Talk:United States Secretary of State
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Secretaries of State holding on in inaugural transition
Okay, can , Buchanan, Clayton, Marcy, Black, Fish, Evarts, Frelinghuhysen, Bayard, Olney, Bacon, and Knox (and Kellogg), really be said meaningfully to have served under Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, Buchanan, Lincoln, Hayes, Garfield, Cleveland, Harrison, McKinley, Taft, and Wilson (and Hoover)? They all served for a couple of days under the new president before the new secretary of state was confirmed. Should this really count? Doesn't it confuse more than it explicates? john k 11:57, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- John Kenney just cleaned up the above list. (Talk about patience! He waited over six months to make a change that he had suggested.) I just added a footnote to the relevant rows indicating that the Secretary of State did serve briefly under a successor President until a replacement could be named under the theory that (a) it's more accurate and (b) it prevents somebody from "fixing" Mr. Kenney's change. — DLJessup 15:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
- Sounds good to me. What do you think should be done about John Clayton? He was appointed by Taylor, and served a few days under Fillmore. But unlike the ones that I changed, Fillmore was a VP who succeeded on his predecessor's death. And he served nearly two weeks. I'm not sure how this should be done. john k 17:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't see any reason that we couldn't attach footnote [1] (which doesn't mention the method by which the president entered office) to Clayton as well, so long as we kick up the time listed in the footnote to 2 weeks. Alternatively, we could attach a separate footnote [2] to John Clayton, mentioning that Clayton served nearly two weeks after Taylor's death. — DLJessup 22:56, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
[edit] Powell/Rice transition
Just want to note: according to the Department of State, Colin Powell's term of appointment ended on January 26, 2005. This means that Richard Armitage was not the Acting Secretary and I will therefore remove him momentarily.
— DLJessup 00:23, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Additional list suggested
Anonymous user 69.132.143.252 made the following suggestion on the article's main page at 02:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC). I have moved it here, where it is more appropriate:
We need to add the list of Secretaries of State who have run and/or won the United States' Presidency: Please ADD/EDIT the following information in editing... Former Secretary of State/Candidate (Years Sec of State) (PARTY) Election Year (PARTY NOMINATION: YES/NO?) Elected President: Yes/No? Example below: |Thomas Jefferson |March 22, 1790 – December 31, 1793 |Democrat-Republican, |Election of 1820, |Party Nomination: YES, |Elected President: YES
— DLJessup (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] US/British comparison
About this this paragraph :-
- The title of Secretary of State is British in origin. At the time of American independence, "Secretary of State" was a title given to senior members of the King's cabinet (e.g., "Secretary of State in Charge of Colonies"). The position of "Secretary of State of The United States" was thus intended to be the most general and important office in the US government, behind the Presidency.
It would seem to me, with the 'Secretary of Foreign Affairs' -> 'Secretary of State' change happening at the same time as 'Department of Foreign Affairs' -> 'Department of State', that the similarity in the titles is a mere coincedence, especially as the already established usage of 'Secretary of State for X' was not followed with other departments. Anyone? Morwen - Talk 17:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's not really that simple. The idea that Secretaryships of State should be separate in terms of "Secretary of State for X" was not established until 1782. Previously, there had been two Secretaries of State, one of them in charge of matters relating to Northern England, Scotland (when there wasn't a separate Scottish secretary), and northern Europe; and the other in charge of Southern England, Wales, the colonies (until 1768, when a separate colonial secretary of state was established - but this position was abolished in 1782), and southern Europe. Both secretaries of state thus dealt with both foreign and domestic policy. Early on, it would appear that the U.S. Secretary of State also dealt with some matters of domestic policy - Madison having to give out judges' commissions at the time of Marbury v. Madison, for instance. One could also note the office of Secretary of State in individual U.S. states, which has nothing to do with foreign affairs (which, obviously, states do not have). I don't think the similarity of titles could possibly be a coincidence - most certainly the title derived from British models. On the other hand, this probably should be sourced. john k 17:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] James Monroe
Can someone explain James Monroe's two terms as Secretary of State? Weren't they just one term? Or did he resign, was reappointed, or something like that?—Mark Adler (markles) 03:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] So... what do they do...?
This article ownly says the Sec of State deals with "foreign affairs." the only other mention of their duties is accepting a president's resignation. Please expand the article on what the Sec actually does. KI 22:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion of Asst. Secretary subhead
I deleted this subhead which came from an anon user around 10 Feb. While the information was factually correct, it didn't add anything to the article. Without a knowledge of the structure of the department, and without explaination here, it served only to confuse readers. If a breakdown of under- and assistant secretaries needs to be made, it should be done under the Department of State article—User:hwonder 10:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] John Jay
John Jay was elected secretary of Foreign Affairs in 1785 by the Continental Congress, and served until Thomas Jefferson came back from France in 1790. During this time, he was technically Secretary of State from the moment the name was changed until Jefferson took the oath of office (assuming that he had to). Shouldn't he be there as either number one or number zero?Ericl 19:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
