John C. Calhoun

John Kerry Joins Distinguished Company Of Seven Former Presidential Nominees Who Have Served As Secretary Of State

The indication that President Barack Obama has decided to nominate Massachusetts Senator John Kerry as the next Secretary of State adds dignity and statesmanship to that office, particularly in light of the exceptional leadership of the present Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

Kerry has had a distinguished career as a United States Senator for 28 years, and is the tenth most senior member of the present Senate, and was, of course, the 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee, losing a close race to George W. Bush, because of the electoral result in Ohio.

Kerry has been Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the past four years, and had he won the Presidency in 2004, he would have been responsible for our foreign policy for the past eight years, assuming he had won a second term.

He becomes the eighth Presidential nominee to lose the White House and become Secretary of State, following Henry Clay (under John Quincy Adams); Daniel Webster (under John Tyler); John C. Calhoun (under John Tyler); Lewis Cass (under James Buchanan); James G. Blaine (under Benjamin Harrison); William Jennings Bryan (under Woodrow Wilson); and Charles Evans Hughes (under Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge).

These Secretaries of State stood out as major figures in their times, and in our history long term, and John Kerry will be seen the same way when he retires from the State Department after serving Barack Obama.

Presidents, Presidential Nominees, Presidential Seekers, Supreme Court Justices, And The Position Of Secretary Of State

Many followers of American history, government and politics may not be aware of the large number of Presidents, Presidential nominees who lost the White House, and Presidential seekers who failed to win their party’s nomination, who have been Secretary of State, the most important cabinet position. And also there are four Secretaries of State who have served on the Supreme Court of the United States.

The following Presidents have been Secretary of State earlier:

THOMAS JEFFERSON
JAMES MADISON
JAMES MONROE
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS
MARTIN VAN BUREN
JAMES BUCHANAN

The following have been Presidential nominees, but failed to win the White House:

HENRY CLAY
JOHN C CALHOUN
DANIEL WEBSTER
LEWIS CASS
JAMES G BLAINE
WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN
CHARLES EVANS HUGHES

The following sought their party’s Presidential nomination, failed to win it, but went on to be Secretary of State:

WILLIAM SEWARD
EDMUND MUSKIE
HILLARY CLINTON

Additionally, four Secretaries of State have served on the Supreme Court, with three of them being Chief Justice:

JOHN JAY
JOHN MARSHALL
CHARLES EVANS HUGHES
JAMES F BYRNES (Associate)

This is of great interest now as we have Senator John Kerry, 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee, under serious consideration by President Obama to be his second term Secretary of State!

Secretary Of State John Kerry Or Secretary Of State Susan Rice? Kerry Should Be Favored!

With all of the hullabaloo over Senator John McCain’s derogatory comments about United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice in regards to the September 11 Libyan ambassador death controversy, a momentum has built up in the Obama Administration to double down on Rice, and decide to nominate her to be Hillary Clinton’s replacement as Secretary of State.

Susan Rice is certainly qualified for the position, and would do a fine job in the State Department. She has excellent qualifications, and educational and scholarly credentials to back her up for the nomination.

But what this struggle between John McCain and Barack Obama has done is minimize the possibility that the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry, might gain the position.

Kerry has has a long, distinguished career in the Senate, and had he been President, he would have had to deal with all of the many international matters that would have arisen. He has been a forceful spokesmen on foreign affairs for many years, and having been an anti war advocate in the past, SHOULD be seen as a positive factor, unlike conservative commentator Bill Kristol’s assertion on Fox News Channel yesterday that Kerry’s past anti war stands should disqualify him for the position. Kerry truly deserves this position, and would not be the first losing Presidential candidate to become Secretary of State, joining a long list who have served in the State Department after losing the Presidency, including

HENRY CLAY
JOHN C CALHOUN
DANIEL WEBSTER
LEWIS CASS
JAMES G BLAINE
WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN
CHARLES EVANS HUGHES

Also, there have been former Presidential contenders, who failed to win the nomination, who have later served as Secretary of State, including:

WILLIAM SEWARD
EDMUND MUSKIE
HILLARY CLINTON

So TEN former Presidential seekers have gone on to serve as Secretary of State, and anyone with knowledge of American diplomatic history KNOWS that they are among the very best people we have had in that position, particularly the case with Clay, Calhoun, Webster, Blaine, Hughes, Seward, and Clinton. So if seven out of the ten have made a major impact, that is an excellent argument for John Kerry as Secretary of State!

Historically Significant Vice Presidents: Nineteen, Including Nine Presidents!

The Vice Presidency has often been called an office of insignificance, as the Constitution gives the Vice President no authority except to preside over the US Senate, cast a rare tie breaking vote, and sit in waiting for the President to die!

Therefore, the office has been ridiculed, and some have suggested that it be eliminated by constitutional amendment without answering what the line of succession would be if such a change occurred.

Despite the low esteem of the office historically, significant men have served in that office, even if unhappily in most cases.

So if a list were to be made of those Vice Presidents who mattered because of their entire career, the list would include:

John Adams under President George Washington
Thomas Jefferson under President John Adams
Aaron Burr under President Thomas Jefferson
John C. Calhoun under Presidents John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren under President Andrew Jackson
Theodore Roosevelt under President William McKinley
Charles G. Dawes under President Calvin Coolidge
Henry A. Wallace under President Franklin D. Roosevelt
Harry Truman under President Franklin D. Roosevelt
Richard Nixon under President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Lyndon B. Johnson under President John F. Kennedy
Hubert H. Humphrey under President Lyndon B. Johnson
Gerald Ford under President Richard Nixon
Nelson Rockefeller under President Gerald Ford
Walter Mondale under President Jimmy Carter
George H. W. Bush under President Ronald Reagan
Al Gore under President Bill Clinton
Dick Cheney under President George W. Bush
Joe Biden under President Barack Obama

All of these men had a distinguished career before the Vice Presidency, made a difference in American history in some fashion, and all of those since Henry A. Wallace actually had impact upon the growth of the office. Of course, nine of the nineteen listed also became President.

Unpleasant Presidential-Vice Presidential Ties Throughout American History

It has become evident that in many cases, no love is lost between sitting Presidents and Vice Presidents, who often link up for electoral reasons, but often have poor chemistry in working together. And many times, a President has wished to “dump” his Vice President, when running for another term in office, and a few times has done so.

Examples of unpleasant Presidential-Vice Presidential relationships include:

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, with Jefferson, the opponent in the 1796 Presidential election, becoming Vice President, but leading to the 12th Amendment in 1804, to prevent any future such combination. The two men fought each other bitterly, and opposed each other again in 1800.

Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, “tied” in electoral votes in 1800, forcing the election to the House of Representatives, leading to Alexander Hamilton’s endorsement of Jefferson and trashing of Burr, and causing Hamilton’s death in a gun duel with Burr in 1804. Jefferson had no relationship with Burr, after Burr tried to “steal” the election, and he was “dumped” in 1804.

John Quincy Adams and John C Calhoun, who were rivals in 1824, had totally different views of the protective tariff, with Calhoun switching to support of Andrew Jackson and running with Jackson in 1828.

Andrew Jackson and John C. Calhoun were elected together in 1828, but Calhoun broke with Jackson over the protective tariff, resigning, and creating a potential threat of civil war, with the Nullification Crisis of 1833, resolved by a compromise devised by Henry Clay. Jackson even threatened to kill Calhoun if he promoted secession of South Carolina from the Union.

William Henry Harrison, elected with John Tyler in 1840, had totally divergent views since Tyler was a Democrat running on the Whig Party line, and Tyler succeeded to the Presidency when Harrison died after one month in office in 1841, and the Whigs made Tyler’s life miserable.

Abraham Lincoln and his first Vice President, Hannibal Hamlin, elected in 1860, hardly knew each other, and the indications are that Hamlin had no major role in the administration, and was replaced by Andrew Johnson on the ticket for 1864 for political reasons.

Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, elected together in 1864, with Lincoln picking Democrat Johnson to help win support in the North, then was assassinated, and succeeded by Johnson after six weeks of the second term in 1865.

James Garfield and Chester Alan Arthur were elected together in 1880, from different factions of the Republican Party, and when Garfield died from assassination wounds six months into office, Arthur finished up the rest of the term from 1881-1885.

Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall were elected together in 1912, but Marshall was “kept out of the loop”, and when Wilson suffered a stroke in 1919, was denied access to the President by Mrs. Wilson, never knowing the extent of Wilson’s incapacity for the rest of the term to 1921.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and his first Vice President, John Nance Garner were elected to two terms together in 1932 and 1936, with Garner unhappy with the New Deal programs, and wanting to succeed FDR in 1940, and alienated when FDR ran for a third term in 1940.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and his second Vice President, Henry A. Wallace were elected together in 1940, but Wallace was “dumped” by FDR in 1944, to please Southern Democrats unhappy with Wallace’s advocacy of civil rights for African Americans, and his backing of close relations with the Soviet Union.

Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon were elected together in 1952 and 1956, but Ike wished to “dump” Nixon in 1956 although that did not happen, and he was less than supportive of Nixon in 1960 and 1968.

John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, elected together in 1960, were never close, having been rivals for the Presidential nomination, with LBJ feeling slighted by Robert F. Kennedy, the Attorney General and brother of the President, and rumors swirling that he would be “dumped” in 1964, if Kennedy had lived.

Lyndon B. Johnson and Hubert H. Humphrey were elected together in 1964, but with Humphrey feeling mistreated by LBJ, and unhappy as Vice President, seeing himself trapped, and being undermined when he was the Presidential nominee in 1968, and LBJ working against him when Humphrey ran against Richard Nixon.

Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew were elected together in 1968 and 1972, with Agnew feeling “used” by Nixon to do his “dirty work” against the news media, and gaining no support from Nixon when in legal trouble over accepting bribes, leading to his resignation in 1973. Agnew refused to speak ever again to his former boss.

Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush were never close, and the Bushes were never invited to the White House by the Reagans, after their two victories in elections in 1980 and 1984.

George H. W. Bush and Dan Quayle were elected together in 1988, with obvious discomfort by Bush as to Quayle’s performance in his term of office as Vice President, and considered “dumping” him in 1992, but not done in that losing re-election effort.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore, elected together in 1992 and 1996, got along well, but after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, a growing divide occurred between the two men, and Gore decided not to have Clinton help him in the Presidential campaign of 2000, and then the two men had angry words in a confrontation in the Oval Office after the defeat.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, elected together in 2000 and 2004, originally worked well together, but Bush then ignored Cheney’s advice often in the second term, and refused Cheney’s request that Scooter Libby be given a pardon. Cheney, in his memoir, made clear that his relationship with Bush had cooled.

So often, the relationship between President and Vice President has been a very difficult one, an interesting aspect of American history!

Exceptions to this were the close relationship of Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller between 1974 and 1977, although Rockefeller was “dumped” from the ticket in 1976 for Bob Dole, a move that Ford later said he did for political reasons, and greatly regretted; the extremely close ties between Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale between 1977-1981, with Mondale practically a “Co President”; and the present relationship between Barack Obama and Joe Biden since 2009.

Osama Bin Laden’s Delusions About Joe Biden

The Washington Post reports that Osama Bin Laden had conspired to kill President Barack Obama and General David Petraeus before having the plot cut short by his being killed by Navy Seals last May.

The concept that this was being plotted is certainly conceivable, but it is astounding that Osama Bin Laden had such delusions that he could accomplish this in real time, and also his statement that Joe Biden was “totally unprepared” to be President, so that it would set back the American government if Obama was assassinated.

It is obvious that Osama Bin Laden had no clue as to the depth of experience and knowledge that Vice President Joe Biden represents.

It is a fact that Joe Biden has had more years of experience and leadership in Congress than any Vice President who served before him!

Joe BIden was one of the longest serving US Senators with his six terms and 36 years in office, and he was Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee at different points of his tenure in the Senate.

Joe Biden was involved in every major issue and controversy of his three and a half decades in the national spotlight.

What other Vice President can claim this breadth and depth of experience? Again, the answer is NONE!

Most Vice Presidents historically have been nonentities in their significance in the office and in their experiences before the Vice Presidency. Very few stand out historically before their term or terms as Vice President.

The Vice Presidency was an office of insignificance until Richard Nixon made it an important office under President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950s, due to Nixon’s own ambition and intelligence, and Eisenhower’s willingness to allow Nixon a major role in government affairs.

Since Nixon, we had Lyndon B. Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Gerald Ford, Nelson Rockefeller, Walter Mondale, George H. W. Bush, Al Gore, and Dick Cheney as major figures in the Vice Presidency, although only Rockefeller, Mondale, Bush, Gore and Cheney really added to the office and its influence. And Spiro Agnew and Dan Quayle actually subtracted from the office with their mediocre performance in the Vice Presidency.

Earlier Vice Presidents who were influential included John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John C. Calhoun, Martin Van Buren, and Henry A. Wallace, with Calhoun and Wallace the only ones who never made the Presidency.

But NONE of these Vice Presidents listed above had the total combination of years of influence and significance of Biden, although certainly one would not argue the importance of Adams, Jefferson and Calhoun.

The point that is being made is that Joe Biden is perfectly qualified and prepared to take over the Presidency in an emergency, is a real asset to the nation and President Barack Obama, and should not be dismissed as a possible candidate for President in 2016, even though he would be 74 in that year.

Unlikely that Biden would run for or become President, but he has often been taken too lightly, and that is a mistake on the part of his skeptics, as well as the LATE Osama Bin Laden!

The Fox News Channel South Carolina Debate: What It Tells Us About The GOP Presidential Race!

The Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina this past Thursday, the first in a long group of debates over the next year, tells us a lot about both the Republican race and South Carolina at the same time, and it is not good!

The focus audience at the debate sponsored by Fox News Channel seemed like aliens from another planet, certainly not the mainstream of the nation, and doubtfully, of the Republican party future.

Asked their favorite candidate among the five who showed up, the majority said Herman Cain, the African American former Chief Executive Officer of Godfather Pizza, also a talk show host on radio. His main point was to get government out of the way of business, a typical Republican viewpoint, but his chances for the nomination can be seen as zero!

Their second favorite was former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who has made himself look foolish and extreme on social issues, and no serious observer takes him as a likely nominee, either!

It was interesting that Ron Paul, despite his support among libertarians, and actually making quite a good debate perfromance, failed to excite the South Carolina focus group.

It was also noticeable that Tim Pawlenty, often considered one of the more likely nominees as a “dark horse”, seems to have had no positive impression among the participants in the focus group.

The sum total is to demonstrate that Pawlenty probably lost some advantage by NOT impressing that group of voters, and that the focus group made one realize that there are a lot of people in the Palmetto state who seem not to have advanced beyond the times of John C. Calhoun and Strom Thurmond–meaning continued hatred of the national government as somehow the evil incarnate!

Without the “serious” candidates in the race–Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee–and the controversial candidates–Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich–the debate was basically a waste of time since nothing came out of it that could promise a good future for the Republican Party in the 2012 Presidential race!

Correction! Arizona In 2011 Is Both Mississippi And South Carolina!

The author has already labeled Arizona, with its anti immigration legislation targeted at Latinos and Hispanics, as the equivalent of Mississippi in its treatment of African Americans in the 1960s.

Now, Arizona must also be compared to South Carolina, with its threat of nullification of federal laws and the Constitution, which went on from the 1830s with John C. Calhoun, all the way up to Fort Sumter and the Civil War in 1861!

It is extremely ironic that just as we are about to commemorate the tragedy of the Civil War’s beginning on April 12, we now have the Arizona State Senate passing legislation declaring the power to nullify federal laws and the US Constitution if they do not like what is being done!

This idea of defiance was supposed to be settled by the Civil War prosecution by Abraham Lincoln, and also supposed to be resolved by US National Guard intervention in Arkansas in 1957 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and in Mississippi and Alabama in 1962 and 1963 by President John F. Kennedy!

Now, however, State Senator Russell Pearce of the Arizona legislature is promoting defiance of the federal government, not only on immigration matters and the health care law, but also on anything else that he and his followers believe is unconstitutional!

Apparently, they have learned nothing from history, and the reality that only the Supreme Court can declare actions of the executive and legislative branches unconstitutional!

To advocate anything else is TREASON, subject to prosecution by the federal government if action is actually taken, and if need be, Presidential control of the state National Guard to enforce federal laws and federal court decisions, just as in the South in the 1950s and 1960s!

Anyone living in Arizona should be ashamed of what their government leaders are advocating, a path that would lead to chaos and lawlessness and abuse of power by state outlaws, and it might be necessary at some point to enforce federal law by intervention by Federal authorities!

Hopefully, before we get into that kind of crisis, cooler heads will prevail, as states may not defy the US Constitution and be allowed to get away with it!

This is a warning to Governor Jan Brewer, State Senator Russell Pearce, and other radical right wingers: Shape up or else suffer the consequences of disobedience of constitutional law!

Back To the 19th Century Mentality: Proposed Amendment Would Permit State Nullification Of Federal Laws! Have We Failed To Learn The Meaning Of Our Constitution? :(

Just as we begin to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the beginnings of the Civil War over the next year, we now see a movement promoted by Congressional Republicans, including future House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, to propose a constitutional amendment that would allow states to overrule any act of Congress, effectively nullification of federal law! 🙁

This battle was fought by Andrew Jackson in the Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833, when he threatened John C. Calhoun and South Carolina with federal military intervention if that state refused to obey the federal tariff law.

It was also being threatened by Zachary Taylor if any state attempted secession during the debate over the Compromise of 1850.

It was also the reaction of Abraham Lincoln when the Southern states seceded from the Union and seized American military property and bases in 1860-1861.

These were three Presidents of different parties, all from Southern slave states of birth, who were ready to uphold the federal government’s authority over the states, and actually led to Lincoln’s actions against the Confederacy during the Civil War.

But now, a century a a half after this issue was supposed to have been resolved by the Northern victory, there is a push on to allow just that–states refusing to obey the federal laws and Constitution and claiming the right to do so! 🙁

If the legislatures of two thirds of the states–34–voted for such a repeal of a federal law, it would not be in effect. So far, 12 states have supported such an amendment being introduced.

Of course, two thirds of the House of Representatives and two thirds of the Senate would have to agree to such an amendment, which is hard to imagine, as it would limit their own power and authority.

Additionally, 38 states, three fourths, would have to ratify such an amendment, and that also seems extremely unlikely, as there are more than 12 states which certainly, in a political sense, would oppose such a concept.

While one cannot be sure of the exact dynamics of which states would be opposed to such an amendment, were it to make it through the House of Representatives and Senate, the likelihood would be that the following states would NOT support such an amendment: Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, California, Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii.

Thirteen of these seventeen states would be enough to stop such an amendment, and realize that there are other states that might also oppose it, including Maine, Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, Montana, Colorado, and New Mexico, which would bring the total to a potential 25.

And also realize, in other states that might be seen as supporting such an amendment, all that would be needed to defeat it is a one vote margin of defeat in one of the two houses of the state legislature.

Another consideration is that such an amendment would allow small states with small populations to have equal influence on such nullification, despite having, in many cases, tiny population totals as compared to large states, so even large states which might be motivated to support such an amendment would not be pleased that small states would have an inequitable influence on repeal of federal laws.

So basically, this is all demagoguery, and a sign that many people do not understand their own Constitution, and the concept that ONLY the national government can speak for the nation through the tortorous process of passing laws through our Congress, and that the state legislatures, many of them incompetent and corrupt on a far greater level than our Congress, have no ability or competence or justification to interfere with what is good for the nation at large,whether they like it or not!