’s Treaty, resolved territorial disputes between the United States and Spain, granted American ships the right to sail and trade on the Mississippi River, and gave Americans the right to deposit goods for sale in the port of New Orleans (which was under Spanish control). This treaty was especially popular with farmers out west who depended on the waterways to send their goods to market, rather than over the mountains, which was much more expensive and impassible during winter.

On March 15, 1797, Washington returned to Mount Vernon, eager to expand his economic enterprise, complete the renovations of the mansion, and maintain some semblance of privacy from the thousands of visitors who passed through his home.

As an elite southern gentleman, Washington took eighteenth-century expectations of hospitality seriously. Americans were fascinated by Washington, and pilgrimaging to Mount Vernon became a popular pastime. In 1798 alone, the Washingtons hosted as many as 677 guests. The guests were treated to breakfast or dinner; prepared and served by the enslaved cooks and servants employed in the house. Enslaved stable hands tended their horses and carriages, and enslaved housemaids washed and mended their clothes, made their beds, and kept fires lit in the bedrooms.

Washington welcomed every excuse to escape the curious stares of visitors. He woke early and spent several hours reading and writing in his private study before breakfast at 7 AM. He then conducted his daily inspections of his estate on horseback, before returning for dinner at 3 PM.

Washington also sought opportunities to diversify his economic investments. During his presidency, Washington improved the technology at his grist mill and increased the quantity of grain he could process for his neighbors, in return for a portion of the profit. He employed enslaved workers making barrels to store the grain and sailing ships to port with the finished product. After his retirement, Washington built a distillery that created whiskey from rye, corn, and barley. At the time of his death, it was one of the largest, most productive distilleries in the nation.

Washington undertook these projects because he wanted to make money, but also because he wanted to employ the growing enslaved population at Mount Vernon. Grains required less labor than tobacco, often leaving workers unemployed during down seasons. Furthermore, as enslaved families had children, the population continued to grow.

With these challenges in mind, Washington wrote out the terms of his will in 1799. He left most of his estate to Martha, forgave debts owed him by extended family, granted land and stocks for the creation of educational institutions, and bequeathed his papers and books to his nephew, Supreme Court Justice Bushrod Washington. The most famous provision of the will immediately freed William Lee, Washington’s enslaved valet from the war, and arranged to emancipate the 122 enslaved individuals he owned after Martha’s death. Of the more than 300 enslaved people at Mount Vernon when Washington died, about half of them were owned by the estate of Martha’s first husband, and neither she nor George had the legal right to free them; Martha’s heirs inherited them after her death. The will also provided financial support and education for those too young or old to work, and explicitly prohibited the sale or transportation of any workers outside of Virginia.

On December 12, 1799, Washington left the house for his daily ride. On his way back, a wet snow began to fall, but he sat down to dinner without changing, as he did not want to keep guests waiting. The next night, Washington woke Martha and said he was having trouble breathing. Over the next several hours, doctors bled Washington four times, applied several blister treatments to his throat and legs, and administered an emetic and an enema. None of the treatments worked and increased his suffering.

Washington died between 10 and 11 PM on December 14. Over the next several weeks, he was celebrated and mourned with great fanfare at ceremonies and mock funerals across the country.

Life in the President’s House in Philadelphia was chaotic. Around thirty people lived in the building: George and Martha; their grandchildren, Eleanor “Nelly” Parke Custis and George Washington “Wash” Parke Custis; Tobias Lear, who served as Washington’s unofficial chief of staff; Washington’s private secretaries; and at least ten free and enslaved servants who cleaned, cooked, cared for the linens, tended the horses, and ran errands.

The Washingtons also regularly welcomed guests. On Tuesdays, George hosted levees in the state dining room, which were formal gatherings open to any white man with a good suit. On Thursdays, George and Martha hosted state dinners for Supreme Court justices, foreign dignitaries, congressmen, and elite local families. On Fridays, Martha hosted drawing rooms, where men and women socialized and drank lemonade. On New Year’s Day and July 4, they opened their doors, and thousands of citizens crammed in the hallways, drank punch, and enjoyed the music played by the bands marching by outside. Although leisure time was in relatively short supply, the family attended the theater, visited the circus, explored Revolutionary War ruins, and enjoyed carriage rides.

Martha was an essential partner in all private and public endeavors. As hostess, she prepared the menus and oversaw the preparation of the meals by Hercules, the enslaved chef. She cultivated a welcoming environment and fostered lively conversation. Martha also conscientiously presented herself as the ideal mother and grandmother: modest, generous, hospitable, and dedicated to raising virtuous republican citizens for the future of the nation. While modern first ladies often embrace their own social and education causes, Martha Washington’s model as an official hostess has had a lasting effect on the role of first lady to this day.

Every single event required extensive cleaning, preparation, and service by the white and Black staff. Washington received a $25,000 annual salary, an enormous sum for the time, but the salary was expected to cover housing, food, entertaining, travel, fuel, and labor costs. The Washingtons were able to host lavishly because they benefited from the unpaid labor of enslaved workers—which proved to be more complicated to retain than anticipated. Shortly after the federal government moved to Philadelphia, Attorney General Edmund Randolph warned the president that Pennsylvania law would automatically free any enslaved individuals after six months of continuous residence. George and Martha conspired to rotate all enslaved individuals from Philadelphia to Virginia and back again to reset the clock and prevent their manumission.

Two of the enslaved workers took their fate into their own hands. In May 1796, while the Washingtons were enjoying supper, Ona Judge, Martha’s lady’s maid, slipped out of the house and boarded a ship in the bustling Philadelphia port. She escaped to New Hampshire, where she married, had children, and died a free woman in 1848. The following February, on Washington’s birthday, Hercules disappeared into the darkness and made his way to New York City, where he changed his name and eluded recapture. Martha was particularly insistent that George pursue and recapture Ona and Hercules. These efforts failed, and neither returned to bondage.

From the moment Washington announced his retirement, the American people have remembered him as one of the greatest presidents in the nation’s history. The name of the Capitol City, the Washington Monument, his inclusion on Mount Rushmore, and his regular place near the top of presidential polls attests to the strength of his legacy. Indeed, generations of Americans have used Washington’s uniquely popular memory for their own political purposes. Most notably, after the Civil War, northerners and southerners valorized Washington and the founding era as a shared history they could both celebrate.

There is much to honor in Washington’s legacy. He was the only person who could have held the office in 1789. He was the most famous American, the only one with enough of a national platform to represent the entire country and overwhelmingly trusted by the populous. Americans knew they could trust him to wield immense power because he had already done so once during the Revolution and willingly gave it up.

The trust and confidence Washington inspired made possible the creation of the presidency and helped establish the executive branch. Once in office, he cultivated respect for the presidency, regularly exhibited restraint in the face of political provocations, and attempted to serve as a president for all citizens (which admittedly meant white men). He was always mindful of the principles of republican virtue, namely self-sacrifice, decorum, self-improvement, and leadership. Our modern notions that the president should be held to higher standards and the office carries a certain level of respect and prestige began with Washington’s careful creation of the position.

Washington also left an inveterate imprint on the political process, especially through his formation of the cabinet. Every president since Washington has worked with a cabinet, and each president crafts their own decision-making process. They select their closest advisors and determine how they will obtain advice from those individuals. Presidents might choose to consult friends, family members, former colleagues, department secretaries, or congressmen, and the American people and Congress have very little oversight over those relationships. Some presidents, like Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt, flourish with the flexibility; others, including James Madison and John F. Kennedy, find their administrations undermined by domineering advisors or cabinets. That legacy is a direct result of Washington’s cabinet.

Washington’s decision to step away from power, again, solidified his legacy and had a powerful impact on the future of the presidency. All his successors, until Franklin D. Roosevelt, willingly followed his example of retiring after two terms, and the 22 nd Amendment made sure that no future president can serve more than two terms. More importantly, Washington recognized the structural importance of leaving office willingly. He knew that Americans needed to learn how to elect, transition, and inaugurate a new president. That process was fraught with potential missteps, and Washington concluded that it would go more smoothly if it was planned, rather than haphazardly done after an unexpected death. Washington understood how much of the political process is based on norm and custom, and that those had to start with his example.

For all these achievements, and there are many, recently Washington’s legacy lost a bit of its sparkle as Americans grapple with his personal failures. Of the many political choices in his long career, Washington’s decisions in retirement were perhaps his worst. In 1798, Congress created the Provisional Army as the Quasi-War with France accelerated. President John Adams asked Washington to come out of retirement one more time to lead the army.

Washington reluctantly agreed but extracted two promises. First, he wanted to stay at Mount Vernon until a French invasion. Second, Washington insisted on naming his subordinate officers who would manage the army in his absence. When Adams reluctantly caved, Washington named Alexander Hamilton as his deputy. Hamilton and Adams hated each other, and Washington knew it. By forcing these concessions, Washington undermined the presidency and civilian authority over the army. As Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, Washington had studiously upheld Congress’s authority. His failure to make the same choice in his retirement is often overlooked but should be viewed with considerable criticism.

However, Washington’s ownership of enslaved humans is by far the most challenging part of his legacy. To be sure, Washington’s ideas about slavery and the potential for Black emancipation evolved over his lifetime. He did free the enslaved people he owned in his will, which is much more than most people in his generation. This commitment required decades-long planning to leave his estate unencumbered by debt which could only be reduced through the sale of enslaved individuals. And he did so in the face of resistance from other Virginians, including his wife. When the terms of Washington’s will were published, the emancipation of his enslaved community sent ripples through the country. He had issued a forceful statement about the morality of slavery from the grave.

Yet, Washington clearly benefitted from exploiting enslaved people. And by the end of his life, he knew the institution was wrong and could have done more to end it. Washington pursued enslaved people who escaped when he could have left them to their freedom. He could have freed the enslaved people he owned during his lifetime but elected to enjoy the fruits of their labor until his last days. He also chose not to deprive Martha of that care either, which is why the enslaved people he owned were not to be freed until her death.

On a public scale, Washington could have made the terms of his will public before his death or spoken against slavery while he was alive. His words would have had an enormous impact—which is perhaps why he remained silent. Washington worried that if he forced the issue, southern states would secede from the Union. There will be no way to know if he was right or if these concerns were correct. But much of Washington’s lifestyle and personal wealth were dependent on slavery, and that must be considered a part of his legacy.

Before becoming President in 1797, John Adams built his reputation as a blunt-speaking man of independent mind. A fervent patriot and brilliant intellectual, Adams served as a delegate from Massachusetts to the Continental Congress between 1774 and 1777, as a diplomat in Europe from 1778 to 1788, and as vice president during the Washington administration.

Federalists versus Democratic-Republicans

The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, supported a strong central government that favored industry, landowners, banking interests, merchants, and close ties with England. Opposed to them were the Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson, who advocated limited powers for the federal government. Adams's Federalist leanings and high visibility as vice president positioned him as the leading contender for President in 1796.

In the early days of the American electoral process, the candidate receiving the second-largest vote in the electoral college became vice president. This is how Thomas Jefferson, who opposed Adams in the election, came to serve as Adams's vice president in 1797. Adams won the election principally because he identified himself with Washington's administration and because he was able to win two electoral ballots from normally secure Jeffersonian states. In 1800, Adams faced a much tougher battle for reelection, as the differences between the Federalists and the Republicans intensified—by that time, the terms "Democratic-Republican" and "Republican" were used interchangeably.

The Adams presidency was characterized by continuing crises in foreign policy, which dramatically affected affairs at home. Suspicious of the French Revolution and its potential for terror and anarchy, Adams opposed close ties with France. Relations between America and France deteriorated to the brink of war, allowing Adams to justify his signing of the extremely controversial Alien and Sedition Acts. Drafted by Federalist lawmakers, these four laws were largely aimed at immigrants, who tended to become Republicans. Furious over Adams's foreign policy and his signing of the Alien and Sedition Acts, Republicans responded with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which challenged the legitimacy of federal authority over the states.

Republicans were equally incensed by the heavy taxation necessary for Adams's military buildup; farmers in Pennsylvania staged Fries's Rebellion in protest. At the same time, Adams faced disunity in his own party due to conflict with Hamilton over the undeclared naval war with France. This rivalry with Hamilton and the Federalist Party cost Adams the 1800 election. He lost to Thomas Jefferson, who was backed by the united and far more organized Republicans.

A Personal Life Filled with Politics

John Adams sacrificed his family life for his political one, spending much of his time separated from his wife, Abigail Adams, and their children. John Quincy Adams, Adams's son, grew up to become the sixth President of the United States. Interestingly, he joined the opposition party, the Democratic-Republicans.

Often lonely and miserable, Abigail viewed her suffering as a patriotic sacrifice but was distraught that her husband was away during the birth of their children and the loss of their unborn baby in 1777. After his term as President, John Adams lived a quiet life with Abigail on the family farm in Quincy, Massachusetts. There, Adams wrote prolifically for the next twenty-six years, including a fascinating correspondence with his political adversary and friend, Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, both men died on Independence Day in 1826.

Although Abigail Adams saw herself as first and foremost her husband's wife and helpmate, she was a gifted intellectual in her own right, leaving behind nearly 2,000 letters containing some of the most profoundly compelling commentary on the society and politics of her time. A firm advocate of patriotic motherhood, Abigail believed that women best served the Republic in their roles as educated and independently thinking wives and mothers. Although she did not openly advocate voting rights for women, she did fight for their legal right to divorce and to own property.

The American Political Landscape

Indeed, property was a requirement for political participation during Adams's time, and he fought to keep it that way, feeling that the "rich, the well-born, and the able" should represent the nation. But the western migration into frontier America—Kentucky and Tennessee were admitted to the Union in 1792 and 1796, respectively—weakened the property requirement for voting in the West. Everywhere except on the frontier, however, wealthy merchants and slave owners dominated office holding, and financial and kinship ties were crucial to political advancement.

Historians have difficulty assessing Adams's presidency. Adams was able to avoid war with France, arguing against Hamilton that war should be a last resort to diplomacy. In this argument, the President won the nation the respect of its most powerful adversaries. Although Adams was fiercely criticized for signing the Alien and Sedition Acts, he never advocated their passage nor personally implemented them, and he pardoned the instigators of Fries's Rebellion. Seen in this light, Adams's legacy is one of reason, virtuous leadership, compassion, and a cautious but vigorous foreign policy. At the same time, Adams's stubborn independence left him politically isolated. He alienated his own cabinet, and his elite republicanism stood in stark contrast to the more egalitarian Jeffersonian democracy that was poised to assume power in the new century.

Born into a comfortable, but not wealthy, Massachusetts farming family on October 30, 1735, John Adams grew up in the tidy little world of New England village life. His father, a deacon in the Congregational Church, earned a living as a farmer and shoemaker in Braintree, roughly fifteen miles south of Boston. As a healthy young boy, John loved the outdoors, frequently skipping school to hunt and fish. He said later that he would have preferred a life as a farmer, but his father insisted that he receive a formal education. His father hoped that he might become a clergyman. John attended a dame school, a local school taught by a female teacher that was designed to teach the rudimentary skills of reading and writing, followed by a Latin school, a preparatory school for those who planned to attend college. He eventually excelled at his studies and entered Harvard College at age fifteen. He graduated in 1755. Young John, who had no interest in a ministerial career, taught in a Latin school in Worcester, Massachusetts, to earn the tuition fees to study law, and from 1756 to 1758, he studied law with a prominent local lawyer in Worcester.

Legal and Publishing Career

Adams launched his legal career in Boston in 1758. He faced several years of struggle in establishing his practice. He had only one client his first year and did not win his initial case before a jury until almost three years after opening his office. Thereafter, his practice grew. Once his practice started to flourish, he began to court Abigail Smith, the daughter of a Congregational minister in nearby Weymouth. They were married in 1764. Five children followed in the next eight years, although one, Susanna, died in infancy. By 1770, Adams was a highly successful lawyer with perhaps the largest caseload of any attorney in Boston, and he was chosen to defend the British soldiers who were charged in the Boston Massacre in March 1770. Through his able defense, none of the accused soldiers were sent to jail. During these years, he lived alternately in Boston and Quincy, an outgrowth of Braintree, where he had been reared. As success came, Adams wrote extensively, publishing numerous essays in Boston newspapers on social, legal, and political issues.

When the colonial protest against parliamentary policies erupted against the Stamp Act in 1765, Adams was initially reluctant to play a prominent role in the popular movement. With a young and growing family, he feared for his legal practice. In addition, he distrusted many of the radical leaders, including his cousin Samuel Adams. He not only believed the imperial leaders in London had simply blundered but also suspected that the colonial radicals had a hidden agenda, including American independence. Nevertheless, under pressure to act, he did assist the popular movement, writing anonymous newspaper essays and helping to churn out propaganda pieces. In time, as Britain continued its attempts to tax the colonies and to strip them of their autonomy, Adams gradually grew convinced that the radicals had been correct, and he became an open foe of ministerial policy.

In 1774, Adams went to Philadelphia as one of the four delegates from Massachusetts to the First Continental Congress. He was reelected to the Second Continental Congress, which convened in May 1775, just a few days after war with the mother country had erupted at Lexington and Concord. When Congress created the Continental army in June 1775, Adams nominated George Washington of Virginia to be its commander. Adams soon emerged as the leader of the faction in Congress that pushed to declare independence. In June 1776, Congress appointed Adams, together with Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, among others, to prepare the Declaration of Independence. Adams served on more committees than any other congressman—ninety in all, of which he chaired twenty. He was the head of the Board of War and Ordinance, the congressional committee that oversaw the operations of the Continental army. He was also an important member of the committee that prepared the Model Treaty, which guided the envoys that Congress sent to France to secure foreign trade and military assistance.

Early in 1778, after nearly four years service in Congress, Adams was sent to France to help secure French aid. Subsequently, he was sent to The Hague to obtain a much needed loan and to open commerce. In 1781, together with Franklin, John Jay, and Henry Laurens, Adams was part of the commission of American diplomats that negotiated the Treaty of Paris, the pact that brought an end to the War of Independence. Adams returned home once during the war, a brief sojourn from July until November 1779, during which time he helped draft the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780.

Adams remained in Europe following the war. From 1784 to 1785, he served on a diplomatic mission whose goal was to arrange treaties of commerce with several European nations. In 1785, he became the first United States minister to England. During 1784, he had been joined by his wife, whom he had not seen for five years. She was accompanied to Europe by the Adams's daughter, "Nabby." Their sons, Charles, Thomas Boylston, and John Quincy, spent these years in the United States completing their schooling.

By the end of the American Revolution, John Adams had earned a solid reputation as a patriot who had served his country at considerable personal sacrifice. He was known as a brilliant and blunt-spoken man of independent mind. He additionally acquired a reputation for the essays he published during the 1770s and 1780s. His "Thoughts on Government" (1776) argued that the various functions of government—executive, judiciary, and legislative—must be separated in order to prevent tyranny. His Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787) presented his thinking that the greatest dangers to any polity came from unbridled democracy and an unrestrained aristocracy capable of becoming an oligarchy. The antidote to these dangers was a strong executive. He spoke of this powerful executive as the "father and protector" of the nation and its ordinary citizens, for this person was the sole official with the independence to act in a disinterested manner. In 1790, he expanded on this theme in a series of essays for a Philadelphia newspaper that were ultimately known as "Discourses on Davila." Many contemporaries mistakenly believed that they advocated a hereditary monarchy for the United States.

Adams returned home from London in 1788 after a ten-year absence. He came back largely to secure an office in the new national government that had been created by the Constitution drafted by the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 and ratified the following summer. Knowing that George Washington would be the first President, Adams sought the vice presidency. He was elected to that position in 1789, receiving the second largest number of votes after Washington, who won the vote of every member of the electoral college. Adams was reelected vice president in 1792.

Heated conflict broke out early among Washington's cabinet members over the shape the new nation would take, as well as over divisive foreign policy issues. By late 1792, formal political parties had come into being. The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, supported a strong central government that favored industry, banking interests, merchants, and close ties with England. Opposed to them were the Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson. Supported by landowners and much of the South, the Democratic-Republicans advocated limited powers for the federal government, personal liberty, and support for France. Adams was a Federalist.

The Campaign and Election of 1796:

Throughout Washington's presidency, Vice President Adams regarded himself as the heir apparent. Indeed, that alone explains his willingness to endure eight years in the vice presidency, an office devoid of power. When Washington, in his Farewell Address, published in September 1796, announced his intention to retire, the nation faced its first contested presidential election. The Federalist members of Congress caucused and nominated Adams and Thomas Pinckney, a South Carolinian who had soldiered and served President Washington as a diplomat, as their choices for President. The Democratic-Republicans in Congress likewise met and named Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr of New York, who had served in the Continental army and as a United States senator early in Washington's presidency, as their choices. Each party named two presidential candidates, for under the original Constitution, each member of the electoral college was to cast two ballots for President. The winner of the presidential election was the individual who received the largest number of votes, if it constituted a majority of the votes cast. The person receiving the second largest number of votes, whether or not it was a majority, was to be the vice president. In the event that no candidate received a majority of votes, or that two candidates tied with a majority of votes, the House of Representatives was to decide the election, with each state, regardless of size, having a single vote.

When the contest began in full force in the late summer of 1796, only Aaron Burr, out of the four candidates, waged an active campaign. Supporters of the four candidates, however, campaigned vigorously. The Federalist press labeled Jefferson a Francophile, questioned his courage during the War of Independence, and charged that he was an atheist. Adams was portrayed as a monarchist and an Anglophile who was secretly bent on establishing a family dynasty by having his son succeed him as President.

Adams also had trouble in his own camp. Rumors swirled that his chief rival for leadership among the Federalists, Alexander Hamilton, secretly favored Pinckney, as he would be more malleable than Adams. Many believed that Hamilton sought to have some Federalist electors withhold their votes from Adams so that Pinckney would outpoll him.

In the end, Adams won by a three-vote margin. Although virtually all of Adams's votes came from northern electors (while virtually all of Jefferson's were from southern electors), Adams won largely because of the votes of two southern electors. A Virginia elector, from a county with a strong tradition of opposition to planter aristocrats, voted for Adams, as did an elector from a commercial district in coastal North Carolina. Jefferson received the second largest number of votes, making him the vice president. Thus, the nation would have a President from one party and a vice president from the other party.

Seven states permitted popular voting in this election. In the remaining nine states, the state legislatures elected the members of the electoral college. Thus, popular opinion is difficult to fathom in this vote, although Adams appears to have received some support in recognition of his long and sacrificial service during the American Revolution. The northern states also thought their time had come to have a President, as a Virginian had held the office during the new nation's first eight years. In addition, the vocal support for Jefferson by the French minister to the United States probably swung some electoral ballots to Adams.

It fell to John Adams, the vice president and presiding officer of the Senate, to count the ballots cast by the electoral college delegates. When he finished his count, he announced that "John Adams" had been elected to succeed George Washington. The final electoral college tally was 71 votes for Adams to 68 for Jefferson.

The Campaign and Election of 1800 Adams faced a difficult reelection campaign in 1800. The Federalist Party was deeply split over his foreign policy. Many had opposed his decision to send envoys to Paris in 1799, some because they feared it would result in national humiliation for the United States and others because they hoped to maintain the Quasi-War crisis for partisan ends. Furthermore, early in 1800, Adams fired two members of his cabinet, Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, and James McHenry, the secretary of war, for their failure to support his foreign policy. Their discharge alienated numerous Federalists. In addition to the fissures within his party, the differences between the Federalists and the Republicans had become white-hot. Jeffersonians were furious over the creation of a standing army, the new taxes, and the Alien and Sedition Acts. As in 1796, the Federalist members of Congress caucused in the spring of 1800 and nominated Adams and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, an officer in the Continental army, a member of the Constitutional Convention, and a part of the diplomatic commission that Adams sent to France in 1797. The Federalists did not designate a choice for the presidency but asked their presidential electors to cast their two votes for Adams and Pinckney. The Democratic-Republicans meanwhile nominated Jefferson and Burr, their candidates in the previous presidential election, but designated Jefferson as their choice for President. In the campaign that followed, the Federalists depicted Jefferson as a godless nonbeliever and a radical revolutionary; he was often called a Jacobin, after the most radical faction in France during the French Revolution. His election, it was charged, would bring about a reign of terror in the nation. The Republicans cast Adams as a monarchist and the Federalist Party as an enemy of republicanism, including the greater egalitarianism promised by the American Revolution. The level of personal attack by both parties knew no bounds. At one point, Adams was accused of plotting to have his son marry one of the daughters of King George III and thus establish a dynasty to unite Britain and the United States. The plot had been stopped, according to the story, only by the intervention of George Washington, who had dressed in his old Revolutionary War uniform to confront Adams with sword in hand. Jefferson, meanwhile, was accused of vivisection and of conducting bizarre ritualistic rites at Monticello, his home in Virginia. One of Adams's greatest foes in this election was Alexander Hamilton, a member of his own party. In October, Hamilton published a pamphlet in which he argued that Adams should not be reelected. He charged that the President was emotionally unstable, given to impulsive and irrational decisions, unable to coexist with his closest advisers, and generally unfit to be President. It is unlikely, however, that Hamilton's attack cost Adams any electoral votes. Failing in that endeavor, Hamilton schemed to elect Pinckney. He worked to persuade all the Federalist presidential electors from the North to vote for the party's two nominees, Adams and Pinckney, while he tried to convince some southern electors to withhold their vote for Adams. That would enable Pinckney to outpoll Adams. Hamilton's scheme failed, however. Not only did numerous New England Federalists, who were pro-Adams, withhold their second vote from Pinckney but the Federalist ticket was outpolled by their Democratic-Republican rivals. Pinckney finished fourth in the balloting, and Adams stood third in electoral votes, while Jefferson and Burr tied for first place with seventy-three votes each. The nation had divided once again along sectional lines. Eighty-six percent of Adams's votes were cast by northern electors; nearly three-fourths of Jefferson's votes were from the South. Party discipline was much improved over that of the election of 1796. In the 1796 election, nearly 40 percent of electors had refused to adhere to the recommendations of their party's caucus. In 1800, however, only one elector broke ranks—a New England Federalist elector withheld his second vote from Pinckney. Public opinion in 1800 is difficult to gauge. Only five states—down from seven in 1796—permitted the qualified voters to elect the members of the electoral college. State legislatures made the choice in the remaining eleven states. Moreover, several states abandoned the election of electors in districts and instituted a winner-take-all system. Virginia adopted the at-large format, enabling Jefferson to win all twenty-one votes from his home state; had the election been by district, Adams likely would have won up to nine votes. In addition, Adams was the first presidential candidate to be victimized by the infamous three-fifths compromise agreed to in the Constitutional Convention. That decision, which permitted the counting of 60 percent of the slave population for purposes of representation in the House and the electoral college, enhanced the clout of the South—Democratic-Republican territory—in this contest. Had no slaves been counted, Adams likely would have defeated Jefferson by a 63-61 margin. Ultimately, the election turned on the outcome in New York. The Democratic-Republican Party won control of the New York legislature in the May elections of that year, principally by winning every contested seat in New York City. Control of the assembly meant that Jefferson would receive all twelve electoral votes from New York, whereas Adams had won those votes in 1796. Jefferson's victory in 1800 also stemmed from the disunion of the Federalist Party and, more importantly, the superior party organization of the Democratic-Republicans, which enabled the party to capture both the presidency and Congress. The Democratic-Republicans started several new newspapers and created committees of correspondence to direct the distribution of campaign literature and plan meetings and rallies. Their victories were due to four years of party organizing, sophisticated political campaigning, and the shaping of a party machine that responded to the temper and mood of the electorate. With the election a tie, the decision was remitted to the House of Representatives, as specified by the Constitution. Every Democratic-Republican delegation in the House stood by Jefferson; however, some northern Federalists favored Burr, whom they found more palatable than their longtime nemesis from Virginia. After thirty-five ballots and five days of voting, the House was deadlocked. Each vote had ended with Jefferson receiving eight votes to Burr's six. The delegations from two states, Vermont and Maryland, were deadlocked and could not cast a ballot. Burr refused to step down even though it was understood that he had run as a vice presidential candidate in the general election. Throughout the long battle, Alexander Hamilton had urged the election of his old rival, Jefferson. He viscerally disliked Jefferson and objected to his democratic and egalitarian principles, but he feared and mistrusted Aaron Burr as an unprincipled opportunist. In the end, however, the outcome in the House appears to have hung on Federalist bargaining with both Jefferson and Burr. In return for their vote, Federalist House members sought a commitment from one or the other to preserve Hamilton's economic program, keep the enhanced Navy intact, and leave Federalist officeholders in their jobs. Burr appears to have refused to bargain. Jefferson, ever after, denied making such a bargain, although several Federalists claimed that he had agreed to their terms. The truth can never be known. What is clear is that on the thirty-sixth ballot, a sufficient number of Federalists broke from Burr and gave their votes to Jefferson. The final House vote was Jefferson with ten states and Burr with four states while two states (South Carolina and Delaware) abstained. With that, Jefferson became the third President of the United States. When Jefferson assumed office, his opponents stepped down peacefully. This return to domestic tranquility established a powerful precedent for the future. Although it is true that Adams tried to entrench Federalist power in the new administration by appointing Federalist judges in the last weeks of his term, this was viewed as acceptable politics by most observers, yet Jefferson's refusal to honor these last-minute "midnight appointments" led to the landmark Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison.

President Adams's style was largely to leave domestic matters to Congress and to control foreign policy himself. Not only did the Constitution vest the President with responsibility for foreign policy but perhaps no other American had as much diplomatic experience as Adams. As a result of his outlook, much of his domestic policy was intertwined with his foreign policy, for diplomatic issues often sparked a domestic reaction that consumed the President and the nation.

On the heels of the XYZ Affair (see Foreign Affairs section), there were many negative sentiments toward the French. Sensing this mood in the citizenry and identifying an opportunity to crush the pro-French Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson, the Federalist-dominated Congress drafted and passed the Alien and Sedition Acts during the spring and summer of 1798. Adams signed the legislation into law. These acts were made up of four pieces of legislation that became the most bitterly contested domestic issue during the Adams presidency.

Supposedly created as a means of preventing the aiding and abetting of France within the United States and of obstructing American foreign policy, the laws in actuality had domestic political overtones. Three of the laws were aimed at immigrants, most of whom tended to vote for Democratic-Republican candidates. The Naturalization Act lengthened the residency period required for citizenship from five to fourteen years. The Alien Act, the only one of the four acts to pass with bipartisan support, allowed for the detention of enemy aliens in time of war without trial or counsel. The Alien Enemies Act empowered the President to deport aliens whom he deemed dangerous to the nation's security. The fourth law, the Sedition Act, outlawed conspiracy to prevent the enforcement of federal laws and punished subversive speech—with fines and imprisonment. There were fifteen indictments and ten convictions under the Sedition Act during the final year and a half of Adams's administration. No aliens were deported or arrested although hundreds of alien immigrants fled the country in 1798 and 1799.

To pay for the military measures it enacted during the XYZ crisis, the Federalist Congress enacted heavy new stamp and house taxes. Farmers in eastern Pennsylvania rioted and attacked federal tax collectors in an incident later referred to as Fries's Rebellion. They believed that the new taxes were designed to support a large standing army and navy, which they opposed. Several of their leaders were arrested and sentenced to death for treason. However, on the eve of the election of 1800, Adams pardoned all of the prisoners.

In response to the Federalists' draconian use of federal power, Democratic-Republicans Thomas Jefferson and James Madison secretly drafted a set of resolutions. These resolutions were introduced into the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures in the fall of 1798. Jefferson and Madison argued that since the Constitution was created by a compact among the states, the people, speaking through their state legislatures, had the authority to judge the legitimacy of federal actions. Hence, they pronounced the Alien and Sedition Acts null and void. (See the Campaign and Election of 1800 section for more on the political effects of these actions and reactions.)

Although no other states formally supported the resolutions, they rallied Democratic-Republican opinion in the nation. Most importantly, they placed the Jeffersonian Republicans within the revolutionary tradition of resistance to tyranny. The resolutions also raised the issue of states' rights and the constitutional question of how conflict between the two authorities would be resolved short of secession or war.

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — President — The Power of the President of the United States

The Power of The President of The United States

• Categories: President State of The Union

About this sample

Words: 539 |

Published: Jul 7, 2022

Words: 539 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Government & Politics

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 417 words

2 pages / 801 words

2 pages / 773 words

4 pages / 2032 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on President

McCoy, A. W. (1993). Anarchy of Families: State and Family in the Philippines. University of Wisconsin Press.Roces, A., & Roces, A. (2016). Marcos Martial Law: Never Again. Anvil Publishing.Constantino, R. (1975). The [...]

Andrew Jackson, the seventh President of the United States, has been a controversial figure in American history. His presidency, from 1829 to 1837, is often characterized by his populist rhetoric and policies that aimed to [...]

Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States and one of the Founding Fathers of the nation, is a figure shrouded in both admiration and controversy. One of the most complex aspects of Jefferson's legacy is his [...]

Abraham Lincoln, often regarded as one of the greatest presidents in American history, is a figure whose legacy continues to captivate and inspire generations. From his humble beginnings to his leadership during the Civil War, [...]

The United States presidential election is considered as the longest and most controversial election in the world. The process from polling public opinion until becoming President is a complex process with multiple voting [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Faculty Scholarship

What are the limits of presidential power.

A panel of experts say that a seminal Supreme Court decision on the powers of the president may raise more questions than it answers

Seventy years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in  Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer , which imposed new limits on presidential power, what guidance does it provide to commanders in chief and their legal teams today? According to a panel of experts at Harvard Law School last week, the answer is: not much. 

Youngstown  was decided during the Korean War after President Harry Truman attempted to take control of steel production facilities, which were on strike when war materials were needed. As Harvard Law School Professor and panel moderator Jack Goldsmith said, the Supreme Court issued a “short, straightforward, formalist opinion” which invoked previous labor disputes and ultimately denied Truman the authority to seize the mills. Yet Goldsmith, who served assistant attorney general before coming to Harvard, said that the implications for future cases were less clear. 

The decision, he said, is remembered largely for Justice Robert Jackson’s concurring opinion, which outlined three levels of presidential authority. Category one would be the president acting in accordance with powers granted by Congress. Category three would be the President acting unilaterally. “But Jackson didn’t say that this couldn’t happen; he only said it represents the ‘lowest ebb’,” Goldsmith pointed out. The more mysterious middle ground, where more cases would likely fall, was described by Jackson as a “zone of twilight.” As Goldsmith said, “I’m not sure what that means, and I’ve been teaching it for 30 years.” 

Panelists  Neil Eggleston  and Steven Engel agreed that Youngstown  is more useful from a theoretical than a practical standpoint. Eggleston, a lecturer on law who served as White House counsel to President Barack Obama, said that “ Youngstown  remains an important analytical structure, but I’m not sure it goes further than that. Category three is useful as an identifier, though it actually comes up quite rarely. The most interesting cases come up in category two, but the interesting thing is that it gives you almost nothing to decide cases. I almost wonder how much Jackson was just describing something and not even coming up with a way to formulate.” 

Engel, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel under Trump, concurred that he hadn’t had much occasion to put  Youngstown  into practical use. “It’s emerged as a case that is routinely cited, but it’s a bit unclear what value it adds when it comes to the analysis.” The main takeaway, he said, is that “presidential powers are not fixed; they vary according to circumstance.”

Eggleston and Engel talked about moments in their respective administrations where the use of presidential powers fell into the “twilight zone.” Eggleston recalled the complicated matter of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was captured by the Taliban in 2009 and held captive for five years. Informed that Bergdahl’s health was failing, Obama negotiated a controversial agreement to release five Taliban prisoners in Guantanamo Bay in exchange for Bergdahl; bypassing a statute that nobody was allowed to be released from Guantanamo without thirty days’ notice. This prompted tension between the president and Congress, particularly when evidence emerged after Bergdahl’s release that he may have been a deserter. “Congress went bats, but they couldn’t go totally bats because we freed an American serviceman. We trumpeted what a great guy he was and as it turns out, he wasn’t one. So we violated a statute within my first couple weeks.” Added Engel, “Not violated — you ignored a statute that was unconstitutional.”

Engel discussed Trump’s attempts to build his border wall. Because Congress would not grant the $5.7 billion that he requested, the president attempted to seize privately held lands via eminent domain. This proved a mixed success, Engel admitted. “Congress chose not to fund it to the extent Trump wanted; but they passed other statutes that allowed him to move money around. We litigated and relitigated, won some and lost some. But we were never going to have any definitive ruling. It really shows how narrow and unsatisfying this ‘zone of twilight’ is.” 

Even without  Youngstown , the panelists said, the limits of presidential power have fluctuated in different circumstances. Engel cited Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s seizure of a Montgomery Ward department store during a labor dispute that threatened production for World War II.

“I don’t think either of these would be considered … constitutional today.” Eggleston said he’d hoped for Congress to address the president’s ability to impost emergency orders — a power that was used extensively under Trump, and seems to be continuing under President Joe Biden. “I was hoping that Congress would take a look at emergency orders. But with student loans and COVID emergency, Biden hasn’t made it all that easy.”

Given the mixed feelings about  Youngstown , one student noted that the three-part test was “artful but not useful,” and asked why the panel was discussing it at all. Engel said that the decision makes one clear point: “The Court decided that there are no inherent emergency powers, especially when it comes to property rights of citizens. The Court has applied the Youngstown framework to some of these cases, and it is a landmark case. It’s often cited even though it may not be that helpful.”

Added Goldsmith, “It’s an excellent opinion for organizing thoughts, if not for answering questions. Even if it’s not determinate, it’s very helpful for setting up analysis. Plus, the whole opinion is full of insights and well worth studying deeply.”

Modal Gallery

Gallery block modal gallery.

Samantha Putterman, PolitiFact Samantha Putterman, PolitiFact

Leave your feedback

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-warnings-from-democrats-about-project-2025-and-donald-trump

Fact-checking warnings from Democrats about Project 2025 and Donald Trump

This fact check originally appeared on PolitiFact .

Project 2025 has a starring role in this week’s Democratic National Convention.

And it was front and center on Night 1.

WATCH: Hauling large copy of Project 2025, Michigan state Sen. McMorrow speaks at 2024 DNC

“This is Project 2025,” Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, D-Royal Oak, said as she laid a hardbound copy of the 900-page document on the lectern. “Over the next four nights, you are going to hear a lot about what is in this 900-page document. Why? Because this is the Republican blueprint for a second Trump term.”

Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, has warned Americans about “Trump’s Project 2025” agenda — even though former President Donald Trump doesn’t claim the conservative presidential transition document.

“Donald Trump wants to take our country backward,” Harris said July 23 in Milwaukee. “He and his extreme Project 2025 agenda will weaken the middle class. Like, we know we got to take this seriously, and can you believe they put that thing in writing?”

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Harris’ running mate, has joined in on the talking point.

“Don’t believe (Trump) when he’s playing dumb about this Project 2025. He knows exactly what it’ll do,” Walz said Aug. 9 in Glendale, Arizona.

Trump’s campaign has worked to build distance from the project, which the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, led with contributions from dozens of conservative groups.

Much of the plan calls for extensive executive-branch overhauls and draws on both long-standing conservative principles, such as tax cuts, and more recent culture war issues. It lays out recommendations for disbanding the Commerce and Education departments, eliminating certain climate protections and consolidating more power to the president.

Project 2025 offers a sweeping vision for a Republican-led executive branch, and some of its policies mirror Trump’s 2024 agenda, But Harris and her presidential campaign have at times gone too far in describing what the project calls for and how closely the plans overlap with Trump’s campaign.

PolitiFact researched Harris’ warnings about how the plan would affect reproductive rights, federal entitlement programs and education, just as we did for President Joe Biden’s Project 2025 rhetoric. Here’s what the project does and doesn’t call for, and how it squares with Trump’s positions.

Are Trump and Project 2025 connected?

To distance himself from Project 2025 amid the Democratic attacks, Trump wrote on Truth Social that he “knows nothing” about it and has “no idea” who is in charge of it. (CNN identified at least 140 former advisers from the Trump administration who have been involved.)

The Heritage Foundation sought contributions from more than 100 conservative organizations for its policy vision for the next Republican presidency, which was published in 2023.

Project 2025 is now winding down some of its policy operations, and director Paul Dans, a former Trump administration official, is stepping down, The Washington Post reported July 30. Trump campaign managers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita denounced the document.

WATCH: A look at the Project 2025 plan to reshape government and Trump’s links to its authors

However, Project 2025 contributors include a number of high-ranking officials from Trump’s first administration, including former White House adviser Peter Navarro and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson.

A recently released recording of Russell Vought, a Project 2025 author and the former director of Trump’s Office of Management and Budget, showed Vought saying Trump’s “very supportive of what we do.” He said Trump was only distancing himself because Democrats were making a bogeyman out of the document.

Project 2025 wouldn’t ban abortion outright, but would curtail access

The Harris campaign shared a graphic on X that claimed “Trump’s Project 2025 plan for workers” would “go after birth control and ban abortion nationwide.”

The plan doesn’t call to ban abortion nationwide, though its recommendations could curtail some contraceptives and limit abortion access.

What’s known about Trump’s abortion agenda neither lines up with Harris’ description nor Project 2025’s wish list.

Project 2025 says the Department of Health and Human Services Department should “return to being known as the Department of Life by explicitly rejecting the notion that abortion is health care.”

It recommends that the Food and Drug Administration reverse its 2000 approval of mifepristone, the first pill taken in a two-drug regimen for a medication abortion. Medication is the most common form of abortion in the U.S. — accounting for around 63 percent in 2023.

If mifepristone were to remain approved, Project 2025 recommends new rules, such as cutting its use from 10 weeks into pregnancy to seven. It would have to be provided to patients in person — part of the group’s efforts to limit access to the drug by mail. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a legal challenge to mifepristone’s FDA approval over procedural grounds.

WATCH: Trump’s plans for health care and reproductive rights if he returns to White House The manual also calls for the Justice Department to enforce the 1873 Comstock Act on mifepristone, which bans the mailing of “obscene” materials. Abortion access supporters fear that a strict interpretation of the law could go further to ban mailing the materials used in procedural abortions, such as surgical instruments and equipment.

The plan proposes withholding federal money from states that don’t report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention how many abortions take place within their borders. The plan also would prohibit abortion providers, such as Planned Parenthood, from receiving Medicaid funds. It also calls for the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that the training of medical professionals, including doctors and nurses, omits abortion training.

The document says some forms of emergency contraception — particularly Ella, a pill that can be taken within five days of unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy — should be excluded from no-cost coverage. The Affordable Care Act requires most private health insurers to cover recommended preventive services, which involves a range of birth control methods, including emergency contraception.

Trump has recently said states should decide abortion regulations and that he wouldn’t block access to contraceptives. Trump said during his June 27 debate with Biden that he wouldn’t ban mifepristone after the Supreme Court “approved” it. But the court rejected the lawsuit based on standing, not the case’s merits. He has not weighed in on the Comstock Act or said whether he supports it being used to block abortion medication, or other kinds of abortions.

Project 2025 doesn’t call for cutting Social Security, but proposes some changes to Medicare

“When you read (Project 2025),” Harris told a crowd July 23 in Wisconsin, “you will see, Donald Trump intends to cut Social Security and Medicare.”

The Project 2025 document does not call for Social Security cuts. None of its 10 references to Social Security addresses plans for cutting the program.

Harris also misleads about Trump’s Social Security views.

In his earlier campaigns and before he was a politician, Trump said about a half-dozen times that he’s open to major overhauls of Social Security, including cuts and privatization. More recently, in a March 2024 CNBC interview, Trump said of entitlement programs such as Social Security, “There’s a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting.” However, he quickly walked that statement back, and his CNBC comment stands at odds with essentially everything else Trump has said during the 2024 presidential campaign.

Trump’s campaign website says that not “a single penny” should be cut from Social Security. We rated Harris’ claim that Trump intends to cut Social Security Mostly False.

Project 2025 does propose changes to Medicare, including making Medicare Advantage, the private insurance offering in Medicare, the “default” enrollment option. Unlike Original Medicare, Medicare Advantage plans have provider networks and can also require prior authorization, meaning that the plan can approve or deny certain services. Original Medicare plans don’t have prior authorization requirements.

The manual also calls for repealing health policies enacted under Biden, such as the Inflation Reduction Act. The law enabled Medicare to negotiate with drugmakers for the first time in history, and recently resulted in an agreement with drug companies to lower the prices of 10 expensive prescriptions for Medicare enrollees.

Trump, however, has said repeatedly during the 2024 presidential campaign that he will not cut Medicare.

Project 2025 would eliminate the Education Department, which Trump supports

The Harris campaign said Project 2025 would “eliminate the U.S. Department of Education” — and that’s accurate. Project 2025 says federal education policy “should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.” The plan scales back the federal government’s role in education policy and devolves the functions that remain to other agencies.

Aside from eliminating the department, the project also proposes scrapping the Biden administration’s Title IX revision, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It also would let states opt out of federal education programs and calls for passing a federal parents’ bill of rights similar to ones passed in some Republican-led state legislatures.

Republicans, including Trump, have pledged to close the department, which gained its status in 1979 within Democratic President Jimmy Carter’s presidential Cabinet.

In one of his Agenda 47 policy videos, Trump promised to close the department and “to send all education work and needs back to the states.” Eliminating the department would have to go through Congress.

What Project 2025, Trump would do on overtime pay

In the graphic, the Harris campaign says Project 2025 allows “employers to stop paying workers for overtime work.”

The plan doesn’t call for banning overtime wages. It recommends changes to some Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, regulations and to overtime rules. Some changes, if enacted, could result in some people losing overtime protections, experts told us.

The document proposes that the Labor Department maintain an overtime threshold “that does not punish businesses in lower-cost regions (e.g., the southeast United States).” This threshold is the amount of money executive, administrative or professional employees need to make for an employer to exempt them from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In 2019, the Trump’s administration finalized a rule that expanded overtime pay eligibility to most salaried workers earning less than about $35,568, which it said made about 1.3 million more workers eligible for overtime pay. The Trump-era threshold is high enough to cover most line workers in lower-cost regions, Project 2025 said.

The Biden administration raised that threshold to $43,888 beginning July 1, and that will rise to $58,656 on Jan. 1, 2025. That would grant overtime eligibility to about 4 million workers, the Labor Department said.

It’s unclear how many workers Project 2025’s proposal to return to the Trump-era overtime threshold in some parts of the country would affect, but experts said some would presumably lose the right to overtime wages.

Other overtime proposals in Project 2025’s plan include allowing some workers to choose to accumulate paid time off instead of overtime pay, or to work more hours in one week and fewer in the next, rather than receive overtime.

Trump’s past with overtime pay is complicated. In 2016, the Obama administration said it would raise the overtime to salaried workers earning less than $47,476 a year, about double the exemption level set in 2004 of $23,660 a year.

But when a judge blocked the Obama rule, the Trump administration didn’t challenge the court ruling. Instead it set its own overtime threshold, which raised the amount, but by less than Obama.

Support Provided By: Learn more

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• College football
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

House Republicans release their impeachment report on Biden but the next steps are uncertain

President Joe Biden talks to reporters upon his arrival to Joint Base Andrews, Md., en route to the White House, Sunday, Aug. 18, 2024. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

• Copy Link copied

▶ Follow the AP’s live coverage and analysis from the 2024 Democratic National Convention.

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans have released their initial impeachment inquiry report on President Joe Biden , alleging an abuse of power and obstruction of justice in the financial dealings of his son Hunter Biden and family associates.

The nearly yearlong investigation by Republicans stops short of alleging any criminal wrongdoing by the president. Instead, the almost 300-page report out Monday, the opening day of the Democratic National Convention , covers familiar ground, asserting the Biden family traded on its “brand” in business ventures in corrupt ways that rise to the Constitution’s high bar for impeachment.

With Biden no longer running for reelection , next steps are highly uncertain. House Republicans have not had support from their own ranks to actually impeach the president, and removal by the Senate is even further afield. Many Republicans prefer to focus attention on the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris , with some probes getting underway.

The White House has dismissed the House impeachment inquiry as a “stunt” and encouraged House Republicans to “move on.”

“The totality of the corrupt conduct uncovered by the Committees is egregious,” wrote the House Oversight and Accountability, Judiciary and Ways & Means panels leading the inquiry .

The report said the Constitution’s “remedy for a President’s flagrant abuse of office is clear: impeachment by the House of Representatives and removal by the Senate.”

Republicans have spent the better part of their time in the House majority with a hyper focus on Biden and his family’s businesses, encouraged by Donald Trump as the twice impeached and indicted former president makes a comeback bid for the White House.

The impeachment inquiry has been a cornerstone of the House GOP’s effort, launched by former Speaker Kevin McCarthy shortly before he was booted from leadership and formalized in December under new Speaker Mike Johnson. Republicans are investigating many aspects of Biden family finances going back to 2009 when he was vice president to Barack Obama.

In a statement Monday, Johnson was non-committal on what the House will do with the findings. “We encourage all Americans to read this report,” he said.

Through bank records, interviews from some 30 witnesses, whistleblower accounts and millions of documents, House Republicans allege a years-long practice by Hunter Biden and his associates to solicit foreign business deals using the family’s proximity to power in Washington.

Much of the focus of the report is not on Biden’s time as president, but on the years when the Biden family was in turmoil after the 2015 death of his oldest son, Beau, and as the vice president was bowing out of elected office, declining to run for president in 2016.

Hunter Biden has acknowledged a serious addiction to crack in these years. He was convicted in June of felony gun charges and is set to stand trial next month on federal tax charges .

Former Hunter Biden associate Devon Archer , who was sentenced to a year in prison in 2022 in another matter, told the committee, “At the end of the day, part of what was delivered is the brand.”

To tie the elder Biden to his son’s actions, the Republicans rely on a series of phone calls and pop-by dinner meeting visits Joe Biden made while Hunter was conducting business. At times, Hunter would put his dad on speakerphone for his guests as the father and son exchanged pleasantries.

The Bidens are a famously tight-knit family and acknowledge they speak almost daily, including during this time, with the father checking on his son’s well-being.

In his own defiant closed-door deposition to House investigators, Hunter Biden insisted he did not involve his father in his business.

All told, the House Republicans allege the Biden family and its associates received some $27 million in business payments from partners or clients in Russia, China and other countries. They allege an additional $8 million in loans, including some from Hunter Biden benefactor Kevin Morris, a Hollywood attorney, and question the purchases of the son’s artwork .

The report said it is “inconceivable” that President Biden did not understand what was going on.

“President Biden participated in a conspiracy to monetize his office of public trust to enrich his family,” the report claims.

Biden himself declined a request to testify before the House.

Touchbacks to Trump’s impeachments at the hands of Democrats run throughout the report’s pages as Republicans work to contrast his grounds for removal to Biden family’s dealings and “grift.”

But the difference are stark, as the indicted Trump faces actual criminal charges, including in the conspiracy to overturn Biden’s 2020 election and draw supporters to Washington on the day of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

The report also accuses Biden of obstructing justice in the probe, revisiting previously aired complaints about the Justice Department’s handling of the investigation into Hunter Biden. Attorney General Merrick Garland has forcefully denied those accusations, defending the department against claims of political influence.

The report focuses heavily on what Republicans have long alleged was a pattern of “slow-walking” investigative steps and delaying enforcement actions to the benefit of the president’s son.

But the report provides no evidence that Biden had any involvement in his son’s investigation, which was launched under Trump’s presidency and has been led by a Delaware U.S. attorney appointed by Trump. The U.S. attorney, David Weiss, was kept on by Garland to insulate the probe from claims of political interference.

Garland has insisted that no one at the White House gave him or other senior officials at the Justice Department direction about the handling of the Hunter Biden investigation.

Beyond Hunter Biden, the report includes details of the involvement of Joe Biden’s brother, James, in the various family businesses.

Republicans have pointed to a series of payments that they claim show the president benefited from his brother’s work. They point to a $200,000 personal check from James Biden to Joe Biden on the same day in 2018 that James Biden received an equal amount from Americore, a healthcare company.

House Democrats have defended the transaction, pointing to bank records they say indicate James Biden was repaying a loan provided by his brother, who had wire transferred $200,000 to him about six weeks earlier. The money changed hands while Joe Biden was a private citizen.

Short of impeaching Biden, the House Republicans have issued criminal referrals recommending the Justice Department prosecute Hunter Biden and James Biden, accusing them of making false statements to Congress as part of the GOP investigation. Attorneys for those men have argued those claims are baseless or a distraction.

Until recently, the president had been a focal point for Republicans in Congress, but his decision last month to drop out of the presidential race and Harris’ ascent to the top of the ticket have forced GOP leaders to reevaluate their marquee investigation.

A year ago, GOP lawmakers had hoped the Biden inquiry would build a strong enough case for impeachment’s “high crimes and misdemeanors.” But the longer the inquiry dragged and the little direct evidence against Biden investigators were able to produce in public hearings or even in closed-door sessions, the more concerns grew from moderate Republicans wary of a vote on the matter.

The report released Monday makes more than 20 mentions of the “Biden-Harris administration,” while previous releases from the committees investigating Biden typically only made direct references to him.

And while Harris is not mentioned on her own in the report, the same committees leading the inquiry have begun to open new probes into her and her vice presidential pick, Tim Walz.

Associated Press writers Alanna Durkin Richer, Gary Fields, Fatima Hussein and Nicholas Riccardi contributed to this report.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Trump Can Win on Character

By Rich Lowry

Mr. Lowry is the editor in chief of National Review.

With the defenestration of Joe Biden and the ascent of Kamala Harris, conventional wisdom has gone from asking, “How can Donald Trump lose?” to, “How can he win?”

It’s basically a tossup race, but a successful Harris rollout and convention, coupled with a stumbling Trump performance since Mr. Biden’s exit, have created a sense of irresistible Harris momentum.

As usual when he falters, Mr. Trump is getting a lot of advice from his own side.

For as long as Mr. Trump has been in the ascendancy in the G.O.P., he will go off on some pointless tangent and Republicans will urge him — perhaps as they hustle down a corridor of the U.S. Capitol — to talk about the economy instead of his controversy du jour.

A close cousin of this perpetual advice is the admonition that Mr. Trump should concentrate more on the issues in this campaign. Neither recommendation is wrong, but they are insufficient to making the case against Kamala Harris.

Presidential races are won and lost on character as much as the issues, and often the issues are proxies for character. Not character in the sense of a candidate’s personal life, but the attributes that play into the question of whether someone is suited to the presidency — is he or she qualified, trustworthy and strong, and does he or she care about average Americans?

Presidential races, in this sense, are deeply personal; they usually involve disqualifying the opposing candidate, rather than convincing voters that his or her platform is wrongheaded.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

As Indonesian President Joko Widodo relinquishes power, he says he's sorry for everyone he let down

Topic: World Politics

Joko Widodo apologised to the public twice this month, but it wasn't clear which mistakes he was apologising for. ( Reuters: Bagus Indahono )

Before Indonesian President Joko Widodo, popularly known as Jokowi, was sworn in a decade ago, he was seen as a hardworking man of the people .

Jokowi, who ran a successful furniture factory, was elected the mayor of Solo, a city in central Java, shortly after entering politics.

He became "a new hope" for many people who had high expectations of the change he had promised the country.

President Joko Widodo was featured on the cover of Time magazine. ( Supplied )

But it was this very hope that led him to apologise — not just once, but twice — to the public ahead of stepping down in October.

In his final state address last week at the annual Consultative Assembly, a day before Indonesia's Independence Day, Jokowi said he may have made mistakes during his presidency.

"Apologies to anyone who feels disappointed, for every hope that has not been materialised, for every dream that has not been realised," Jokowi said.

"I'm fully aware that as a person with all the flaws and limitations of a human being, who is far from perfect, it's possible that sometimes I overlooked things.

"It is very possible that I have committed a lot of mistakes."

Party boss Megawati Sukarnoputri helped propel Jokowi into office in 2014.  ( Reuters: Darren Whiteside )

Just earlier this month, the outgoing president highlighted his flaws during a congregational prayer at the Presidential Palace in Jakarta.

"I'm not perfect. I'm an ordinary human being. Perfection belongs to Allah [God] alone," Jokowi said with a trembling voice.

"I'm so sorry for any mistakes we may have made while carrying out the people's mandate as president and vice president."

What was he apologising for?

President Jokowi and the newly-elected president Prabowo Subianto celebrate Indonesia's Independence Day in the new capital. ( Reuters: Willy Kurniawan )

It's rare for a president or political leader, whether in Indonesia or elsewhere in the world, to make a public apology.

But as his opponents pointed out, Jokowi wasn't clear about which mistakes he was apologising for.

An Indonesian investigative magazine, Tempo, listed at least "18 sins" committed by Jokowi during his term.

Allowing a political dynasty to flourish is one of them.

Despite being under the minimum eligibility age of 40, Jokowi's son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, was elected as the vice-president of the incoming president Prabowo Subianto. 

Jokowi's brother-in-law, the chief justice of the country's Constitutional Court, had cleared the way for him to run by casting the deciding vote .

The outgoing president has also been widely criticised for curbing the freedom of speech , failing to address serious human right violations , and for land grabbing and harming the environment to fulfil ambitious national strategic mega projects such as the development of the new capital.

Despite these issues, Jokowi has enjoyed consistently high public approval — with ratings reaching a record 81 per cent .

Will Indonesians forgive him?

Students participated in a protest against President Joko Widodo over the cost of living in Jakarta, Last April. ( Reuters: Willy Kurniawan )

It's also not clear if Jokowi sincerely recognised his shortcomings or if he was simply publicly acknowledging the criticisms.

Giving and receiving apologies as a way of being humble and polite is a deeply ingrained part of Indonesian culture. It is also shaped by traditions and religious teachings.

The concept of 'maaf' (forgiveness) and 'taubat' (repentance) are central to the Islamic and Christian teachings, while many Indonesians also believe in karma — that you will pay the price if you don't say "I'm sorry".

In the light of Indonesia's social norms, making an apology can also be seen as a way to smooth a relationship and prevent tension to maintain "rukun" (harmony).

Jokowi may have apologised to build a narrative of this harmony and reconciliation with critics and marginalised communities who were impacted by his ambitious development projects.

"An apology is a symbol of the president's attempt to correct all his achievements or shortcomings, as well as a form of respect towards his people," Wasisto Raharjo Jati, a researcher at Indonesia's National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), told the ABC.

Wasisto said that ideally, an apology would be followed by concrete actions, for example by creating and implementing a policy to address his shortcomings.

But with only two months left, it's unlikely Mr Widodo would initiate a big change, he said.

Regardless of whether the apology is genuine or not, it's clear Jokowi wants to leave his office with a good public image and minimal backlash.

This will allow him to maintain his influence over his political allies and supporters if he wishes to remain involved in politics.