#President J.Q. Adams

[deadpresidents]

As quite a few Presidents were Secretaries of State and so many politicians vied for the position, when and why did that stop being the "gateway" to the Presidency?

That is a really good question.

You're correct that being Secretary of State was seemingly a stepping-stone to the Presidency at one point early in American history. Five of the first eight Presidents were Secretary of State prior to being elected President (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, and Van Buren). Madison, Monroe, and John Quincy Adams were elected President directly from the State Department. But James Buchanan was the last President who had served as Secretary of State.

I think that one of the reasons that being Secretary of State was, as you said, a "gateway" to the Presidency in the early years of the republic was because it was one of the few positions in government that built obvious foreign policy experience for the holders of that job at a time when the country was still a pretty isolated, insular nation. The Secretary of State is basically the American version of a foreign minister, of course, but because it was the premiere Cabinet post (and still is), the Secretary of State often had higher name recognition nationally than anyone in government other than the President at a time when the Vice Presidency was an afterthought with very little influence. From the beginning of the federal government, the State Department was a very important part of the Executive Branch, so the early Secretaries of State also gained valuable administrative experience which only helped their cause when it came to running for President.

I think the reason that Secretaries of State stopped being viable candidates for President is because the the growth of the country meant that their were more-and-more qualified candidates who had gained the foreign policy or administrative experience through other means. The country started turning to military leaders and Governors, as well as candidates with more significant Congressional experience than was possible at the early stage of American history when Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and J.Q. Adams were going from the State Department to the White House. After Buchanan's election, not only were there no other Secretaries of State elected President, but very few were even nominated. James G. Blaine briefly served as Secretary of State in 1881 until a few months after President Garfield died in office and was the Republican Presidential nominee in 1884 (he served as Secretary of State again from 1889-1892), but since then, the only major party Presidential nominee who had previously served as Secretary of State was Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State from 2009-2013) in 2016.

In fact, the reverse has been true more frequently in recent history. Since 1884, four major party nominees for President have served as Secretary of State AFTER losing Presidential elections. Blaine lost the 1884 election and served as President Harrison's Secretary of State from 1889-1892 (again, that was his second stint at the State Department after his brief 1881 service). William Jennings Bryan was the unsuccessful Democratic nominee for President in 1896, 1900, and 1908, and went on to serve as President Wilson's first Secretary of State (1913-1915). Charles Evans Hughes was the Democratic nominee in 1916 and lost to Wilson, but went on to serve as Secretary of State under Presidents Harding and Coolidge (1921-1925). And John Kerry was the Democratic nominee in 2004 and later served as President Obama's second Secretary of State (2013-2017).

It's really difficult today for any Cabinet member to be elected directly to the Presidency (or even get close to the nomination -- just ask Julián Castro about his 2020 campaign). While there is no job that can truly prepare someone for the modern Presidency, Governors tend to be in a better position than Cabinet secretaries or members of Congress. Only four incumbent members of Congress have been elected directly to the Presidency -- James Garfield (1880), Warren G. Harding (1920), John F. Kennedy (1960), and Barack Obama (2008). And Garfield is the only sitting member of the House of Representatives to have been elected President. While the position of Secretary of State remains the prime Cabinet post in the United States, the days of the Cabinet being the gateway to the Presidency seem to have gone away with powdered wigs and shoe buckles.

[garudabluffs]

Looking at John Quincy Adams’s original manuscript.

The Adams Family. Prudent Statecraft

“John Quincy Adams was the model president in the early republic who declared that the United States “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” But “go abroad” we did, as the republic became a world colossus. And monsters there were in the mixed casualties of American power. 200 years later comes the question: what is left to be rescued of Quincy Adams’s “austere doctrine of restraint,” as his modern biographer puts it, his benign detachment in the wider world? Adams prescribed for his young nation that “she is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all,” but “she is the champion and vindicator only of her own.” Really? In the twenty-first century, with the biggest military budget in human history, and fighting men standing guard around the planet?”

LISTEN  READ MORE https://radioopensource.org/prudent-statecraft/

SCROLL DOWN

This is the concluding installment of In Search of Monsters, our limited-series collaboration with The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. We’ve been highlighting extra conversations lately with foreign policy thinkers on questions of statecraft—here, find a short conversation with Stephen Van Evera:

Stephen Van Evera on Russia, Ukraine, and American Statecraft  VIDEO 9:52

Beer poster 1901 “Full-length portrait of a laughing young lady with raised beer mug (in her right, her left hand behind back in waitress position). She wears a red dress with white blouse and a white apron and stands in a cornfield with poppies behind 2 beer barrels (one lying) and a scythe lying on the ground. In the background two factories with smoking chimneys. Oil on canvas - 125 x 93 cm Signature;  ф Adams 1901 (J Q entwined) Image source: Künstlerhausarchiv, box John Quincy Adams. Private collection Austria.

This painting probably served as a model for an advertising poster. The period of creation (1901) and the subject (beer = malt) suggests a connection to Adams' new father-in-law Moritz Sobotka (marriage of J.Q. Adams to Steffie Sobotka on March 25, 1901). Moritz Sobotka was (with Jakob Hauser) the co-founder and owner of the Stadtlauer Malzfabrik in Vienna (founded in 1884, converted into a joint-stock company in 1938 in the course of Aryanization and still existing today under the name STAMAG), probably commissioned the work to support his son-in-law who was in his artistic infancy. According to (plausible) oral tradition, Steffie Adams, née Sobotka, served as the model for this painting (see image comparison in the cross-references). The depiction of the factory plant in the left background of the painting is a faithful reproduction of the Stadlau malt factory around 1900 (see image comparison in the cross-references). The plant in the right background is a depiction of the factory in Moric (Bohemia).”

READ MORE https://english.jqadams.art/werke/bierreklame-1901

[bootlegmozart]

ppl really be like, “Well my family owned slaves 5 generations ago and I’ve never personally benefitted from it, so I don’t owe anything! Besides, it was normal.” 

Y’all fucked up in the head.

My fav president, J.Q. Adams, had somethin’ to say about this (besides, yknow, being a lawyer for escaped slaves to help them gain freedom)

“If the fundamental principles in the Declaration of Independence, as self-evident truths, are real truths, the existence of slavery, in any form, is a wrong.”

So, honestly, if some fucker from the 1800′s who barely washed his own ass can tell that owning humans is a terrible concept, but you and your ancestors can’t, y’all fucking stupid.

Your ancestors are horrible people, and you’re a horrible person for not wanting to make up for that. 

“But I didn’t do anything! It wasn’t me!”

If they didn’t fuck, you wouldn’t be here. Nobody asked to be born black. You didn’t ask to be born from slave owners. Deal with the consequences of your birthright like black people have been for 2 centuries now.

[angrycollectordaze-me-blog]

Essay代写：The American isolationist foreign policy

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的essay代写范文- The American isolationist foreign policy，供大家参考学习，这篇论文讨论了美国的孤立主义外交政策。美国的孤立主义是一项和平时期的外交政策，它不放纵对外介入的感性冲动，采取务实的路线，以在现有国际格局中最大限度地降低国家安全风险，利用国外资源提高民众福利。

Isolationism was a long-standing and unswerving foreign policy of the United States before World War II. It should be the basic content of isolationist diplomacy to avoid intervening in external affairs politically and militarily. Accordingly, the isolationist diplomacy of the United States started in the 1820s. After World War II, with the beginning of the cold war, isolationist diplomacy finally retired from the stage of history.

Isolationism is a controversial phenomenon in the history of American diplomacy. Up to now, there have been fierce debates about "what is isolationism", "when and finally when" and so on. An in-depth and effective academic discussion should be based on the accurate definition of the core discourse. This essay attempts to analyze the connotation of American isolationist diplomacy, so as to seek advice from the local scholars.

The connotation of "isolationism" has always been ambiguous, and there are not only wide differences in American academic circles, but also differences in understanding. There are mainly several representative theories.

Eugene R, Wittkopf, Charles, w. egley, Jr. Thomas Jefferson supported isolationism as the best way for America to sustain and grow as a free nation." Isolationists are "those who oppose active U.S. involvement in international affairs, whether through mediation or conflict." This view was held by Charles a. beard, the standard-bearer of the progressive school, bemis and roque, the famous diplomatic historians, but this view was opposed by the famous diplomatic historian bailey, William a. Williams, the leading figure of the new left, and the contemporary American international political scholar rossetti fJerel, a. roch. "The elements of traditional American foreign policy are very clear -- isolationism and protectionism," mead said. In foreign countries, a large proportion of scholars hold this view, and this theory mainly explains isolationism from the perspective of national policy.

Isolationists argue that U.S. national interests can best be achieved "by taking formspapers the world, or by keeping a healthy distance from outside events at a minimum," notes gerp. Isolationism and internationalism are divided by means, not ends; The Monroe doctrine, the refusal to join the league of nations, the neutrality act of the 1930s, and the fear of future Vietnamese are all examples of isolationist principles. But he also acknowledged that isolationism and internationalism are two opposing overall U.S. foreign policy orientations. John w Davis agrees.

According to John c. halberg, isolationism refers to a series of ideas about the United States and its place in the world, which had a great influence on American foreign policy in the late 18th and early 20th centuries.

Cecil v. rabb: "starting with the farewell address in Washington, isolationism is really a set of attitudes and assumptions about America's particular relationship with the outside world. Isolationism has had several components from the beginning, and when the concept is applied to specific situations prevailing at home, each era tends to modify its content."

Most scholars in China accept the "policy theory", but some experts in American diplomatic history, such as Yang shengmao, wang xiaode and wang wei, are in favor of the "principle theory". Comparatively speaking, there are two obvious characteristics of relevant domestic works: one is that almost all the authors will define the meaning of isolationism when they refer to it. In most cases, this is not out of the cognition of relevant differences in American academic circles, but to distinguish the eastern-based policy of isolation. Second, it repeatedly emphasizes the active initiative of isolationist diplomacy and its geographical orientation towards Europe. However, when domestic scholars define isolationism, they lack the trace of the concept itself and the grasp of the connotation of isolationism in the dynamic process. Many scholars transplant isolationism in political discourse into academic research, which has become a major cause of disagreement. Because the isolationism in political discourse itself is strong

If we define American foreign policy before world war ii as isolationism, it can be summed up as nonalignment, an effort to remain neutral in national disputes, a refusal to intervene militarily and politically; Of course, once American interests are threatened or challenged overseas and the United States is able to intervene, American foreign policy will not be constrained by the latter two elements.

Many early American politicians often had the traditional European concept of "balance of power". Many early politicians recognized the existence of a European balance of power, and to some extent its importance to American security. This is reflected in John Adams, Jefferson and others. In 1783, in a conversation with Richard Oswald, the British peace negotiator, Adams said, "it is evident that the European powers have been playing tricks on us to induce us into their actual or imaginary balances of power. In calculating our own strength, they all hope to make us complementary weights. This is hardly surprising. We can change the balance, though not always. But I think non-intervention should be our principle; the principle of the European powers should be that they don't want us to get involved, and if they can, they may not even allow us to get involved." In a parliamentary debate on March 1, 1798, gallatin, later secretary of state, argued that the balance of power in Europe had simply been the cause of many useless wars. "... We have no interest in that balance. We should completely forget about it and ignore it." In July of that year, senator George Cabot noted in a letter that "we are at least equal in our power." But isolationism is clearly incompatible with the idea of the balance of power, which needs to intervene firmly when necessary to restore the balance that has been broken. It was j.q. Adams who finally abandoned the ideological basis of the balance of power. In his 1821 independence day speech, he said, "wherever the standards of freedom and independence may be found, or shall be found, there is her heart, her blessing, and her prayer. But she will not go abroad in search of demons to destroy. America sincerely wants freedom for the world, but it has fought for itself, only to avenge it... She is very clear, once she stood on the other, rather than under their own flags, even standing under foreign flags to gain independence, she will get into the war of the benefit and the plot, a personal greed, envy and ambition of war and cannot extricate oneself, often in the name of freedom, because the war to usurp the standards of freedom. The basic tenets of her policy will be unknowingly transformed from freedom to violence... She could be the dictator of the world. She will no longer be the ruler of his own spirit." This abandonment was embodied in the Monroe doctrine of 1823. Later, President polk repeated this view in his annual address on December 2, 1845, and President Wilson in his annual address on January 22, 1918. Therefore, in terms of the formation of its connotation, isolationist diplomacy should begin in the early 1820s.

As for the end of isolationist diplomacy, bemis thinks it took place between 1947 and 1955; Mr Finderlin argues that isolationism is used to describe American foreign policy for most of the 19th century, but more often during the second world war, and that it does not apply to Latin America or China; President McKinley argued that after 1898, "isolation is no longer possible or desirable." Domestic views include the introduction of Truman doctrine and the establishment of NATO. To illustrate this issue, we should start from the specific historical facts, through the specific examination of American foreign policy during the World War II, so as to reach a more reasonable conclusion.

After the World War I, the tendency of American foreign policy to return to isolationism was very obvious, which was accepted by most scholars. The war greatly strengthened the popular sentiment of isolationism and thus dealt a fatal blow to Wilson's world policy. Memories of the war and disappointment with Europe, amplified by the media and stirred by social elites, quickly coalessed-into a powerful wave of isolationism. In the 1930s, the great crisis, the war debt problem, the investigation from 1934 to 1936, and the revisionist reinterpretation of the reasons for America's involvement in World War I greatly increased the sense of deception and distrust of big companies, Banks, and the President. This sentiment was evident in the mid-legislation after 1935, as well as in the opinion polls on the state of affairs in Europe.

The rejection of the treaty by the United States senate, despite various reasons, has objectively become the main symbol of the resurgence of isolationism. In March 1922, the senate added a reservation to its ratification of the four-strong treaty: "no commitment to the use of force, no alliance, no obligation to engage in any defensive action." After the war, when disagreements over compensation arose, hughes, America's secretary of state, said that "strong domestic opposition would make successful action impossible". The United States opposed the Geneva protocol, which strengthened the league of nations, and refused to join the international court of justice. Since 1917, France had been seeking an alliance with the United States against Germany, but was ultimately rejected by the United States for signing the multilateral non-war convention. Moreover, the United States states that the signing of the treaty does not prevent the United States from enforcing the Monroe doctrine or engaging in sanctions against other countries.

On the other hand, in Europe, the United States began to implement the so-called "economic diplomacy" represented by the dawes and young programs. But economic diplomacy in Europe is not a repudiation of isolationism. First of all, whether it is the dawes plan or the young plan, or the large amount of investment in Europe, especially in Germany, which helps restore the balance of power in the European continent, the first thing is to protect the overseas trade and investment of the United States and guarantee the recovery of war debts. In the Americas, the 1928 clark memorandum repudiated the legitimacy of Roosevelt's reasoning, ending criticism of Roosevelt's reasoning since the 1920s. By 1932, the U.S. withdrew from all of Latin America except for the panama canal zone. In addition, from the Montevideo Pan-American conference in 1933, the United States formally promised to give up interfering in the internal affairs of Latin American countries. In Asia, the open door policy is nothing more than a diplomatic gesture. "governments from 1899 to 1989 were reluctant to support China's open door policy with concrete actions. Even its author admitted in a conversation with the Russian ambassador to the United States: "the United States has no intention of using force to defend China's territorial integrity." Between 1920 and 1937, the United States recognized the dominant position of Russia and Japan in northeast China. One of the circumstantiary signs of American isolationist foreign policy during this period was a reminder to Hitler by the German ambassador to the United States, Hans tiekerhoff. "The United States will not be 'isolationist' forever," he said. "there can be no illusions about it," but Hitler believed that "the United States is nothing but a weak, non-interventionist state." From the eve of the outbreak of the European war in 1939 to Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the nominal policy of the United States gradually separated from the real policy. On the one hand, the U.S. government insists on staying out of conflicts overseas, but it is actually getting involved step by step. Roosevelt's charlotte address, in which he explicitly denounced isolationism, marked a shift in America's nominal foreign policy. Subsequently, American involvement in the war gradually intensified. Still, the United States did not choose to declare war.

So does America's behavior on the eve of the World War II, and between them, signal the end of isolationist diplomacy? No. Because war is such a state of affairs, wartime foreign policy is marked by obvious expediency. The key question is whether this policy orientation will continue after the war. The United States' large-scale involvement in the external political and military conflicts in World War I ended abruptly after the war, so it cannot be regarded as the end of isolationism. The situation after World War I was very different, and the changes in American wartime policy continued and intensified. The chapultepec resolution, signed by the United States in March 1945, and the treaty of Rio DE janeiro, ratified by the senate on 19 December 1947, were both clearly allied. On June 11, 1948, the United States senate adopted resolution 239 by an overwhelming majority of 64 to 4, suggesting that the President may "gradually establish regional and other collective arrangements for individual or collective self-defence, in accordance with the purposes, principles and provisions of the charter". It is thought to be the first time the us senate has publicly endorsed peacetime alliances with other countries. In 1949, the United States established and joined the north Atlantic treaty organization, thus making the scope of the alliance beyond the Americas. At the same time, the United States maintains an unprecedented number of troops in Asia and Europe. At this point, all other isolationist policy measures except the promotion of business are coming to an end. So the end of isolationism began at the beginning of World War II and ended with the establishment of NATO.

Isolationism is, in a sense, a peacetime foreign policy. It does not indulge the impulse to get involved. It takes a pragmatic approach to minimize national security risks in the current international situation, and USES foreign resources to improve the welfare of the people. The study on the connotation of isolationism in the United States is also of great significance to China's foreign policy and practice. At present, China is undergoing a critical period of socialist modernization. Peace and development are also two major themes in the world today. Therefore, it is a wise choice for China not to participate in or try to avoid external disputes, to develop itself and to make the most of advantages and avoid disadvantages as much as possible when its national strength is limited. Of course, a country's diplomacy is in direct proportion to its strength. In the 20th century, especially after the World War II, the United States and the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries were like "giants" and "pygmies", which could not be said in the same day. The isolationism adapted to the small and weak America in the 20th century has become a cut and fit fit, and its exit from the stage of history is only a matter of time.

想要了解更多英国留学资讯或者需要英国代写，请关注51Due英国论文代写��台，51Due是一家专业的论文代写机构，专业辅导海外留学生的英文论文写作，主要业务有essay代写、paper代写、assignment代写。在这里，51Due致力于为留学生朋友提供高效优质的留学教育辅导服务，为广大留学生提升写作水平，帮助他们达成学业目标。如果您有essay代写需求，可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。

[itsfinancethings]

Fine Manuscripts and Printed Americana https://ift.tt/2CcQ4xv

The capstone sale to Sotheby’s Americana Week will include a remarkable group of highly important and valuable historical manuscripts, books, maps, and artifacts spanning more than five centuries. Individual highlights include an autograph letter signed by George Washington, 1757, to Virginia Governor Robert Dinwiddie, making an impassioned statement about the rights of British Americans (Estimate $300,000–400,000); a broadside printed by John Dunlap of the official proclamation of the Treaty of Paris, signed by the President and Secretary of the Continental Congress, which brought the Revolutionary War to an end (Estimate $800–1,200,000); probably the finest copy extant of the first book-form printing of the Declaration of Independence (Estimate $300,000–$500,000); and a copy of the 1823 vellum issue of the W. J. Stone facsimile of the engrossed Declaration of Independence, inscribed in the lower left Presented by the Hon. J.Q. Adams, Sec of State of the U.S. to Thomas Emory, President of the Executive Council of Md. 1824 (Estimate $600,000–800,000). Among the collections to be offered are a group of gifts and keepsakes given to the Marquis de Lafayette during his triumphant 1824–1825 tour of the United States, descended in the family of his granddaughter Jenny de la Tour Maubourg; and the Davy Crockett Collection of David Zucker, which features the last letter written by Crockett known to survive, in which the frontiersman announces he is “on the eve of starting to the Texes”—a journey that would lead him to the Alamo (Estimate $70,000–100,000).

Begins: January 24, 2019 at 03:00PM Latitude: 40.766287 Longitude: -73.953544 Learn more on Sotehbys.com

[deadpresidents]

Who are the youngest and oldest vice presidents

At the time of their Inauguration? Here's the list of the Vice Presidents' Age at Inauguration, from youngest-to-oldest:

AGE AT INAUGURATION: NAME OF VP [Administration] 36 years, 42 days: John C. Breckinridge [Buchanan] 40 years, 11 days: Richard Nixon [Eisenhower] 41 years, 353 days: Dan Quayle [G.H.W. Bush] 42 years, 128 days: Theodore Roosevelt [McKinley's 2nd VP] 42 years, 256 days: Daniel D. Tompkins [Monroe] 42 years, 352 days: John C. Calhoun [J.Q. Adams/Jackson's 1st VP] 44 years, 232 days: Al Gore [Clinton] 45 years, 26 days: Aaron Burr [Jefferson's 1st VP] 45 years, 346 days: Schuyler Colfax [Grant's 1st VP] 48 years, 243 days: Calvin Coolidge [Harding] 49 years, 15 days: Walter Mondale [Carter] 49 years, 56 days: Millard Fillmore [Taylor] 50 years, 72 days: Spiro Agnew [Nixon's 1st VP] 50 years, 98 days: Martin Van Buren [Jackson's 2nd VP] 50 years, 340 days: John Tyler [W.H. Harrison] 51 years, 150 days: Chester A. Arthur [Garfield] 51 years, 189 days: Hannibal Hamlin [Lincoln's 1st VP] 52 years, 105 days: Henry A. Wallace [FDR's 2nd VP] 52 years, 146 days: Lyndon B. Johnson [JFK] 52 years, 237 days: George M. Dallas [Polk] 52 years, 274 days: Garret A. Hobart [McKinley's 1st VP] 52 years, 297 days: Charles W. Fairbanks [T. Roosevelt] 53 years, 131 days: James S. Sherman [Taft] 53 years, 174 days: John Adams [Washington] 53 years, 238 days: Hubert H. Humphrey [LBJ] 53 years, 325 days: Thomas Jefferson [J. Adams] 56 years, 65 days: Andrew Johnson [Lincoln's 2nd VP] 56 years, 92 days: Kamala Harris [Biden] 56 years, 138 days: Richard M. Johnson [Van Buren] 56 years, 223 days: George H.W. Bush [Reagan] 57 years, 132 days: Adlai E. Stevenson [Cleveland's 2nd VP] 57 years, 227 days: Mike Pence [Trump] 57 years, 247 days: William A. Wheeler [Hayes] 58 years, 355 days: Thomas R. Marshall [Wilson] 59 years, 189 days: Charles G. Dawes [Coolidge] 59 years, 335 days: Dick Cheney [G.W. Bush] 60 years, 145 days: Gerald Ford [Nixon's 2nd VP] 60 years, 257 days: Harry S. Truman [FDR's 3rd VP] 61 years, 16 days: Henry Wilson [Grant's 2nd VP] 64 years, 102 days: John Nance Garner {FDR's 1st VP] 64 years, 292 days: Levi P. Morton [B. Harrison] 65 years, 178 days: Thomas A. Hendricks [Cleveland's 1st VP] 65 years, 221 days: George Clinton [Jefferson's 2nd/Madison's 1st] 66 years, 61 days: Joe Biden [Obama] 66 years, 165 days: Nelson Rockefeller [Ford] 66 years, 331 days: William R.D. King [Pierce] 68 years, 230 days: Elbridge Gerry [Madison's 2nd VP] 69 years, 38 days: Charles Curtis [Hoover] 71 years, 57 days: Alben W. Barkley [Truman]

[deadpresidents]

As Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter have just celebrated their 77th wedding anniversary who were the longest and shortest married Presidents?

It's going to be tough for any First Couple to break the record for longest marriage set by the Carters. Bill and Hillary Clinton have the second-longest marriage of any living President and First Lady and they are still 30 years behind the Carters!

LONGEST PRESIDENTIAL MARRIAGES (as of July 14, 2023): Carter: 77 years+ (Still married) G.H.W. Bush: 73 years, 101 days Ford: 58 years, 72 days J. Adams: 54 years, 3 days Truman: 53 years, 181 days Nixon: 53 years, 1 day Eisenhower: 52 years, 270 days Reagan (2nd Marriage): 52 years, 93 days J.Q. Adams: 50 years, 212 days A. Johnson: 48 years, 75 days Clinton: 47 years+ (Still married) Biden (2nd Marriage): 46 years+ (Still married) G.W. Bush: 45 years+ (Still married) W.H. Harrison: 45 years, 130 days Hoover: 44 years, 331 days Monroe: 44 years, 219 days Taft: 43 years, 262 days Madison: 41 years, 286 days Washington: 40 years, 342 days F. Roosevelt: 40 years, 26 days Taylor: 40 years, 18 days B. Harrison (1st Marriage): 39 years, 5 days L. Johnson: 38 years, 66 days Grant: 36 years, 335 days Hayes: 36 years, 177 days Jackson: 34 years, 339 days* (*Length of Jackson's legal marriage: Jackson and his wife, Rachel, were first married in August 1791 but it was declared invalid because Rachel's divorce from her first husband had not yet been finalized. The Jacksons weren't legally married until January 17, 1794.) T. Roosevelt (2nd Marriage): 32 years, 35 days Harding: 32 years, 25 days Obama: 30 years+ (Still married) McKinley: 30 years, 232 days Tyler (1st Marriage): 29 years, 165 days Wilson (1st Marriage): 29 years, 43 days Pierce: 29 years, 22 days Coolidge: 27 years, 93 days Fillmore (1st Marriage): 27 years, 53 days Polk: 25 years, 165 days Garfield: 22 years, 312 days Lincoln: 22 years, 162 days Cleveland: 22 years, 22 days Arthur: 20 years, 79 days Trump (3rd Marriage): 18 years+ (Still married) Tyler (2nd Marriage): 17 years, 206 days Fillmore (2nd Marriage): 16 years, 26 days Trump (1st Marriage): 13 years, 248 days Van Buren: 11 years, 349 days Jefferson: 10 years, 248 days Kennedy: 10 years, 71 days Reagan (1st Marriage): 9 years, 155 days Wilson (2nd Marriage): 8 years, 47 days Biden (1st Marriage): 6 years, 113 days Trump (2nd Marriage): 5 years, 170 days B. Harrison (2nd Marriage): 4 years, 341 days T. Roosevelt (1st Marriage): 3 years, 110 days

[deadpresidents]

Im a dork too lol and also find those lists like the presidents/vps age when they died to be interesting! Do you maybe have access to a list like that about how old presidents&veeps were when they took office?

I do have that info available, and I'm glad that people like these kinds of lists because it means I didn't waste my time keeping this data updated over the years!

Here are the Presidents and Vice Presidents by age at the time of their inauguration:

PRESIDENTS: Age at Inauguration (Oldest-to-Youngest) Biden: 78 years, 61 days Trump: 70 years, 220 days Reagan: 69 years, 349 days W.H. Harrison: 68 years, 23 days Buchanan: 65 years, 315 days G.H.W. Bush: 64 years, 222 days Taylor: 64 years, 100 days Eisenhower: 62 years, 98 days Jackson: 61 years, 354 days J. Adams: 61 years, 125 days Ford: 61 years, 26 days Truman: 60 years, 339 days Monroe: 58 years, 310 days Madison: 57 years, 353 days Jefferson: 57 years, 325 days J.Q. Adams: 57 years, 236 days Washington: 57 years, 67 days A. Johnson: 56 years, 107 days Wilson: 56 years, 65 days Nixon: 56 years, 11 days Cleveland: 55 years, 351 days (2nd non-consecutive term) B. Harrison: 55 years, 196 days Harding: 55 years, 122 days L. Johnson: 55 years, 87 days Hoover: 54 years, 206 days G.W. Bush: 54 years, 198 days Hayes: 54 years, 151 days Van Buren: 54 years, 89 days McKinley: 54 years, 34 days Carter: 52 years, 111 days Lincoln: 52 years, 20 days Arthur: 51 years, 349 days Taft: 51 years, 170 days F. Roosevelt: 51 years, 33 days Coolidge: 51 years, 29 days Tyler: 51 years, 6 days Fillmore: 50 years, 183 days Polk: 49 years, 122 days Garfield: 49 years, 105 days Pierce: 48 years, 101 days Cleveland: 47 years, 351 days (1st non-consecutive term) Obama: 47 years, 169 days Grant: 46 years, 311 days Clinton: 46 years, 154 days Kennedy: 43 years, 236 days T. Roosevelt: 42 years, 322 days

VICE PRESIDENTS: Age at Inauguration (Oldest-to-Youngest) Alben Barkley: 71 years, 57 days Charles Curtis: 69 years, 38 days Elbridge Gerry: 68 years, 230 days William R. King: 66 years, 331 days* *King's age on the day his VP term began: March 4, 1853. King was gravely ill and trying to improve his health in a warmer climate, so he received special permission from Congress to take the Vice Presidential oath on foreign soil while recuperating in Cuba, which he wasn't able to do until March 24, 1853. He died on April 18, 1853 after returning home to Alabama without ever setting foot in Washington, D.C. during his brief Vice Presidency. Nelson Rockefeller: 66 years, 164 days Joe Biden: 66 years, 61 days George Clinton: 65 years, 221 days Thomas A. Hendricks: 65 years, 178 days Levi P. Morton: 64 years, 292 days John Nance Garner: 64 years, 102 days Henry Wilson: 61 years, 16 days Harry S. Truman: 60 years, 257 days Gerald Ford: 60 years, 145 days Dick Cheney: 59 years, 356 days Charles G. Dawes: 59 years, 189 days Thomas R. Marshall: 58 years, 355 days William A. Wheeler: 57 years, 247 days Mike Pence: 57 years, 227 days Adlai E. Stevenson: 57 years, 132 days George H.W. Bush: 56 years, 222 days Richard M. Johnson: 56 years, 138 days Kamala Harris: 56 years, 92 days Andrew Johnson: 56 years, 65 days Thomas Jefferson: 53 years, 325 days Hubert H. Humphrey: 53 years, 238 days John Adams: 53 years, 173 days (Adams was sworn in as VP nine days before George Washington was sworn in as President in 1789.) James S. Sherman: 53 years, 131 days Charles W. Fairbanks: 52 years, 297 days Garret A. Hobart: 52 years, 274 days George M. Dallas: 52 years, 237 days Lyndon B. Johnson: 52 years, 146 days Henry A. Wallace: 52 years, 105 days Hannibal Hamlin: 51 years, 189 days Chester A. Arthur: 51 years, 150 days John Tyler: 50 years, 340 days Martin Van Buren: 50 years, 89 days Spiro Agnew: 50 years, 72 days Millard Fillmore: 49 years, 56 days Walter Mondale: 49 years, 15 days Calvin Coolidge: 48 years, 243 days Schuyler Colfax: 45 years, 346 days Aaron Burr: 45 years, 26 days Al Gore: 44 years, 295 days John C. Calhoun: 42 years, 351 days Daniel D. Tompkins: 42 years, 256 days Theodore Roosevelt: 42 years, 128 days Dan Quayle: 41 years, 351 days Richard Nixon: 40 years, 11 days John C. Breckinridge: 36 years, 47 days

[deadpresidents]

That guy who made the comment that Presidents can't have beards was wrong. Look at Lincoln, Garfield, Grant, Hayes and J.Q. Adams. That said, we haven't had a bearded President since Benjamin Harrison, and he was elected 130 years ago. Theodore Roosevelt and Taft had mustaches and that's the closest we've come to that.

Well, he was relating a personal anecdote about something his wife told him he was saying in his sleep, so let’s go ahead and give him a break on the historical accuracy of his unconscious mutterings. 

[deadpresidents]

Your post on vice presidents made me curious about who was the oldest vp was it also Ford?

Gerald Ford is in third place on the list of longest-living Vice Presidents in American history:

LONGEST-LIVING VICE PRESIDENTSAge at Death: VP (POTUS served under)•98 years, 351 days: John Nance Garner (FDR’s 1st VP)•96 years, 0 days: Levi P. Morton (B. Harrison)•93 years, 165 days: Gerald Ford (Nixon’s 2nd)•92 years+: George H.W. Bush (Reagan) [Still living]•90 years, 247 days: John Adams (Washington)•89 years+: Walter Mondale (Carter) [Still living]•88 years, 232 days: Harry S. Truman (FDR’s 3rd)•85 years, 239 days: Charles G. Dawes (Coolidge)•83 years, 82 days: Thomas Jefferson (John Adams)•81 years, 311 days: Hannibal Hamlin (Lincoln’s 1st)•81 years, 104 days: Richard Nixon (Eisenhower)•80 years, 220 days: Aaron Burr (Jefferson’s 1st)•79 years, 231 days: Martin Van Buren (Jackson’s 2nd)•78 years, 234 days: Adlai E. Stevenson (Cleveland’s 2nd)•78 years, 157 days: Alben W. Barkley (Truman)•77 years, 261 days: Spiro Agnew (Nixon’s 1st)•77 years, 42 days: Henry A. Wallace (FDR’s 2nd)•76 years+: Dick Cheney (G.W. Bush) [Still living]•76 years, 14 days: Charles Curtis (Hoover)•74 years+: Joe Biden (Obama) [Still living]•74 years, 60 days: Millard Fillmore (Taylor)•72 years, 268 days: George Clinton (Jefferson’s 2nd/Madison’s 1st)•72 years, 174 days: George M. Dallas (Polk)•71 years, 295 days: John Tyler (W.H. Harrison)•71 years, 79 days: Thomas Riley Marshall (Wilson)•70 years+: Dan Quayle (G.H.W. Bush) [Still living]•70 years, 202 days: Nelson Rockefeller (Ford)•70 years, 129 days: Elbridge Gerry (Madison’s 2nd)•70 years, 33 days: Richard M. Johnson (Van Buren)•69 years+: Al Gore (Clinton) [Still living]•68 years, 13 days: John C. Calhoun (J.Q. Adams/Jackson’s 1st)•67 years, 339 days: William A. Wheeler (Hayes)•67 years, 11 days: William R. D. King (Pierce)•66 years, 231 days: Hubert H. Humphrey (LBJ)•66 years, 214 days: Andrew Johnson (Lincoln’s 2nd)•66 years, 79 days: Thomas A. Hendricks (Cleveland’s 1st)•66 years, 24 days: Charles W. Fairbanks (T. Roosevelt)•64 years, 148 days: Lyndon B. Johnson (JFK)•63 years, 279 days: Henry Wilson (Grant’s 2nd)•61 years, 296 days: Schuyler Colfax (Grant’s 1st)•60 years, 185 days: Calvin Coolidge (Harding)•60 years, 71 days: Theodore Roosevelt (McKinley’s 2nd)•57 years+: Mike Pence (Trump) [Still living]•57 years, 44 days: Chester A. Arthur (Garfield)•57 years, 6 days: James S. Sherman (Taft)•55 years, 171 days: Garret A. Hobart (McKinley’s 1st)•54 years, 116 days: John C. Breckinridge (Buchanan)•50 years, 355 days: Daniel D. Tompkins (Monroe)

[deadpresidents]

what are the biggest and smallest age differences between presidents and their successors?

Believe it or not, I actually have comparative data like this already researched and on hand for a book project that I’ve been working on.

Okay, here are the age differences between Presidents and their immediate successors (from largest to smallest age difference). The name of the older of the two Presidents in each comparison is listed in bold:

•26 years, 227 days: Eisenhower/Kennedy•22 years, 69 days: G.H.W. Bush/Clinton•17 years, 295 days: Buchanan/Lincoln•17 years, 46 days: W.H. Harrison/Tyler•15 years, 271 days: McKinley/T. Roosevelt•15 years, 265 days: Jackson/Van Buren•15 years, 51 days: Obama/Trump•15 years, 43 days: Taylor/Fillmore•15 years, 29 days: G.W. Bush/Obama•13 years, 238 days: Carter/Reagan•13 years, 214 days: Pierce/Buchanan•13 years, 126 days: Reagan/G.H.W. Bush•13 years, 119 days: A. Johnson/Grant•11 years, 79 days: Ford/Carter•10 years, 343 days: Polk/Taylor•9 years, 299 days: Van Buren/W.H. Harrison•9 years, 74 days: Monroe/J.Q. Adams•9 years, 46 days: Hayes/Garfield•8 years, 308 days: Wilson/Harding•8 years, 275 days: Kennedy/L. Johnson•7 years, 337 days: Jefferson/Madison•7 years, 173 days: Hoover/F. Roosevelt•7 years, 165 days: J. Adams/Jefferson•7 years, 164 days: Arthur/Cleveland•7 years, 43 days: Madison/Monroe•6 years, 243 days: Harding/Coolidge•6 years, 159 days: Truman/Eisenhower•5 years, 317 days: Cleveland/McKinley•5 years, 218 days: Tyler/Polk•5 years, 135 days: L. Johnson/Nixon•4 years, 320 days: Fillmore/Pierce•3 years, 250 days: Washington/J. Adams•3 years, 210 days: Cleveland/B. Harrison                          •2 years, 98 days: F. Roosevelt/Truman•2 years, 45 days: Garfield/Arthur•2 years, 37 days: Coolidge/Hoover•1 year, 42 days: T. Roosevelt/Taft•260 days: Taft/Wilson•187 days: Nixon/Ford•160 days: Grant/Hayes•118 days: J.Q. Adams/Jackson•45 days: Lincoln/A. Johnson•44 days: Clinton/G.W. Bush