On “Father” Coolidge

It was on this day in the cold of March eighty-seven years ago that “Colonel” John Coolidge, the father of the President, died. His oldest grandson and namesake, would recall the words of Calvin Coolidge spoken in an interview six months after “Grandfather Coolidge” passed. The thirtieth president had this to say about the man popularly known around the nation as “Colonel” Coolidge, the notary who had sworn in his son three years before:

“My father had qualities that were greater than any I possess. He was a man of untiring industry and great tenacity of purpose…He always stuck to the truth. It always seemed possible for him to form an unerring judgment of men and things. I can not recall that I ever knew of his doing a wrong thing. He would classed as decidedly a man of character. I have no doubt he is representative of a great mass of Americans who are known only to their local neighbors; nevertheless, they are really great. It would be difficult to say that he had a happy life. He never seemed to be seeking happiness. He was a firm believer in hard work. Death visited the family often. But I have no doubt he took a satisfaction in accomplishment and always stood ready to meet any duty that came to him. He did not fear the end of life, but looked forward to it as a reunion with all he had loved and lost.”

Such regard for the qualities of men like Calvin’s father deserve both mention and honor. They are no less imperative if a proper perspective of the family and society is to be preserved. In the haste to jettison all that is masculine in culture, an irreplaceable and detrimental cavity has been opened. Devoid of the particular kind of strength supplied by fathers, like John, homes are compromised and civilization, without these crucial pillars, collapses underneath the weight of its own weakness.

                Image

On the Strength of “Weakness”

While there is much in Michael J. Gerhardt’s new book, “The Forgotten Presidents: Their Untold Constitutional Legacy,” with which this author disagrees, he ably shows that Coolidge was anything but a pushover or “weak” president. Devoting chapter twelve of his book to the thirtieth president, Gerhardt demonstrates that Coolidge had unique strength when it came to his constitutional role and the exercise of presidential powers. Coolidge, perhaps more than any of his immediate contemporaries in the office, understood both the limits and the authority vested in the Presidency. His display of leadership was unprecedented in a number of ways.

As the previous administration’s scandals went public, it was Coolidge who took the incredible step of ensuring honorable and qualified investigators (not party hacks) took the helm after which he never intervened in the process to determine the facts. The investigation was allowed to find the guilty and acquit suspicion of the innocent. As a result of both their thorough competence and Coolidge setting a tone of full cooperation from the beginning, public trust in the law was preserved.

In the use of the pardon and the veto, Coolidge distinguishes himself as anything but a timid President. Of his twenty-nine predecessors, and his immediate successor, he ranks second only to Wilson in the number of pardons granted during his time. Of his 1,545, his most noteworthy were made at the beginning of his administration, on behalf of several who had been imprisoned for their public criticism of Wilson’s involvement in the War. Even more extraordinary was the fact that he issued these pardons not only over his Attorney General’s opposition but also before request for release had been made. His fifty vetoes stand also set Coolidge apart from his contemporaries. Only Teddy Roosevelt would issue more of them in the first thirty years of the twentieth century. Not until Teddy’s cousin would the record be broken. Standing in the company of Roosevelts, Coolidge can hardly be classified a passive President. Like Grover Cleveland before him, Coolidge would use the “pocket veto” with great effect as well. By allowing a bill to die after ten days unsigned during Congressional recess, Coolidge would leave a lasting impact on the potency of the veto. His firm dissent from McNary-Haugen — twice — ensured that the President’s role in preventing bad legislation remains intact.

Coolidge’s political courage is even lesser known but just as dominant in his protection of the constitutional power to appoint officers of the Executive Branch. The earliest tussles with Congress demonstrated Coolidge could retain his nerves, remain unmoved by “mob” demands for this or that resignation and eventually prevail despite intense political heat. His resolve was not merely stubbornness but rather an abiding sense of duty and integrity. He would not join the crowd in a political lynching, however badly they wanted it. He was fair even to those who proved unfit for responsibility. He would not give in to appearances nor would he condone wrongdoing. As pointed out by others, it actually takes more strength to refrain from acting until the right moment — especially in the heat of the moment — than it is to be seen doing something now to appease onlookers with appearances. It was Coolidge who exemplified the strength of character required for decisive action only when the fullness of time warranted it. Not before. His strength, considered “weakness” by many even today, is a necessary component of wise leadership. To discount this quality is to misunderstand and fail to appreciate what makes good leaders.

Remembering a President’s Inaugural

             Image

This morning while waiting in line, a news network reminded its viewers of the March 4, 1933 inaugural address of Franklin D. Roosevelt. To hear the reverence in the voices of those on the air, one would think any history worth remembering began with that infamously famous Presider over Depression, New Deal and World War. The thirty-six March 4th inaugurations before that time — 144 years of history — simply aren’t worth mentioning. One of those neglected thirty-six deserves mention here. In fact, it deserves our attention and study. It was March 4, 1925, the occasion of President Coolidge’s first formal inauguration after a resounding electoral victory in his own right the previous November. It is on this day, eighty-eight years ago, that he declared,

          If extravagance were not reflected in taxation, and through taxation both directly and indirectly injuriously affecting the people, it would not be of so much consequence. The wisest and soundest method of solving our tax problem is through economy. Fortunately, of all the great nations this country is best in a position to adopt that simple remedy. We do not any longer need war-time revenues. The collection of any taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to the public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny. Under this Republic the rewards of industry belong to those who earn them. The only constitutional tax is the tax which ministers to public necessity. The property of the country belongs to the people of the country. Their title is absolute. They do not support any privileged class; they do not need to maintain great military forces; they ought not to be burdened with a great array of public employees. They are not required to make any contribution to Government expenditures except that which they voluntarily assess upon themselves through the action of their representatives. Whenever taxes become burdensome a remedy can be applied by the people; but if they do not act for themselves, no one can be very successful in acting for them.

Those are words worth remembering today. When self-government is responsibly exercised in this way, we have no reason to fear for the continuance of liberty under law.