Appointment Policy Before Jackson

It is delightful to observe with what a scrupulous conscientiousness the early Presidents of this Republic disposed of the places in their gift.

Continuing Andrew Jackson Becomes President,
our selection from Life of Andrew Jackson by James Parton published in 1860. The selection is presented in five easy 5 minute installments. For works benefiting from the latest research see the “More information” section at the bottom of these pages.

Previously in Andrew Jackson Becomes President.

Time: 1829

Webster, in his serio-comic manner, remarks: “I never saw such a crowd here before. Persons have come five hundred miles to see General Jackson, and they really seem to think that the country is rescued from some dreadful danger!”

The ceremony over, the President drove from the Capitol to the White House, followed soon by a great part of the crowd who had witnessed the inauguration. Judge Story, a strenuous Adams man, did not enjoy the scene which the apartments of the “palace,” as he styles it, presented on this occasion. “After the ceremony was over,” he wrote, “the President went to the palace to receive company, and there he was visited by immense crowds of all sorts of people, from the highest and most polished, down to the most vulgar and gross in the nation. I never saw such a mixture. The reign of ‘King Mob’ seemed triumphant. I was glad to escape from the scene as soon as possible.”

Constitution-makers do all they can to support the weakness of human virtue when subjected to the temptations of power and place. But virtue cannot be dispensed with in this world. No system of “checks and balances” can be made so perfect but that much must be left, after all, to the honor of governing per sons.

Among the powers entrusted to the honor of Presidents of the United States was the dread power of removing from office, without trial or notice, the civil employees of the Government. In the army and navy, no officer can be cashiered, no private dismissed, without trial -— without being heard in his defense. In the civil service of the country, every man holds his place at the will of the head of government.

This fearful power over the fortunes of individuals and the happiness of families is held, necessarily, in our present imperfect civilization, by a large number of persons in private life; and it is one of the ten thousand proofs of the inherent loving-kind ness of human nature that this power is generally exercised with a considerable regard for the feelings, the necessities, and the rights of the employed. The claim of old servants to indulgence and protection is almost universally recognized. The right, of a person about to be dismissed from an employment, to as long a notice of dismission beforehand as can be conveniently given, few persons are unfeeling enough to deny. The good policy of holding out to the faithful employee the prospect of a permanent retention of his place, and his promotion, by and by, to a better, no one but a politician has been foolish enough to question.

It does not appear to have occurred to the gentlemen who formed the Constitution under which we live, that there could ever be a President of the United States who would abuse the power of removal. His own responsibility for the conduct of those whom he appointed was supposed to be sufficient to make him careful to appoint the right men to the right places; and his feelings, as a man and a gentleman, were deemed an adequate protection to those right men in their right places.

It is delightful to observe with what a scrupulous conscientiousness the early Presidents of this Republic disposed of the places in their gift. Washington set a noble example. He demanded to be satisfied on three points with regard to an applicant for office: Is he honest? Is he capable? Has he the confidence of his fellow-citizens? Not till these questions were satisfactorily answered did he deign to inquire respecting the political opinions of a candidate. Private friendship between the President and an applicant was absolutely an obstacle to his appointment, so fearful was the President of being swayed by private motives. “My friend,” he says, in one of his letters, “I receive with cordial welcome. He is welcome to my house, and welcome to my heart; but with all his good qualities he is not a man of business. His opponent, with all his politics so hostile to me, is a man of business. My private feelings have nothing to do in the case. I am not George Washington, but President of the United States. As George Washington, I would do this man any kindness in my power —- as President of the United States, I can do nothing.” There spoke the man who was a gentleman to the core of his heart.

If General Washington would not appoint a friend because he was a friend, nor a partisan because he was a partisan, still less was he capable of removing an enemy because he was an enemy, or an opponent because he was an opponent. During his administration of eight years, he removed nine persons from office; namely, six unimportant collectors, one district surveyor, one vice-consul, and one foreign minister. We all know that he recalled Charles C. Pinckney from Paris because that conservative gentleman was offensive to the French Directory. The other dismissals were all “for cause.” Politics had nothing to do with one of them.

The example of George Washington was followed by his successors. John Adams doubted, even, whether it was strictly proper for him to retain his son in a foreign employment to which President Washington had appointed him. He removed nine subordinate officers during his Presidency, but none for political opinion’s sake. Jefferson, owing to peculiar circumstances well known to readers of history, removed thirty-nine persons; but he himself repeatedly and solemnly declared that not one of them was removed because he belonged to the party opposed to his own. The contrary imputation he regarded in the light of a calumny, and refuted it as such. In one respect Jefferson was even over scrupulous. He would not appoint any man to office, however meritorious, who was a relative of his own. Madison made five removals; Monroe, nine; John Quincy Adams, two. Calhoun tells us that during the seven years that he held the office of Secretary of War only two of his civil subordinates were removed, both for improper conduct. In both cases, he adds, the charges were investigated in the presence of the accused, and ” he officers were not dismissed until after full investigation, and the reason of dismission reduced to writing and communicated to them.”* Colonel McKenney mentions, in his Memoirs, that when a vacancy occurred in one of the departments, the chief of that department would inquire among his friends for “a qualified” person to fill it.

[* Napoleon was a despot, it is said ; yet he never dismissed anyone from public office without an inquiry and report of facts, and rarely ever without hearing the accused functionary, never when the questions involved were civil or administrative.— Louis Napoleon.]

More information here and here, and below.

We want to take this site to the next level but we need money to do that. Please contribute directly by signing up at https://www.patreon.com/history