The Historical Presidency: “Generalissimo of the Nation”: War Making and the Presidency in the Early Republic

Abstract

This article explores the nature of congressional-presidential relations regarding war making in the early republic. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, I argue that Congress was not primary in war making during this period. Examining small wars, particularly those against native tribes, demonstrates how little influence Congress had, with oversight generally occurring only after the fact. Rhetorical presidential support for Congress's role did not accord with their practical readiness to initiate and manage hostilities unilaterally. The willingness of modern presidents to act without congressional consent is therefore not necessarily a historical aberration.

The Historical PresidencyPresidential Incentives, Bureaucratic Control, and Party Building in the Republican Era

“…Importantly, the results also reveal that presidents appeared to be successful in using the bureaucracy to meet these goals. Consistent with research that calls into question periodization schemes that distinguish modern presidents from their predecessors (Adler ; Ellis and Walker ; Galvin and Shogan ; Klinghard ; Skowronek , ; Young ), the findings presented in this article suggest that nineteenth‐century presidents were more central in directing government activity than is generally recognized, though their efforts may have been in service of different goals.…”

“…These questions—all of which concern core components of research programs on political institutions—can be studied by more thoroughly integrating political history with approaches used to study contemporary institutions. Scholars such as Adler (), Ellis and Walker (), Galvin and Shogan (), and Klinghard () have provided rich and nuanced accounts of presidential behavior in earlier points in history, while the evidence in support of theories about presidential action in the modern era tends to be largely quantitative in nature (e.g., Berry, Burden, and Howell ; Cameron ; Canes‐Wrone ; Howell ; Howell, Jackman, and Rogowski ; Kriner and Reeves ; Lowande ). Following the approaches described by Wawro and Katznelson (), scholarship on the presidency could be meaningfully advanced by combining detailed, historical knowledge with quantitative approaches designed specifically to explore how institutional changes affected political outcomes of interest.…”

Presidential Influence in an Era of Congressional Dominance

“…This article provides systematic empirical evidence in support of a growing chorus of research that raises questions about the utility of the modern presidency paradigm (Adler 2013; Cohen 2012; Ellis and Walker 2007; Galvin and Shogan 2004; Klinghard 2010; Korzi 2004; Laracey 2002; Skowronek 1992; 1993; 2002; Young 2011). While the challenges facing the country in the wake of two world wars and the Great Depression may have indeed exalted presidential power, the evidence suggests that the divide between premodern and modern presidencies may not be as dramatic or as deep as scholarship on the presidency indicates.…”

“…In Constitutional Government Wilson (1908) articulated a new vision of the American political order that placed the president squarely at the center, and Lowi (1986, vii) described the realization of this vision as the founding of a "Second Republic." However, a range of scholars have questioned the merits of such a bifurcacted periodization, arguing instead that many elements of the modern presidency appeared far earlier in history than generally acknowledged (Adler 2013;Cohen 2012;Ellis and Walker 2007;Galvin and Shogan 2004;Klinghard 2005;Korzi 2004;Laracey 2002;Young 2011) and calling for a reconceptualization of the links between the historical and contemporary presidency (Skowronek 1993;. However, a range of scholars have questioned the merits of such a bifurcacted periodization, arguing instead that many elements of the modern presidency appeared far earlier in history than generally acknowledged (Adler 2013;Cohen 2012;Ellis and Walker 2007;Galvin and Shogan 2004;Klinghard 2005;Korzi 2004;Laracey 2002;Young 2011) and calling for a reconceptualization of the links between the historical and contemporary presidency (Skowronek 1993;.…”

“…In Constitutional Government Wilson (1908) articulated a new vision of the American political order that placed the president squarely at the center, and Lowi (1986, vii) described the realization of this vision as the founding of a “Second Republic.” Reflecting on these developments, proponents of the modern presidency thesis argued that “the transformation of the office has been so profound that the modern presidencies have more in common with one another in the opportunities they provide and the demands they place on their incumbents than they have with the entire sweep of traditional presidencies from Washington’s to Hoover’s” (Greenstein 1982, 3). However, a range of scholars have questioned the merits of such a bifurcacted periodization, arguing instead that many elements of the modern presidency appeared far earlier in history than generally acknowledged (Adler 2013; Cohen 2012; Ellis and Walker 2007; Galvin and Shogan 2004; Klinghard 2005; 2010; Korzi 2004; Laracey 2002; Young 2011) and calling for a reconceptualization of the links between the historical and contemporary presidency (Skowronek 1993; 2002).…”