Why do we even have a president?

Why do we even have a president? September 20, 2012

Historian Kenneth C. Davis looks at the origin of the office of the President, something our Founders went round and round about at the Constitutional Convention.

In that steamy Philadelphia summer of 1787, as the Constitution was secretly being drafted and the plan for the presidency invented โ€” โ€œimprovisedโ€ is more apt โ€” the delegates werenโ€™t sure what they wanted this new office to be. To patriots who had fought a war against a king, the thought of one person wielding great power, at the head of a standing army, gave them the willies.

Still, Hamilton asserted in the Federalist Papers that this experimental executive must have โ€œenergyโ€ โ€” a quality characterized by โ€œdecision, activity, secrecy and dispatch.โ€ Hamilton knew that the times demanded bold action. Operating under the Articles of Confederation, a weak Congress had dithered through crisis and conflict, unable to collect taxes or raise an effective army. And the presidents of Congress โ€” 14 of them from 1774 to 1788 โ€” wielded nothing more threatening than a gavel. They couldnโ€™t even answer a letter without congressional approval.

As the delegates to the Constitutional Convention sweltered behind closed windows, in the same Pennsylvania State House where the Declaration of Independence had been adopted 11 years earlier, they disagreed about many things. But no issue caused greater consternation than establishing an executive office to run the country.

Would this executive department be occupied by one man or a council of three? What powers would the executive have? How long would he hold office? How would the executive be chosen? And how would he be removed, if necessary? (Without an answer to this question, Ben Franklin warned, the only recourse would be assassination.)

On these questions, the record points down a tortuous path filled with uncertainty and sharp division. While some delegates feared creating a presidency that could become a โ€œfetus of monarchy,โ€ others called for an executive who could negotiate treaties and make appointments โ€” or command an army if the nation was threatened. Or at least answer the mail. . . .

Another hotly contested question was who would choose the executive. Some, such as Connecticutโ€™s Roger Sherman, thought democracy was one short step from mob rule. โ€œThe people .โ€‰.โ€‰. should have as little to do as may be about the government,โ€ Sherman asserted. โ€œThey lack information and are constantly liable to be misled.โ€

While Wilson offered direct election by the people, some preferred allowing the national legislature to make the choice. This idea riled another key framer, Pennsylvaniaโ€™s Gouverneur Morris, a wealthy transplanted New Yorker, who thought that election by the legislature would lead only to โ€œintrigue, cabals and faction.โ€

As the debates bumped along through the summer, there was one certainty. As Franklin said early in June, โ€œThe first man put at the helm will be a good one.โ€ No one doubted that he meant George Washington, sitting in front of the room and presiding over the meeting. Despite any other squabbles, the beloved leader of the American Revolution would occupy the office they later decided to call โ€œpresident,โ€ a word rooted in the Latin โ€œpraesidensโ€ (meaning โ€œto sit beforeโ€) and first used in America at Harvard in 1640.

Apart from that, many burning questions were still unsettled in late August, when, in timeworn congressional tradition, the delegates punted. The questions of the executive were handed over to a Committee of Eleven, which included a delegate from each of the states in attendance and dealt with a variety of issues left unresolved by the convention as a whole. On Sept. 4, the committee put forward a plan for a president chosen for a four-year term, with the authority to make treaties and appointments (subject to Senate approval), among other loosely specified powers. He would command the army, but Congress would declare war. And they proposed a voting system that placed the choice in the hands of โ€œelectorsโ€ whose selection would be left to the legislatures of the individual states, later to be called the Electoral College.

โ€œTwo days later,โ€ Yale historian Robert A. Dahlnoted, โ€œthe impatient delegates adopt this solution,โ€ adding, โ€œthis strange record suggests .โ€‰.โ€‰. a group of baffled and confused men who finally settle on a solution more out of desperation than confidence.โ€

via Why do we have a president, anyway? โ€“ The Washington Post.

I still feel that way with most presidential elections!ย  Is there a better way?ย  Might we try the three-man panel? The Prime Minister model, with the chief executive being the leader of the majority party of the legislature?ย  (This is what most of the worldโ€™s democracies do, with just a very few having our kind of president.)ย  Should we have made George Washington king?ย  Or what?

"I haven't read their book back to front but the excerpt of their Equal Liberty ..."

The New Critiques of Religious Freedom
"It was, in fact, words about "human life". I have no interest in keeping anyone ..."

DISCUSSION: In Vitro Fertilization
"Inner suburbs but not in the immediate area of the bridge. It's not a route ..."

Holy Week Miscellany, 3/25/24
"OK, I think I get your point now. I think I could accept "freedom of ..."

The New Critiques of Religious Freedom

Browse Our Archives