Jump to content

Talk:List of secretaries of state of the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jaxdave (talk | contribs) at 08:13, 23 August 2009 (→‎SOS is a sloth!: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconUnited States List‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)
Okay, as to Clayton and everyone else. Prior to the adoption of the 20th amendment, the NEW Senate would meet for a special session in order to confirm the President's cabinet. The old cabinet would meet with the new president on the day after he took office in order to brief him on what he should know. The cabinet would generally be sworn in before March 6th. Clayton was Secretary of State under Filmore. No need for a footnote.

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)

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:[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Regarding Thomas Jefferson: he should not be shown as Secretary from 1789: he did not arrive in the capital and take the oath of office until late March 1790. That should be his first date, not 1789. Walter Stahr f did 0 ==Infobox== Pardon I don't want to participate in an edit war, but I will be reverting an edit to restore the infobox without a photo of the current Secretary. On the Wikipedia list of the positions in the United States Cabinet only the departments of State and Education (incidentally both currently with Secretaries who are females), and the Attorney General had photos of the Secretary, which I tried to fix (sorry did not get to the Attorney General yet but you get the idea). You're welcome to revert my edit again but I guess I would like to know your rationale? Ideally an infobox for all of these would elminate the table which is pretty hard for me to edit. But until one exists or is located I guess replacing an even handed table with an oddball table in which a photo dominates, but only for two Cabinet members, looks peculiar. Other thoughts, corrections and ideas most welcome. -Susanlesch 04:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, the infobox is about the department, this article is about a position. Information about the department is found in the article about the department. Its a waste of space with the extra information and has no area for an image of the incumbent (which has been discussed ardently in the past). Understand what I am saying?--Southern Texas 04:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, actually I don't understand all of what you are saying, but I am not feeling well today and have no energy to argue. Sorry, maybe some other time. I agree information about the department might be best elsewhere but I don't know. I certainly do question a photo only here though. Have you worked with either WikiProject United States or WikiProject US Government Agencies to work out a better solution to using a table? -Susanlesch 04:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few months ago, there was a dispute on United States Speaker of the House of Representatives over the inclusion of a photo of the incumbent or of the seal in the lead. An agreement came in the form of this infobox which contained an image of both the seal and the incumbent. The infobox you want to include is already found at United States Department of State and is redundant and improper to be placed here since this article is about an office and not a department. The infobox has stood for months on this article, Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, President of the United States, and Vice President of the United States. No challenges nor arguments have been made against this infobox in favor of the one you want to include since it is expressively only about the department. For example, the inclusion of the name of the Undersecretary is not really necessary for this article about the Secretary.--Southern Texas 04:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are very short articles which don't have much of a lead and nobody has really shown any interest in them. However United States Secretary of Energy is a featured list because a certain editor did show an interest in that particular article.--Southern Texas 05:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, since the article is about an office.--Southern Texas 18:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acting Secretaries

I merged the list of acting secretaries into the list of secretaries. It makes no sense to have a separate list of acting secretaries as this was no separate office with a lineage but filled by those holding other positions (though right now it not always clear which one) and occuring after gaps of sometimes many years. In particular, it is absurd to count e.g. Frank Pol as the 24th acting secretary. The only separate lists that make sense are those listing the various offices e.g. "Assistant Secretary of State". These already exist. I added a footnote stating what regular office the acting secretary held, if that information was avaiable on WP. Str1977 (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Hamilton

The link to the page on James A Hamilton, acting Secretary of State under Jackson, is incorrect. It leads you to this page on a James Hamilton born in 1876, which is physically impossible because Jackson was president in the 1830s. The link should lead you to the son of Alexander Hamilton, who was born in the late 1700s (I was looking for this because I found it ironic that James Hamilton opposed the National Bank charter that his father created). Is there even a link to him, because if there isn't the link should be deleted. Could someone look into this? --- Writergeek7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writergeek7 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the list of Secretaries

Could we move that section to List of Secretaries of State of the United States (in keeping with List of Presidents of the United States and List of Vice Presidents of the United States)? It would just make things easier for readers, I would say, if every list of people who have occupied an important US governmental post were to have its own page, named in a consistent fashion. It Is Me Here (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely support a split. It should logically be a list, per size regulations, and ease of reading. Scapler (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do the colours mean?

Are they Democratic / Federalist, or something else? That table needs a key, I think. It Is Me Here (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tan means they were the acting secretaries. A key is a good idea though Louis Waweru  Talk  21:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton

Until Hillary Clinton is formally announced by President-elect Obama, we need to keep her off the list.Saberwolf116 (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she was officially announced today, so she should be on the list.Hihellowhatsup (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She isn't confirmed by the Senate yet, and we should keep her off till Jan 20. CTJF83Talk 02:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should be in the list, but only with qualifications made in the entry. I have restored a version with qualification that was previously reverted without additional comment or consensus. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acting secretary of state 1/20-21 is William J. Burns http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/us/politics/21capitol.html http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/105574.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton was acting secretary of state the moment Obama was inaugurated, she isn't in the line of succession but she is in full legal terms the Secretary of State 92.237.92.253 (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Clinton was not even nominated until sometime after three in the afternoon. She was not confirmed until this afternoon, and was still a senator at last report. Since a senator cannot be a Cabinet secretary or acting Cabinet secretary while still a senator, your proposition is demonstrably false. -Rrius (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's this way. Hillary was confirmed at four-forty-five this afternoon. the paperwork will not be ready until tonight, and the swearing in was scheduled for tomorrow morning. I put back Burns and changed the date to reflect that. Ericl (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crap just lost all that I wrote, Burns can't have been acting Sec of State unless he had been approved to a position in the state department by the Senate, as Clinton's hearings started pre 20th January I can only assume that she had resigned, I don't know on that point, if she hadn't then whoever was the most senior, not political, staff member would have taken over from Rice until Clinton resigned her Senate seat at that point she became Acting Sec of State until confirmed which she was, if she resigned on confirmation which for me is constitutionally difficult as the Senate can't confirm her whilst still a Senator its constitutionally impossible, then she became Sec of State on resignation.Benny45boy (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC) I stand corrected, I did not realise Burns was a career appointment by Rice and thus was not required to resigned at midday 20th January; apologies to all concerned a little mouse happy. However, my argument still stands in relation to her confirmation, it is the same issue that arises when the Speaker becomes President as to become President he must resign his seat and position which renders him ineligible to stand.Benny45boy (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Acting Secretaries

In my opinion, the images of acting secretaries - at least those who served very little time in the role, like William Joseph Burns - hurts the flow of the list. I went ahead and removed Burns' photo, and I think it flows better that way, as he was only acting Secretary of State for a day. --Evildevil (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take the lack of response as a go ahead to remove a few more. I got rid of ALL acting secretaries pictures with two exceptions: John Jay was first, so I feel that's noteworthy enough itself, plus he served five months. Richard Rush served over six months, so I feel he was important enough as well. --Evildevil (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Belatedly, yes, I agree. I also agree with keeping the two you did. -Rrius (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marvelous. Thank you for the feedback. I usually don't do this kind of edit to a page, so I was hesitant. --Evildevil (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SOS is a sloth!

I was born in the U. S. in 1953.

Of course in school, we learned mathmatics, geography, history, science, primary and secondary languages, etc. Since I was a citizen of the U. S., I learned U. S. History

While he U. S. is a relatively young country, we do have many citizens who were instrumental in forming our country.

I never really understood the value of service to the world of the position of the office until Hillary clinton was appointed Secretary of State of the U. S.

Our country had many famous and notable SOS's, the notables are;

Jay, Jefferson, Marshalls, Clay, Everett, Sherman, Hay, Knox, Bryan, Lansing, Stimson, Hull, Marshall, Dulles, Kissinger, Vance, Haig, Shultz, Powell, Rice

Rusk was our black angel to Vietnam, Christopher was our cripler in world economy, Albright made us a joke in Eastern Europe.

During the U. S. involvemnet in Eastern Europe, the leaders and people thought Albright was a fool. She went over there and expected the leaders to bow to her. Instead, they told jokes about her.

In 2009, the political carpet-bagger Hillary Clinton was appointed the SOS.

Her name should never be inscribed alongside Jay, Kissinger, Sherman, Marshall or many of hte other really great ambassadors of the U. S.

She is just a sloth until a real SOS is appointed.

The One and Only Worldwise Dave Shaver 08:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_secretaries_of_state_of_the_United_States&oldid=309566878"