Thread replies: 3
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: 1454988452184.png (949KB, 912x905px) Image search:
[Google]
949KB, 912x905px
>The House wanted nothing to do with the idea. James Madison,
then serving as a representative from Virginia, scorned Adams’s
effort.5 ‘‘The more simple, the more republican we are in our manners,’’
Madison told his colleagues, ‘‘the more national dignity we
shall acquire.’’6 When the joint committee recommended against
‘‘annex[ing] any style or title to [those] expressed in the Constitution,’’
the House unanimously adopted the committee’s report.
>Yet, Adams wouldn’t take no for an answer. At his urging, the
Senate appointed a new Title Committee, which on May 9 proposed
that the president be addressed as ‘‘His Highness, the President of
the United States, and Protector of their Liberties.’’7 When the Senate
moved to postpone consideration of the report, Adams launched into
a ‘‘forty minute . . . harangue’’ on the ‘‘absolute necessity’’ of titles.
Was Adams actually autistic?
>>
>>3367610
No he was not acoustic. This was in the aftermath of the articles of confederation failing, and the US still being under threat from Britain. The US being unified would help in making the US more resilient against foreign threat. Affording lofty titles to the president can in fact help raise his prestige and ability to command. Why do you think monarchs throughout history have had high titles and displayed wealth and regalness publicly?
>>
>>3367662
Yes and he sought to remedy the crisis by going into an autistic fit about his lack of title.
Adams was respected by nobody and this interaction with the senate (that was largely federalist even) shows this.
>Why do you think monarchs throughout history have had high titles and displayed wealth and regalness publicly?
Don't think copying monarchs was such a good idea in early U.S., in fact the very thing Adams was proposing was clearly unconstitutional.
Thread posts: 3
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1