Duties
of American Citizenship
Buffalo, New York January 26, 1883
Of course, in a sense, the essential first man
to be a good citizen is his possession of the home virtues which we think when
we call a man by the emphatic adjective of manly. No man can be a good citizen
who is not a good husband and good father, who is not honest in its dealings
with other men and women, loyal to his friends and fearless in the presence of
his enemies , who has not had a sound heart, a healthy mind and a healthy body,
just as no amount of attention to civil rights will save a nation where
domestic life is undermined, or there is a lack of virtues harsh military alone
can ensure the position of a country in the world. In a free republic the ideal
citizen must be willing and able to take up arms in defense of the flag, just
as the ideal citizen must be the father of many healthy children. A race must
be strong and vigorous, it must be a race of good fighters and good breeders,
else its wisdom will come to naught and its virtue ineffective, and no
sweetness and delicacy, no love and appreciation beauty in art or literature,
no capacity for up material prosperity cannot atone for the lack of big manly
virtues.
But this is outside my subject, for what I am
talking about the attitude of the American citizen in civic life. It should be
obvious in this country that every man must devote a reasonable share of his
time doing his duty in the political life of the community. No man has the
right to shirk his political duties under whatever plea of pleasure or
business, and if such a steal can be forgiven to those of small cleans it is
entirely unforgivable those among whom it is more common in people whose
circumstances give them freedom in the struggle for life. Insofar as the
community grows to think rightly, it will also grow to consider ways of the
young man who escapes his duty to the state in times of peace as being only one
degree worse than the man who So he escapes in time of war. Many of our men in
business, or our young men who are determined to enjoy life (as they have every
right to do so only if they do not sacrifice other things to enjoyment), rather
pride themselves on being good citizens if they even vote, the vote is still
the least of their duties, Nothing to win is never gained without effort. You cannot
have freedom without effort and pain for her that you can gain success as a
banker or a lawyer without work and effort, without self-denial in youth and
the display of intelligence and alert ready to mature. People who say they do
not have time to attend to politics are simply saying they are unfit to live in
a free community. Their place is under the despotism, or whether they simply do
nothing but vote, you can take despotism tempered by an occasional plebiscite,
like Napoleon seconds. In one of the beautiful stanzas Lowell on the Civil War,
he speaks of the fact that his countrymen were then learning, that freedom is
not a gift that long delays in the hands of cowards: nor yet it soon long in
the hands of the lazy and idle in the hands of man so absorbed in the pursuit
of pleasure or the pursuit of gain, or so wrapped in his own home life easier
than being unable to take his part in the fight hard with fellow men for
political supremacy. If freedom is useful to have, if the right to
self-government is a valuable right, then both should be retained exactly as
our ancestors have acquired through work, and especially by the work in the
organization, which is combined with our fellows who have similar interests and
the same principles. We should not accept the excuse of the businessman who
attributed his failure to the fact that its social functions are very nice and
exciting that he had no time left for work in his office, nor we pay much
attention to his statement he also did not like business anyway because he
thought the morals of the business community in any way what they should be,
and I saw that the great successes were most often won by the men of mark Jay
Gould. It is the same way with politics. You feel half angry, half amused and
wholly contemptuous, to find businessmen or high social status in the community
saying they have not really had time to hunt meetings, to organize political
clubs, and take a personal hand in all the important details of practical
politics, the men who further urge against their will that they believe the
condition of political morality low, and they are afraid they may be required
to do what is not right if they go into politics.
The first duty of an American citizen, then,
is that it must work in politics, his second duty is that he must do this work
in a practical way, and the third is this must be done in accordance with the
highest principles of honor and justice. Of course, it is not possible to
define rigidly just the way the work should be practical. Mood of each
individual man and convictions must be taken into account. To some extent his work
must be done in accordance with its individual beliefs and theories of good and
evil. To a large extent even greater, it must be done in combination with
others, assign or change some of its own theories and beliefs so as to enable
it to stand on common ground with others , which also yielded or modified
certain of their theories and beliefs. It is not necessary to dogmatize on the
independence on the one hand or party allegiance on the other. There are
occasions where it may be the highest duty of every man to act outside and
against parties with whom he has himself been hitherto identified, and there
may be many more occasions when it’s over great duty is to sacrifice some of
his own cherished opinions for the sake of the success of the party which he believes
to be the whole law. I do not think the average citizen, at least in one of our
major cities, can do very well in support of his own party all the time on
every issue, local and otherwise, in any case if he can do, he was more happily
placed than I have been. Secondly, I am fully convinced that the best people to
work must be organized, and of course an organization is really a party,
whether a large organization covering the whole nation and numbering its
millions of membership, or association of citizens in a particular locality,
came together to win certain victory specific, as, for example, that the
municipal reform. Someone said that racing yacht, like a good rifle, is a set
of incompatibilities you need to get the maximum power sailing possible without
sacrificing some other quality, if you really get the power larger sail, which,
in a word you need to do more or less a compromise on each in order to acquire
the dozen things necessary, but, of course, to make this compromise, you must
be very careful for the good of something unimportant not to sacrifice one of
the main principles of successful naval architecture. Well, it is about so that
political work of a man. He learned to preserve its independence on the one
hand, and on the other hand, unless he wants to be a wholly ineffective crank,
he got to have a sense of allegiance to a party and responsibility of the
parties, and he had to realize that in any given requirement, it may be a
matter of duty to sacrifice quality, or it may be a matter of duty to sacrifice
the other.
If it is difficult to establish fixed rules
for party action in the abstract, it would of course be totally impossible to
set them for the Party’s action in concrete, referring to organizations TODAY ‘
Today. I think we should be open minded enough to recognize that a good
citizen, to fight with courage, honesty and common sense to do his best for the
nation, can accommodate the many ways in different, and connecting with many
different organizations. It is well for a man if he is able conscientiously to
feel that his views on major issues of the day, on issues like the tariff,
finance, immigration, regulation of the liquor traffic, and others like them,
are such as to bring it into line with most of those of his fellow citizens
that make up one of the greatest parties: but it is perfectly supposable that
he may feel so strongly for or against certain principles held by a party, or
certain principles held by the other, he is incapable of giving either full
membership. In this case, I feel he has no right to plead the lack of agreement
with either party as an excuse to abstain from active political work before the
election. It will, of course, to prohibit him from the primaries in both major
parties, and prevent him from doing his part in organizing their management,
but unless it’s very unfortunate, it can certainly find some number of men who
are in the same position as himself and who agree with him on specific parts of
the political work, and they can turn in practically and effectively long
before the election to try to this new piece of work in a practical way.
A warning apparently very necessary to decide
is that a man who goes into politics should not expect to reform everything at
once, with a jump. I know many excellent young men who, when awakened by the
fact that they neglected their political duties, feel an immediate impulse to
form themselves into an organization which shall forthwith purify politics
everywhere, national, state, and the city as well, and I know a man who, after
having gone around once in a primary, and after, of course, not been able to
accomplish anything in a place where he knew no one and could not combine with
anyone, returned saying it was totally unnecessary for a good citizen to try to
accomplish something so. For these people too optimistic or too easily
discouraged, I always feel like reading Artemus Ward article on the people of
his city who gathered at a meeting to resolve that the city should support the
Union and war civil, but were unwilling to take part in ending the rebellion
unless they could go as brigadier-generals. After the battle of Bull Run, there
were hundreds of thousands of good young men in the North who felt it was their
duty to enter the Northern armies, but none of them who possessed much
intelligence should be held high at the outset, or anticipated that individual
action would be of decisive importance in a given campaign. He went as a
private or a sergeant, lieutenant or captain, as the case may be, and did his
duty in his company in his regiment, after a while in his brigade. When Ball
Bluff and Bull Run succeeded the utter failure of the campaign of the
peninsula, where the terrible defeat of Fredericksburg was followed by the
scarcely less disastrous day at Chancellorsville, he has not announced (if it
had some courage or virility of him) that he considered it quite useless for
any self-respecting citizen to enter the army of the Potomac, because he was
not really a lot of weight in its councils, and not approve of his management,
he just bit the bullet and has stubbornly on his duty, grieving over, but not
discouraged by the countless shortcomings and follies committed by those who
helped guide the destinies of the army, while recognizing also bravery,
patience, intelligence, and resolution with which other men in high places
offset the follies and weaknesses and persevering with equal mind through
triumph and defeat until that finally he saw the tide of failure turn at
Gettysburg and the full flood of victory come with Appomattox.
I wish more of our good citizens would go into
politics, and would it do in the same spirit with which their fathers went to
the Federal armies. Start with the little, and do not expect to accomplish
anything without an effort. Of course, if you go first once, never bothered to
know one of the others you will find yourself quite moved, but if you continue
to participate and try to form associations with other men whom you meet at
political rallies, or you can convince to attend, you will very soon find
yourself a weight. Similarly, if a man believes that the policy of his city,
for example, are very corrupt and wants to reform them, it would be a great
idea for him to start his district. If he joins others who think as he does, to
form a club where abstract political virtue will be discussed, it can do much
good. We need these clubs, but he must also learn to know his own parish or
neighborhood, putting themselves in communication with the honestly in this
district, we can be assured that there will be many, willing and able to
something practical for procurance better government he set to work to procure
a better assemblyman or better alderman before he tries his hand at making a
mayor, a governor, or president. If it starts at the top, it can make a
brilliant temporary success, but chances are a thousand against one that will
ultimately defeated, and never the good it does stand on the same basis
substantial and continuous as if started at the bottom. Of course, one or two
of its efforts may be failures, but if he has the right stuff in him, he will
go ahead and do his duty regardless of whether it meets the success or defeat.
He is perfectly entitled to consider the question of failure while shaping
efforts to succeed in a struggle for the right, but there should be no
consideration of what it is when the question is whether we should or should
not be a struggle for the right. Once a band of one hundred and fifty or two
hundred honest, intelligent, who know their business and profession is in a district,
either in one of the regular organizations or outside, you can guarantee that
local politicians in this area will begin to treat it with a mixture of fear,
hatred, and respect, and that its influence will be felt, and that while
sometimes men will be elected to office in defiance of his wishes, most often
selected candidates will feel that they must pay some regard to its
requirements for public decency and honesty.
But by advising you to be practical and work
hard, I must not for one moment be understood as advising you to abandon one
iota of your self-respect and devotion to principle. It is a bad sign for the
country to see a class of our citizens sneer at practical politicians, and
another Sunday school policy. No man can be both an effective and decent work,
in public life unless it is a practical politician, on the one hand, and a
strong believer in Sunday school politics on the other. He must always strive
manfully for the better, and yet, like Abraham Lincoln, must often resign
themselves to accept the best possible. Of course, when a man confined to
higher ground as a statesman, when he becomes a leader, he must often consult
with others and rely on their opinion, and must continually be s install it in
his mind how he can go in a little deference to the desires and prejudices of
others while still adhering to its own moral standards: but I do not speak so
much of such men as I do the citizen Ordinary, who wants to do his duty as a
member of the Commonwealth in its civic life and to this man I think the only
quality which must always be the most important is that of disinterestedness.
If he starts to feel when he wants the office itself, with a will to recover
the cost of his convictions, or keep it when obtained at the cost of his
convictions, his usefulness is gone. Let him take his party to do his duty in
politics, regardless of office attire at all, and let him know that often the
men in this country who have done the best job for our public life n ‘ men were
not in place. If, on the other hand, he reached the position of the public, do
not let him try to plan for himself a career. I do not think every man should
consider letting his political career as a livelihood, or as his sole
occupation in life, because if he does, he immediately becomes most seriously
handicapped. When he begins to think how such and such an act will have an
impact on his constituents, or will affect some great political leader who will
influence his destiny, he is shackled and his hands are tied . Not only can it
be his duty often to disregard the will of politicians, but it may be his plain
duty at times to ignore the wishes of the people. The people’s voice is not
always the voice of God, and when it happens to be the voice of the devil, he
is clearly the duty of man to defy his orders. Different political conditions
breed various hazards. The demagogue is as ugly a creature as the courtier, if
one is promoted through the Republican and the other under monarchical
institutions. There is every reason why a man should have a honorable ambition
to enter public life, and an honorable ambition to stay there when it happens,
but he must take his party that cares about that as an it can hang in there on
his own terms, without sacrificing his own principles, and if he do so his mind,
he can really accomplish twice as much for the nation, and may reflect a
hundred times more honor on himself, in a short term of service, what can the
man who becomes gray in the public employment at the sacrifice of what he
believes to be true and honest. And besides, when an official has definitely
made up his mind that he will not pay attention to his own future, but it will
do what he honestly believes to be best for the community, regardless of how
its actions can affect its prospects, not only it becomes infinitely more
useful as an official, but it has a much better time. He was released from care
to harass the party that is inevitably the one who is trying to shape his sails
to catch every gust of wind of political favor.
But let me reiterate that, in virtue, it must
not become ineffective, and he should not apologize to evade duties by any
means of false he cannot do his homework and maintain his self-esteem. It makes
no sense, it can, and when he urges such a plea, it is a sign of pure laziness
and self-indulgence. And yet, beware how he became a critic of others’ actions,
rather than a doer of deeds himself, and to the extent that it does act as a
spokesman (and of course the carrier word has a very useful and necessary),
beware of indiscriminate censure, even more than of indiscriminate praise. The
screaming vulgarity of the foolish spread eagle orator who keeps shouting in
defiance Europe, praising everything American, good and bad, and feeling the
introduction of any reform, because it has already been tried successfully
abroad, is offensive and contemptible to the last degree, but after all it is
just as harmful as the moody, argumentative restless, giggling, and continues
to the refined, well-educated man, who is always attacking good and bad, which
America truly is suspicious, and in the true spirit of servile colonialism
considers us inferior to that of people around the water. It can be assumed
that the man who is always sneering at our public life and our public men is a
very bad citizen, and that it exerts little influence in the community is
exercised for evil. The public speaker or columnist who teaches men of
education that their proper attitude toward U.S. policy should be one of
aversion or indifference makes every effort to perpetuate and aggravate the
very evils which it is supposedly complained. Exactly as it is generally the
case that when a man mourns the decline of our civilization, he is himself,
physically, mentally and morally a first class type of decay, so it is usually the
case when a man is perpetually sneering at American politicians, whether worthy
or unworthy, it is itself a poor citizen and a friend of the very forces of
evil against which he professes to fight. Too often, these men seem to care
less for attacking bad men, as to ruin the character of good men with whom they
disagree on an issue of the pubis, and while their influence against evil is
almost zero, they are sometimes able to weaken the hands of the well by
withdrawing from the help they deserve, and they have therefore in the total
sum of the forces working for evil. They meet the prohibitionist policy, which
in a close fight between a man and a temperance alcohol seller diverts enough
votes from the former to elect the liquor seller Occasionally it is necessary
to beat a very good man , which is not good enough, even at the cost of
electing a bad one but we must recognize that it may be necessary only
occasionally and, in fact, I may say, only in very exceptional cases, and that,
in general, where it is done the effect is quite unhealthy in every way, and
those taking part to deserve the severest censure of all honest people.
Moreover, the very need of denouncing evil
makes it all the more wicked to weaken the effect of such denunciations by
denouncing also the good. It is the duty of all citizens, irrespective of
party, to denounce, and, so far as may be, to punish crimes against the public
on the part of politicians or officials. But exactly as the public man who
commits a crime against the public is one of the worst of criminals, so, close
on his heels in the race for iniquitous distinction, comes the man who falsely
charges the public servant with outrageous wrongdoing; whether it is done with
foul-mouthed and foolish directness in the vulgar and violent party organ, or
with sarcasm, innuendo, and the half-truths that are worse than lies, in some
professed organ of independence. Not only should criticism be honest, but it
should be intelligent, in order to be effective. I recently read in a religious
paper an article railing at the corruption of our public life, in which it
stated incidentally that the lobby was recognized as all-powerful in
Washington. This is untrue. There was a day when the lobby was very important
at Washington, but its influence in Congress is now very small indeed; and from
a pretty intimate acquaintance with several Congresses I am entirely satisfied
that there is among the members a very small proportion indeed who are
corruptible, in the sense that they will let their action be influenced by
money or its equivalent. Congressmen are very often demagogues; they are very
often blind partisans; they are often exceedingly short-sighted, narrow-minded,
and bigoted; but they are not usually corrupt; and to accuse a narrow-minded
demagogue of corruption when he is perfectly honest, is merely to set him more
firmly in his evil course and to help him with his constituents, who recognize
that the charge is entirely unjust, and in repelling it lose sight of the man's
real shortcomings. I have known more than one State legislature, more than one
board of aldermen against which the charge of corruption could perfectly legitimately
be brought, but it cannot be brought against Congress. Moreover these sweeping
charges really do very little good. When I was in the New York legislature, one
of the things that I used to mind most was the fact that at the close of every
session the papers that affect morality invariably said that particular
legislature was the worst legislature since the days of Tweed. The statement
was not true as a rule; and, in any event, to lump all the members, good and
bad, in sweeping condemnation simply hurt the good and helped the bad.
Criticism should be fearless, but I again reiterate that it should be honest
and should be discriminating. When it is sweeping and unintelligent, and
directed against good and bad alike, or against the good and bad qualities of
any man alike, it is very harmful. It tends steadily to deteriorate the
character of our public men; and it tends to produce a very unwholesome spirit
among young men of education, and especially among the young men in our
colleges.
Against nothing is fearless and specific
criticism more urgently needed than against the "spoils system,"
which is the degradation of American politics. And nothing is more effective in
thwarting the purposes of the spoilsmen than the civil service reform. To be
sure, practical politicians sneer at it. One of them even went so far as to say
that civil-service reform is asking a man irrelevant questions. What more
irrelevant question could there be than that of the practical politician who
asks the aspirant for his political favor - "Whom did you vote for in the
last election?" There is certainly nothing more interesting, from a
humorous point of view, than the heads of departments urging changes to be made
in their underlings, "on the score of increased efficiency" they say;
when as the result of such a change the old incumbent often spends six months
teaching the new incumbent how to do the work almost as well as he did himself!
Occasionally the civil-service reform has been abused, but not often. Certainly
the reform is needed when you contemplate the spectacle of a New York City
treasurer who acknowledges his annual fees to be eighty-five thousand dollars,
and who pays a deputy one thousand five hundred dollars to do his work-when you
note the corruptions in the New York legislature, where one man says he has a
horror of the Constitution because it prevents active benevolence, and another
says that you should never allow the Constitution to come between friends! All
these corruptions and vices are what every good American citizen must fight
against.
Finally, the man who wants to do his duty as a
citizen in our country must be imbued from beginning to end with the spirit of
Americanism. I say this not as a matter of spreading eagle rhetoric: I say this
soberly as a piece of down-to-fact, common sense advice, derived from my own
experience of others. Of course, the question of Americanism has several sides.
If a man is an educated man, he must show his Americanism does not happen then
misled and try to apply all the theories of political thinkers of other
countries, like Germany and France, our own terms quite different. He should
not get a fad, for example, on responsible government, and above all, it should
not, simply because he is intelligent, or a college professor well read in
political literature, try discuss our institutions when it has not had
knowledge of how they are worked. Again, if a rich man, a man of means and
time, he must really feel, not only affect to feel, that there is no social
differences obtain save such a man may in some do so himself by his own
actions. People sometimes ask me if there is not a prejudice against a man of
wealth and education in policy areas. I do not think there is, unless the man
in turn shows that the facts of his wealth and education as having giving him a
claim to superiority aside the merits, it is able to prove himself to have
become effective. Of course, if he feels he should have treated a little better
than a carpenter, a plumber or a butcher, who happens to be near him, he will
be thrown out of the race very quickly, and probably nearly enough, and if it
began to be seen and carefully condescend to these men, it turns out they do
not like this attitude even more. Do not let him think about the issue at all.
Let him go in the political game with the thought over these questions, a
college student gives the social situation of members of his own and rival
teams in a football game. As soon as he became interested in politics (and it
will soon take an interest not only because of politics but also to take a good
healthy interest in playing the game itself – an interest that is perfectly
normal and praiseworthy, and that only a crook would oppose), it will start to
work up the organization as to be more effective, and it will not do not care
who started working with him, except to the extent that this is a good boy and
an effective worker. Once upon a time a number of men who think as we do here
tonight (the numbers being myself) got hold of one of the city assembly of New
York, and ran a really great way, better than any other district assembly has never
been done before or since either party. We did it through hard work and good
organization, working practically, and yet by being honest and square in the
pattern and method: especially did we do it all by turning as the amortization
of Americans without regard distinctions of race origin. Among the many men who
have done much in organizing our victories was the son of a Presbyterian
minister, the nephew of a Hebrew rabbi, and two well-known Catholic gentlemen.
We also had a professor from Columbia College (stroke-oar of a university
team), a noted retail butcher, and the editor of a local newspaper German,
various brokers, bankers, lawyers, bricklayers and a stonemason who was
particularly helpful for us, although questions of theory rather than policy applied,
it had a decidedly socialist turn of mind.
Again, questions of race origin, like
questions of creed, must not be considered: we wish to do good work, and we are
all Americans, pure and simple. In the New York legislature, when it fell to my
lot to choose a committee - which I always esteemed my most important duty at
Albany - no less than three out of the four men I chose were of Irish birth or
parentage; and three abler and more fearless and disinterested men never sat in
a legislative body; while among my especial political and personal friends in
that body was a gentleman from the southern tier of counties, who was, I
incidentally found out, a German by birth, but who was just as straight United
States as if his ancestors had come over here in the Mayflower or in Henry
Hudson's yacht. Of course, none of these men of Irish or German birth would
have been worth their salt had they continued to act after coming here as
Irishmen or Germans, or as anything but plain straight-out Americans. We have
not any room here for a divided allegiance. A man has got to be an American and
nothing else; and he has no business to be mixing us up with questions of
foreign politics, British or Irish, German or French, and no business to try to
perpetuate their language and customs in the land of complete religious
toleration and equality. If, however, he does become honestly and in good faith
an American, then he is entitled to stand precisely as all other Americans
stand, and it is the height of un-Americanism to discriminate against him in
any way because of creed or birthplace. No spirit can be more thoroughly alien
to American institutions, than the spirit of the Know-Nothings.
To face the future and striving, each
according to the measure of its individual capacity, to work on the salvation
of our country, we should be neither pessimistic nor optimistic shy crazy. We
must recognize the dangers that exist and threaten us: we should neither
overestimate them nor shrink from them, but steadily giving them should
overcome and began to slaughter them. Serious dangers are not yet encountered
in the storm of the Republic – perils of political corruption, perils of
individual laziness, indolence and timidity, perils arising from the greed of
unscrupulous rich, and the anarchic violence of the poor-sighted and turbulent.
There is every reason why we should recognize them, but there is no reason why
we should fear or doubt our ability to overcome them, except that each will,
according to the measure of his ability, to full duty, and endeavor to live it
to earn the praise of being called a good American citizen.
The Congressional Evolution of the United States of America
Continental Congress of the United Colonies Presidents
Continental Congress of the United States Presidents
July 2, 1776 to February 28, 1781
202-239-1774 | Office
202-239-0037 | FAX
Dr. Naomi and Stanley Yavneh Klos, Principals
Continental Congress of the United Colonies Presidents
Sept. 5, 1774 to July 1, 1776
September 5, 1774
|
October 22, 1774
| |
October 22, 1774
|
October 26, 1774
| |
May 20, 1775
|
May 24, 1775
| |
May 25, 1775
|
July 1, 1776
|
Commander-in-Chief United Colonies & States of America
George Washington: June 15, 1775 - December 23, 1783
Continental Congress of the United States Presidents
July 2, 1776 to February 28, 1781
July 2, 1776
|
October 29, 1777
| |
November 1, 1777
|
December 9, 1778
| |
December 10, 1778
|
September 28, 1779
| |
September 29, 1779
|
February 28, 1781
|
Presidents of the United States in Congress Assembled
March 1, 1781 to March 3, 1789
March 1, 1781 to March 3, 1789
March 1, 1781
|
July 6, 1781
| |
July 10, 1781
|
Declined Office
| |
July 10, 1781
|
November 4, 1781
| |
November 5, 1781
|
November 3, 1782
| |
November 4, 1782
|
November 2, 1783
| |
November 3, 1783
|
June 3, 1784
| |
November 30, 1784
|
November 22, 1785
| |
November 23, 1785
|
June 5, 1786
| |
June 6, 1786
|
February 1, 1787
| |
February 2, 1787
|
January 21, 1788
| |
January 22, 1788
|
January 21, 1789
|
Presidents of the United States of America
D-Democratic Party, F-Federalist Party, I-Independent, R-Republican Party, R* Republican Party of Jefferson & W-Whig Party
(1789-1797)
|
(1933-1945)
| |
(1865-1869)
| ||
(1797-1801)
|
(1945-1953)
| |
(1869-1877)
| ||
(1801-1809)
|
(1953-1961)
| |
(1877-1881)
| ||
(1809-1817)
|
(1961-1963)
| |
(1881 - 1881)
| ||
(1817-1825)
|
(1963-1969)
| |
(1881-1885)
| ||
(1825-1829)
|
(1969-1974)
| |
(1885-1889)
| ||
(1829-1837)
|
(1973-1974)
| |
(1889-1893)
| ||
(1837-1841)
|
(1977-1981)
| |
(1893-1897)
| ||
(1841-1841)
|
(1981-1989)
| |
(1897-1901)
| ||
(1841-1845)
|
(1989-1993)
| |
(1901-1909)
| ||
(1845-1849)
|
(1993-2001)
| |
(1909-1913)
| ||
(1849-1850)
|
(2001-2009)
| |
(1913-1921)
| ||
(1850-1853)
|
(2009-2017)
| |
(1921-1923)
| ||
(1853-1857)
|
(20017-Present)
| |
(1923-1929)
|
*Confederate States of America
| |
(1857-1861)
| ||
(1929-1933)
| ||
(1861-1865)
|
United Colonies Continental Congress
|
President
|
18th Century Term
|
Age
|
Elizabeth "Betty" Harrison Randolph (1745-1783)
|
09/05/74 – 10/22/74
|
29
| |
Mary Williams Middleton (1741- 1761) Deceased
|
Henry Middleton
|
10/22–26/74
|
n/a
|
Elizabeth "Betty" Harrison Randolph (1745–1783)
|
05/20/ 75 - 05/24/75
|
30
| |
Dorothy Quincy Hancock Scott (1747-1830)
|
05/25/75 – 07/01/76
|
28
| |
United States Continental Congress
|
President
|
Term
|
Age
|
Dorothy Quincy Hancock Scott (1747-1830)
|
07/02/76 – 10/29/77
|
29
| |
Eleanor Ball Laurens (1731- 1770) Deceased
|
Henry Laurens
|
11/01/77 – 12/09/78
|
n/a
|
Sarah Livingston Jay (1756-1802)
|
12/ 10/78 – 09/28/78
|
21
| |
Martha Huntington (1738/39–1794)
|
09/29/79 – 02/28/81
|
41
| |
United States in Congress Assembled
|
President
|
Term
|
Age
|
Martha Huntington (1738/39–1794)
|
03/01/81 – 07/06/81
|
42
| |
Sarah Armitage McKean (1756-1820)
|
07/10/81 – 11/04/81
|
25
| |
Jane Contee Hanson (1726-1812)
|
11/05/81 - 11/03/82
|
55
| |
Hannah Stockton Boudinot (1736-1808)
|
11/03/82 - 11/02/83
|
46
| |
Sarah Morris Mifflin (1747-1790)
|
11/03/83 - 11/02/84
|
36
| |
Anne Gaskins Pinkard Lee (1738-1796)
|
11/20/84 - 11/19/85
|
46
| |
Dorothy Quincy Hancock Scott (1747-1830)
|
11/23/85 – 06/06/86
|
38
| |
Rebecca Call Gorham (1744-1812)
|
06/06/86 - 02/01/87
|
42
| |
Phoebe Bayard St. Clair (1743-1818)
|
02/02/87 - 01/21/88
|
43
| |
Christina Stuart Griffin (1751-1807)
|
01/22/88 - 01/29/89
|
36
|
Constitution of 1787
First Ladies |
President
|
Term
|
Age
|
April 30, 1789 – March 4, 1797
|
57
| ||
March 4, 1797 – March 4, 1801
|
52
| ||
Martha Wayles Jefferson Deceased
|
September 6, 1782 (Aged 33)
|
n/a
| |
March 4, 1809 – March 4, 1817
|
40
| ||
March 4, 1817 – March 4, 1825
|
48
| ||
March 4, 1825 – March 4, 1829
|
50
| ||
December 22, 1828 (aged 61)
|
n/a
| ||
February 5, 1819 (aged 35)
|
n/a
| ||
March 4, 1841 – April 4, 1841
|
65
| ||
April 4, 1841 – September 10, 1842
|
50
| ||
June 26, 1844 – March 4, 1845
|
23
| ||
March 4, 1845 – March 4, 1849
|
41
| ||
March 4, 1849 – July 9, 1850
|
60
| ||
July 9, 1850 – March 4, 1853
|
52
| ||
March 4, 1853 – March 4, 1857
|
46
| ||
n/a
|
n/a
| ||
March 4, 1861 – April 15, 1865
|
42
| ||
February 22, 1862 – May 10, 1865
| |||
April 15, 1865 – March 4, 1869
|
54
| ||
March 4, 1869 – March 4, 1877
|
43
| ||
March 4, 1877 – March 4, 1881
|
45
| ||
March 4, 1881 – September 19, 1881
|
48
| ||
January 12, 1880 (Aged 43)
|
n/a
| ||
June 2, 1886 – March 4, 1889
|
21
| ||
March 4, 1889 – October 25, 1892
|
56
| ||
June 2, 1886 – March 4, 1889
|
28
| ||
March 4, 1897 – September 14, 1901
|
49
| ||
September 14, 1901 – March 4, 1909
|
40
| ||
March 4, 1909 – March 4, 1913
|
47
| ||
March 4, 1913 – August 6, 1914
|
52
| ||
December 18, 1915 – March 4, 1921
|
43
| ||
March 4, 1921 – August 2, 1923
|
60
| ||
August 2, 1923 – March 4, 1929
|
44
| ||
March 4, 1929 – March 4, 1933
|
54
| ||
March 4, 1933 – April 12, 1945
|
48
| ||
April 12, 1945 – January 20, 1953
|
60
| ||
January 20, 1953 – January 20, 1961
|
56
| ||
January 20, 1961 – November 22, 1963
|
31
| ||
November 22, 1963 – January 20, 1969
|
50
| ||
January 20, 1969 – August 9, 1974
|
56
| ||
August 9, 1974 – January 20, 1977
|
56
| ||
January 20, 1977 – January 20, 1981
|
49
| ||
January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989
|
59
| ||
January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993
|
63
| ||
January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001
|
45
| ||
January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009
|
54
| ||
January 20, 2009 to date
|
45
|
Capitals of the United Colonies and States of America
Philadelphia
|
Sept. 5, 1774 to Oct. 24, 1774
| |
Philadelphia
|
May 10, 1775 to Dec. 12, 1776
| |
Baltimore
|
Dec. 20, 1776 to Feb. 27, 1777
| |
Philadelphia
|
March 4, 1777 to Sept. 18, 1777
| |
Lancaster
|
September 27, 1777
| |
York
|
Sept. 30, 1777 to June 27, 1778
| |
Philadelphia
|
July 2, 1778 to June 21, 1783
| |
Princeton
|
June 30, 1783 to Nov. 4, 1783
| |
Annapolis
|
Nov. 26, 1783 to Aug. 19, 1784
| |
Trenton
|
Nov. 1, 1784 to Dec. 24, 1784
| |
New York City
|
Jan. 11, 1785 to Nov. 13, 1788
| |
New York City
|
October 6, 1788 to March 3,1789
| |
New York City
|
March 3,1789 to August 12, 1790
| |
Philadelphia
|
Dec. 6,1790 to May 14, 1800
| |
Washington DC
|
November 17,1800 to Present
|
Book a primary source exhibit and a professional speaker for your next event by contacting Historic.us today. Our Clients include many Fortune 500 companies, associations, non-profits, colleges, universities, national conventions, PR and advertising agencies. As a leading national exhibitor of primary sources, many of our clients have benefited from our historic displays that are designed to entertain and educate your target audience. Contact us to learn how you can join our "roster" of satisfied clientele today!
Hosted by The New Orleans Jazz Museum and The Louisiana Historical Center
Hosted by The New Orleans Jazz Museum and The Louisiana Historical Center
Historic.us
A Non-profit Corporation
A Non-profit Corporation
Primary Source Exhibits
727-771-1776 | Exhibit Inquiries
202-239-1774 | Office
202-239-0037 | FAX
Dr. Naomi and Stanley Yavneh Klos, Principals
Naomi@Historic.us
Stan@Historic.us
Primary Source exhibits are available for display in your community. The costs range from $1,000 to $35,000 depending on length of time on loan and the rarity of artifacts chosen.
 |
| U.S. Dollar Presidential Coin Mr. Klos vs Secretary Paulson - Click Here |
The United Colonies of North America Continental Congress Presidents (1774-1776)
The United States of America Continental Congress Presidents (1776-1781)
The United States of America in Congress Assembled Presidents (1781-1789)
The United States of America Presidents and Commanders-in-Chiefs (1789-Present)
The United States of America Continental Congress Presidents (1776-1781)
The United States of America in Congress Assembled Presidents (1781-1789)
The United States of America Presidents and Commanders-in-Chiefs (1789-Present)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.