LOCAL COLUMN
OPINION: How will history judge us?
John Adams found himself on the wrong side of history in 1789 and paid a price for it. As vice president of the 近距离内射合集 States, Adams presided over a month-long debate on a question that is oddly jarring to our ears today: How should the president be addressed? Article II of the then newly ratified Constitution states that 鈥渢he executive power shall be vested in a President,鈥� but it does not say what, if any, title would be affixed to the office. Some, led by Adams, thought that 鈥減resident鈥� was too ordinary a term for such a lofty position, too easily equated with the presidents of banks and other mundane businesses. No, the president of the 近距离内射合集 States deserved better. The position should be accompanied by some prefix commensurate with the 鈥渄ignity and splendor of the office,鈥� perhaps 鈥淗is Elective Highness鈥� or 鈥淗is Excellency.鈥� A committee appointed by Adams came up with a wordy mouthful: 鈥淗is Highness the President of the 近距离内射合集 States and Protector of Their Liberties.鈥� Adams thought it acceptable but suggested 鈥淗is Majesty鈥� in place of 鈥淗is Highness.鈥�
The Senate鈥檚 proceedings stalled after a substantial number of senators balked at the idea of affixing elevated titles to the offices of the president and vice president. The Constitution specifically prohibited the granting of 鈥渢itles of nobility,鈥� they argued, because such appellations ran contrary to the founding principle of the American republic, which recognized no rank above that of 鈥渇reemen.鈥� Incensed, Adams rose from his seat to scold the opposing senators for their behavior. In what one senator described as a 40-minute 鈥渉arangue,鈥� Adams went on about the 鈥渋mmense advantage of titles鈥� and otherwise 鈥渇ound fault with everything almost.鈥� But Adams鈥檚 tantrum changed no minds. Besides, the House of Representatives had already made its decision, unanimously refusing to accept any elevated titles in references to the president. For his part, Thomas Jefferson, residing in Paris as the U.S. minister to France, contemptuously characterized the Senate committee鈥檚 recommendation as the 鈥渕ost superlatively ridiculous thing鈥� he had ever read.
In the end, the divided Senate agreed with the House that the chief executive be known simply as 鈥淭he President of the 近距离内射合集 States.鈥� By that time, the point had become moot anyway because George Washington had expressed his preference for being addressed as 鈥淢r. President鈥� rather than 鈥淵our Eminence鈥� or 鈥淵our Majesty鈥� or any other variation reminiscent of royalty. What Washington understood, and what most Americans sensed in his presence, was that personal dignity and demeanor were far more consequential than lofty titles in garnering the respect of visiting princes and potentates. And in Washington, as one contemporary observed, 鈥渧irtue was personified,鈥� which alone was enough to convey the dignity of the republic.
Adams suffered for his vanity. At best, he looked foolish. Political adversaries made him the butt of their jokes, referring to the portly vice president as 鈥淗is Rotundity鈥� behind his back. At worst, Adams鈥檚 behavior deepened the suspicion that he harbored monarchical ambitions. In the aftermath, he felt compelled to remind his associates that he was unwavering in his devotion to the 鈥減rinciples of 1776鈥� and pleading with them to remember that he remained an 鈥渋rreconcilable enemy to monarchy.鈥� But it was too little, too late. Washington dismissed the fuss over titles as silly and said that Adams鈥檚 role in the affair had made him 鈥渙dious.鈥� Washington subsequently distanced himself from his vice president.
How far have we descended from the original. Our current president thinks that the dignity of the nation requires him to be ferried around in a hand-me-down luxury jetliner 鈥済ifted鈥� by a Qatari prince, that the dignity of the nation will be bolstered by a 90,000-square-foot ballroom resembling the grand ballroom that Audrey Hepburn graced in the movie 鈥淢y Fair Lady,鈥� and that the dignity of the nation is advanced by the gilded ornaments and doodads cluttering the Oval Office. All of this suggests that our priorities are woefully reversed. For Americans, as James Madison explained during the furor over titles, 鈥渢he more simple鈥� we are, the 鈥渕ore national dignity we shall acquire.鈥� Adams did not understand this, and his reputation never recovered from the part he played in the titles controversy. Worrying about his legacy, he instructed his friends not to 鈥渕isrepresent me to posterity.鈥� But history has not judged John Adams kindly. How will it judge us?
Mel Yazawa is Professor Emeritus of History at the University of New Mexico and the author of Contested Conventions: The Struggle to Establish the Constitution and Save the Union, 1787-1789.
