Latest / Sleepy Facts About History / How Did Fear of Monarchy Shape the Executive Branch? - Inventing the American Presidency | Sleepy Facts About History

Transcript

How Did Fear of Monarchy Shape the Executive Branch? - Inventing the American Presidency | Sleepy Facts About History · Sleepy Facts About History

0:00
Welcome to Sleepy Facts About History. In the
0:12
summer of 1787, 55 men gathered in a closed room
0:17
in Philadelphia to fix a government that was
0:20
failing. The Articles of Confederation had left
0:23
the United States with a national legislature
0:26
that could not enforce laws, collect money, or
0:30
raise troops. The delegates realized they needed
0:34
an executive branch. but they were deeply divided
0:37
on what that office should look like. This episode
0:40
explores the intense debates and compromises
0:43
that created the American presidency, from the
0:46
initial fear of monarchy to the accidental invention
0:48
of the Electoral College. The convention argued
0:52
over whether the executive should be one person
0:55
or a council, how the president should be chosen,
0:59
and how long the term should last. Delegates
1:03
like James Wilson, pushed for a single leader
1:06
who could act decisively while others warned
1:09
that concentrated power would lead back to royal
1:11
tyranny the resulting framework article the constitution
1:16
was remarkably brief and left vast areas of executive
1:20
power undefined the delegates knew they were
1:24
not finishing a design but creating a constitutional
1:27
arena for future generations to navigate I kept
1:32
returning to one question while working on this
1:35
episode. How do you build an office strong enough
1:38
to govern, but constrained enough to avoid dictatorship?
1:42
The founders relied heavily on their trust in
1:45
George Washington to exercise restraint while
1:48
leaving the rest of us to figure out the boundaries
1:51
they could not settle. It is a fascinating look
1:54
at how practical politics, exhaustion, and compromise
1:58
shaped an office that remains an unfinished experiment
2:01
today. In the summer of 1787, 55 men gathered
2:08
in a Philadelphia room with the windows closed.
2:12
They were not there to invent a presidency. They
2:15
were there to fix a government that was not governing.
2:18
The room itself was the Pennsylvania State House
2:22
Assembly Chamber, later known as Independence
2:24
Hall. Washington sat at the front, presiding
2:28
in a high -backed chair. The delegates arranged
2:31
themselves at small tables, quills and ink at
2:34
hand, papers scattered before them. Through the
2:38
long summer, the windows remained shut to prevent
2:41
eavesdropping. The air grew thick with tobacco
2:44
smoke and the smell of war coats in August heat.
2:48
Benjamin Franklin, at 81, was carried to sessions
2:52
in a sedan chair by prisoners from the nearby
2:54
Walnut Street Jail. Medicine sat near the front.
2:59
Taking notes in a shorthand he would later expand,
3:02
he was trying to capture the arguments as they
3:05
unfolded. The delicates were practical men. Many
3:09
of them were lawyers, merchants, planters, accustomed
3:12
to long negotiation. But they were also exhausted
3:16
men, meeting through a Philadelphia summer that
3:19
would prove unusually hot. They worked in secret,
3:23
aware that the government they had helped create
3:25
was failing. The Articles of Confederation which
3:30
had bound the states together since 1781 and
3:33
created a national assembly without any separate
3:36
executive. Congress could pass resolutions. It
3:41
could request money from the states. It could
3:44
negotiate treaties. But it could not compel anyone
3:48
to follow through. They ignored requisitions.
3:53
Treaties with foreign nations went unenforced.
3:57
Commercial disputes between states festered without
4:00
resolution. When Daniel Shays led an armed uprising
4:05
in Massachusetts during the winter of 1786 and
4:08
1787, the Confederation government could not
4:12
raise troops to respond. It could not even reliably
4:15
pay the debts it had accumulated during the Revolutionary
4:18
War. The men who arrived in Philadelphia that
4:22
May understood that something fundamental had
4:24
to change. What they did not understand... What
4:29
they argued about for four months was what an
4:32
American executive should actually be. This is
4:36
the story of how they built an office without
4:38
a blueprint. The problem they faced was not abstract.
4:43
Every delegate carried the memory of British
4:46
colonial rule. They had spent years protesting
4:49
the power of royal governors, of standing armies,
4:52
of a distant executive who could override local
4:55
assemblies. The state constitutions written during
5:00
and after the revolution reflected this fear.
5:03
Most created governors who were elected by legislatures,
5:06
stripped of significant veto power, surrounded
5:10
by councils that limited independent action.
5:13
The executives were deliberately weak because
5:16
the revolutionaries associated strong executive
5:19
power with tyranny. Yet by 1787, many of the
5:24
same men who had written those constitutions
5:26
had concluded that legislative supremacy had
5:29
produced its own failures congress under the
5:33
articles was a legislature without an executive
5:36
it had proven unable to act the convention's
5:41
first formal proposal for a new government the
5:44
virginia plan introduced by edmund randall for
5:47
may 29 confronted this tension directly Randolph's
5:52
plan called for a national executive chosen by
5:55
the national legislature, but it left almost
5:58
everything else undefined. The executive would
6:02
serve a fixed term, though the length was unspecified.
6:05
It would have a general authority to execute
6:08
the national laws, but what that meant in practice
6:12
remained unclear. The Virginia plan was not a
6:16
detailed design. It was a gesture toward the
6:20
principle that the new government needed someone.
6:22
some office capable of independent action. The
6:27
immediate question was whether that someone should
6:29
be one person or several. On June 1, James Wilson
6:34
of Pennsylvania moved that the executive consist
6:37
of a single person. Wilson was one of the few
6:41
delegates who had thought deeply about executive
6:43
power before arriving in Philadelphia. He had
6:47
studied the Scottish Enlightenment. read montague
6:50
and concluded that energy in the executive required
6:53
unity of person and responsibility a single executive
6:58
could act decisively a single executive could
7:02
be held accountable a council or plural executive
7:06
wilson argued would defuse responsibility invite
7:10
deadlock and shield individual members from public
7:13
judgment edmund randolph who had introduced the
7:17
virginia plan immediately objected A single executive,
7:21
he warned, was the fetus of monarchy. Randolph
7:25
spoke from the Virginia experience of royal governors,
7:28
from the fear that any concentrated power would
7:31
reproduce the patterns they had just escaped.
7:34
Other delegates echoed this concern. Some proposed
7:39
a plural executive, perhaps three persons drawn
7:43
from different regions, perhaps a council modeled
7:46
on some state constitutions. The New Jersey Plan,
7:50
introduced by William Patterson on June 15, proposed
7:54
a plural executive removable by Congress with
7:58
no independent authority beyond what the legislature
8:01
granted. The convention's vote on June 4 rejected
8:05
the plural executive, but the vote was closer
8:08
than later mythology suggests. It resolved almost
8:12
nothing beyond the basic form. The delegates
8:15
had agreed that the executive would be one person.
8:19
They had not agreed how that person would be
8:22
chosen, how long they would serve, whether they
8:26
could serve again, what powers they would possess,
8:29
or how they could be removed. Each of these questions
8:33
would require its own prolonged negotiation.
8:37
Each negotiation would expose deeper disagreements
8:40
about the nature of Republican government. The
8:43
selection method proved the most intractable.
8:47
Wilson favored direct popular election. He argued
8:51
that the executive should derive authority from
8:54
the people directly, not filtered through intermediate
8:57
bodies that would dilute responsibility. But
9:01
other delegates found this impractical or dangerous.
9:04
In a large, dispersed republic, how would voters
9:08
know the candidates? Would popular election not
9:11
favor those with regional reputations? leaving
9:14
smaller states and remote regions permanently
9:17
marginalized. Some delegates feared that direct
9:21
election would invite demagoguery. A popular
9:24
candidate might mobilize a mass following incompatible
9:28
with Republican stability. Legislative elections
9:32
seemed the obvious alternative. If Congress chose
9:36
the executive, the office would remain subordinate
9:39
to the legislature. This would preserve the principle
9:42
of legislative supremacy that many delegates
9:45
still favored. Roger Sherman of Connecticut argued
9:49
that the executive should be nothing more than
9:51
an institution for carrying the will of the legislature
9:54
into effect. Legislative selection would ensure
9:58
this subordination. But other delegates, including
10:02
Wilson and Gov. Morris, warned that legislative
10:06
election would make the executive dependent on
10:09
Congress. It would leave the executive vulnerable
10:12
to legislative manipulation and unable to check
10:16
legislative overreach. An executive chosen by
10:20
the legislature would serve the legislature,
10:23
not the nation. The convention initially voted
10:27
for legislative election on July 17. Then it
10:31
reconsidered and reversed itself. Then it reconsidered
10:35
again. Madison. watching from his seat near the
10:38
front recorded each reversal in his notes the
10:43
shorthand marks piled up as the delegates circled
10:46
the same problem they proposed various filtering
10:50
mechanisms election by state governors election
10:55
by electors chosen by state legislatures for
10:58
other purposes election by a combination of methods
11:03
nothing commanded sustained support The problem
11:08
was not merely practical. It was conceptual.
11:11
The delegates were trying to create an executive
11:14
that was independent enough to act, accountable
11:18
enough to be controlled, and representative enough
11:20
to claim democratic legitimacy. These three requirements
11:24
pulled in different directions. No single mechanism
11:29
satisfied all of them. The solution that emerged,
11:33
the Electoral College, arrived late and almost
11:36
accidentally. On September 4, less than two weeks
11:41
before the convention adjourned, the Committee
11:44
of Eleven reported a new selection mechanism.
11:48
Each state would appoint electors equal to its
11:51
congressional representation. These electors
11:54
would meet in their respective states and vote
11:56
for two persons, at least one of whom must be
11:59
from another state. The candidate with the most
12:02
votes would become president. The runner -up
12:06
would become vice president. If no candidate
12:10
received a majority, the House of Representatives
12:13
would choose from the top five, with each state
12:17
delegation casting one vote. This was not a coherent
12:21
theory of indirect election. It was a mechanism
12:25
assembled from rejected parts. The delegates
12:28
were exhausted. They had been meeting in secret
12:32
for nearly four months. The room was still hot,
12:36
the windows still closed, the air still thick.
12:40
They wanted to finish. The Electoral College
12:44
solved the immediate problem of selection without
12:47
requiring anyone to abandon their deeper principles.
12:50
It was not legislative election, but it was not
12:54
direct popular election either. It reserved state
12:58
influence without making the executive purely
13:00
a creature of state governments. It created a
13:04
filtering mechanism without specifying how the
13:06
filters would actually operate. The delegates
13:10
themselves did not fully understand how it would
13:12
work. When they debated the Committee of Eleven
13:15
report on September 6, questions arose that they
13:19
could not answer. How would electors be chosen
13:23
in practice? Would they exercise independent
13:26
judgment, or would they function as party agents?
13:30
What would happen if multiple candidates fragmented
13:33
the vote? The convention left these questions
13:36
unresolved. because resolving them would have
13:38
required agreements that did not exist. The Electoral
13:42
College was a compromise in the most literal
13:44
sense. It was a settlement that allowed the convention
13:48
to finish, not a design that expressed a shared
13:51
vision of democratic selection. The term of office
13:55
followed a similarly winding path. The delegates
13:59
revisited it repeatedly. Early proposals ranged
14:03
from three years to seven, with or without re
14:06
-election. Some delegates favored long terms
14:09
to encourage stability and attract qualified
14:12
candidates who might otherwise refuse to serve.
14:15
A seven -year term, they argued, would give an
14:18
executive sufficient independence from Congress
14:20
to act without fear of immediate political retaliation.
14:25
Others feared that such length would sever the
14:28
connection between the executive and public opinion.
14:31
It would create an isolated figure with too much
14:34
time to accumulate dangerous power. Re -eligibility
14:38
provoked its own disagreements. Some delegates
14:42
argued that prohibiting re -election would prevent
14:45
corruption. An executive seeking a second term
14:49
would be tempted to manipulate the selection
14:51
process to reward supporters, to transform the
14:55
office into a vehicle for personal ambition.
14:58
Others countered that re -eligibility was essential
15:01
to accountability. The prospect of continued
15:04
service would motivate good behavior. Denying
15:08
it would deprive the nation of experienced leadership
15:11
in times of crisis. The convention initially
15:14
approved a seven -year term with no re -election.
15:17
Then delegates reconsidered. The prohibition
15:21
on re -election seemed to create its own problems.
15:25
An executive with nothing to lose in a final
15:28
term might become reckless, unresponsive, even
15:31
dangerous. The convention reversed itself. Then
15:36
it settled on four years with no explicit restriction
15:39
on re -election only after repeated votes and
15:42
reconsiderations. The final arrangement owed
15:46
less to principle than to exhaustion. Four years
15:50
seemed long enough to provide stability, sure
15:53
enough to prevent the accumulation of dangerous
15:55
power. Religibility was left open because delegates
15:59
could not agree on a prohibition. and because
16:02
the Electoral College's practical operation remained
16:05
unclear. The two questions, how long the executive
16:10
would serve and how he would be chosen, were
16:13
intertwined in ways the delegates never fully
16:16
resolved. The veto power provoked equally fundamental
16:20
disagreement. Some delegates, influenced by the
16:24
British model, favoured an absolute veto that
16:27
would allow the executive to block any legislation.
16:31
Others found this incompatible. the Republican
16:33
government. The convention settled on a qualified
16:37
veto. The president could return legislation
16:41
to Congress with objections. Congress could override
16:45
with a two -thirds vote of both houses. The mechanism
16:49
worked as a physical process. A bill passed by
16:53
both houses would travel to the president's desk.
16:56
If he objected, he would return it with his reasons
16:59
stated in writing. Congress would then reconsider
17:03
the bill. in its original form. If two -thirds
17:07
of the House and two -thirds of the Senate approved
17:10
it again, the bill became law despite the President's
17:14
objection. This was not merely a compromise between
17:18
strength and weakness. It reflected an unresolved
17:22
theoretical question about the separation of
17:24
powers. Did the veto exist to protect the executive's
17:29
independent authority, to preserve a sphere of
17:32
action free from legislative intrusion? Or did
17:36
it serve as a check on hasty or oppressive legislation,
17:39
a tool for improving laws rather than defending
17:42
executive prerogative? The delegates held both
17:46
views. The constitutional text they produced
17:49
sustained both interpretations. Impeachment raised
17:54
the question of accountability in its most acute
17:57
form. What we know of this debate comes from
18:01
Madison's notes, which he revised later. and
18:04
which are not a verbatim transcript. According
18:07
to these notes, some delegates, notably Charles
18:11
Pinkney of South Carolina, argued that impeachment
18:14
was unnecessary and dangerous. The executive
18:17
served a limited term. Let the voters judge at
18:22
the next election. Impeachment would make the
18:25
executive dependent on the legislature, replicating
18:28
the parliamentary model that the convention was
18:30
trying to escape. But others... including George
18:35
Mason of Virginia, insisted that some mechanism
18:38
for removal was essential. What if the executive
18:41
committed treason, accepted bribes, or systematically
18:45
violated the law? Waiting for the next election
18:49
might permit dangerous misconduct to continue
18:52
unchecked. The convention ultimately included
18:55
impeachment for treason, bribery, or other high
18:59
crimes and misdemeanors. This was a phrase borrowed
19:03
from English parliamentary practice that the
19:05
delegates did not define. Its precise meaning
19:08
has been contested ever since, as later generations
19:12
have discovered that the Convention's language
19:13
created more questions than it answered. The
19:17
specific powers assigned to the executive when
19:19
negotiated separately each had its own history
19:23
of proposal and revision. The Commander -in -Chief
19:27
authority provoked particular anxiety. Delegates
19:30
remembered British military rule, the quartering
19:33
of soldiers, the use of armed force against civilian
19:37
populations. Yet they also recognized that the
19:40
Confederation's inability to raise or direct
19:43
troops had been a fatal weakness. The Convention
19:47
vested military authority in a civilian executive
19:50
subject to Congressional power to declare war
19:53
and raise armies. But the precise boundaries
19:56
between executive and legislative authority in
19:59
military affairs were left deliberately unclear.
20:02
The treaty power involved a distinct compromise.
20:06
The president would negotiate treaties, but they
20:10
would require the advice and consent of two -thirds
20:13
of the Senate to take effect. This division emerged
20:17
from competing fears. One fear was of executive
20:21
unilateralism in foreign affairs. The other was
20:25
of legislative incapacity to manage detailed
20:28
negotiations. The Senate, representing states
20:32
in their corporate capacity, would serve as a
20:34
check on hasty or self -serving agreements. The
20:38
President would provide the continuity and secrecy
20:41
that diplomatic negotiation required. The appointment
20:45
power followed a similar logic. The President
20:49
would nominate officers, but the Senate would
20:51
confirm them. This prevented the executive from
20:55
creating a dependent patronage network while
20:57
preserving the need for a single responsible
20:59
figure to identify qualified candidates. Each
21:04
of these powers, military, diplomatic, administrative,
21:07
represented a separate negotiation. Each was
21:11
a distinct attempt to balance energy in the executive
21:14
against fear of executive overreach. Throughout
21:19
these debates, one presence shaped discussions
21:21
even when it was not mentioned. George Washington
21:25
sat at the front of the room, presiding over
21:28
the convention with characteristic restraint.
21:31
He spoke rarely during the substantive debates,
21:34
but his presence was constant. Every delegate
21:38
understood that Washington would almost certainly
21:41
be the first person to hold whatever office they
21:44
created. This knowledge operated as a silent
21:47
assumption, enabling compromises that might otherwise
21:51
have been impossible. The delegates could accept
21:54
broad language about executive power because
21:56
they trusted Washington to exercise it responsibly.
22:00
They could accept re -eligibility because they
22:03
could not imagine Washington becoming a perpetual
22:05
incumbent, manipulating the Electoral College
22:09
to retain office indefinitely. They could accept
22:12
a strong commander -in -chief because they knew
22:15
Washington would not use military power against
22:17
civilian government. The office was, in a real
22:21
sense, written with Washington in mind. But the
22:25
Constitution they produced would outlast Washington.
22:29
It would bind future officeholders who did not
22:32
share his restraint, his popularity, or his commitment
22:36
to Republican norms. The delegates understood
22:40
this tension. They could not resolve it. They
22:44
could only trust that the mechanisms they created,
22:47
election, impeachment, the separation of powers,
22:51
would constrain future executives as circumstances
22:54
required. The final text of Article 2 reflected
22:59
these unresolved tensions. It is remarkably brief
23:03
compared to Article 1's detailed treatment of
23:05
Congress. It vests the executive power in a president
23:10
without defining what executive power comprehensively
23:14
includes. It specifies certain powers and duties.
23:19
Beto. Appointment. Treaty -making. Military command.
23:25
But it leaves others unmentioned. It creates
23:30
an office whose scope would depend heavily on
23:32
interpretation, precedent, and the political
23:35
struggles of subsequent generations. The delegates
23:39
who drafted Article Steinle language understood
23:42
that they had produced not a finished design
23:45
but a framework for future development. The presidency
23:48
was... As one historian has put it, a blank check
23:52
written with Washington's name on it, but cashable
23:56
by anyone who met the constitutional requirements.
24:00
This analogy captures something important about
24:03
the Convention's work, though it slightly overstates
24:06
the absence of constraints. The delegates did
24:10
specify powers and limits. They did create mechanisms
24:14
of accountability. But they also left vast areas
24:17
undefined. These were questions that would be
24:21
settled not by the text they wrote, but by the
24:24
practice of those who lived under it. The convention
24:28
adjourned on September 17, 1787. The constitution
24:32
they produced was sent to the states for ratification,
24:35
where it would face fierce debate. The Federalist
24:39
Papers, written to secure New York's ratification,
24:42
offered sophisticated defenses of the executive
24:45
design. But these were arguments for ratification.
24:50
not neutral descriptions of the Convention's
24:52
intent. They reflected their authors' particular
24:55
visions, shaped by immediate political necessity,
24:59
not a consensus that had existed in Philadelphia.
25:03
What the Convention actually created was an experiment.
25:07
It was an office strong enough to enforce law,
25:11
constrained enough to avoid monarchy, but whose
25:14
precise boundaries remained contested from the
25:17
moment of its creation. The presidency that emerged
25:21
in 1787 was not the modern presidency. It was
25:25
not even the presidency of Washington's administration,
25:28
which would begin to fill in some of the constitutional
25:31
blanks through practice and precedent. It was
25:35
a constitutional arena. It was a set of institutional
25:39
arrangements within which struggles over executive
25:42
power would continue for generations. The delegates
25:46
knew this. They were not naive about what they
25:50
had made. There were practical men who had done
25:53
what practical men do when faced with intractable
25:56
disagreement. They built something that could
25:59
function. They deferred questions they could
26:03
not answer. They trusted that future experience
26:06
would provide guidance they lacked. The presidency
26:10
they invented was a bundle of compromises shaped
26:13
by fear of monarchy, memory of colonial experience,
26:17
failure of the articles and the contingent presence
26:21
of a man everyone trusted its broad language
26:24
created space for development but also for contestation
26:28
its ambiguities would be exploited and resisted
26:32
interpreted and reinterpreted as different office
26:35
holders congresses courts and crises confronted
26:39
questions the delegates had deliberately or inadvertently
26:42
left unanswered this is why the presidency remains
26:47
in essential respects, an unfinished constitutional
26:49
experiment. The office created in Philadelphia
26:53
during that hot summer of 1787 was not a solution
26:57
to the problem of executive power in a republic.
27:00
It was a provisional settlement, a framework
27:03
for ongoing negotiation. Its meaning would be
27:07
made not by the framers who designed it, but
27:10
by the generations who lived with it. The delegates
27:14
gave the new nation an executive. What that executive
27:18
would become? What powers it would claim? What
27:21
constraints would prove durable? These were questions
27:25
they left for others to answer, in circumstances
27:28
they could not foresee, through struggles they
27:31
could not prevent.