Talk:United States Secretary of State/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)

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:

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)

US/British comparison

About this this paragraph :-

The title of Secretary of State is British in origin. At the time of American independence, "Secretary of State" was a title given to senior members of the King's cabinet (e.g., "Secretary of State in Charge of Colonies"). The position of "Secretary of State of The United States" was thus intended to be the most general and important office in the US government, behind the Presidency.

It would seem to me, with the 'Secretary of Foreign Affairs' -> 'Secretary of State' change happening at the same time as 'Department of Foreign Affairs' -> 'Department of State', that the similarity in the titles is a mere coincedence, especially as the already established usage of 'Secretary of State for X' was not followed with other departments. Anyone? Morwen - Talk 17:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not really that simple. The idea that Secretaryships of State should be separate in terms of "Secretary of State for X" was not established until 1782. Previously, there had been two Secretaries of State, one of them in charge of matters relating to Northern England, Scotland (when there wasn't a separate Scottish secretary), and northern Europe; and the other in charge of Southern England, Wales, the colonies (until 1768, when a separate colonial secretary of state was established - but this position was abolished in 1782), and southern Europe. Both secretaries of state thus dealt with both foreign and domestic policy. Early on, it would appear that the U.S. Secretary of State also dealt with some matters of domestic policy - Madison having to give out judges' commissions at the time of Marbury v. Madison, for instance. One could also note the office of Secretary of State in individual U.S. states, which has nothing to do with foreign affairs (which, obviously, states do not have). I don't think the similarity of titles could possibly be a coincidence - most certainly the title derived from British models. On the other hand, this probably should be sourced. john k 17:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

So... what do they do...?

This article ownly says the Sec of State deals with "foreign affairs." the only other mention of their duties is accepting a president's resignation. Please expand the article on what the Sec actually does. KI 22:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Asst. Secretary subhead

I deleted this subhead which came from an anon user around 10 Feb. While the information was factually correct, it didn't add anything to the article. Without a knowledge of the structure of the department, and without explaination here, it served only to confuse readers. If a breakdown of under- and assistant secretaries needs to be made, it should be done under the Department of State article—User:hwonder 10:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
  • 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)

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)

  • OK. Maybe you would be so kind as to explain to me why the following articles have no photo? Apologies I am not a student of government and could easily be making a mistake in thinking these are a group. Are there other positions in a similar category in the federal government of the United States? Thanks in advance for your time. -Susanlesch 04:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

  • Nice job indeed. Should Director of the National Security Agency have the same infobox as this article? Sorry to bother you but you seem to know the territory of heads of departments (I don't know where NSA for example fits with the Cabinet, quite a question, sorry but I wonder, just to be equitable). Looking at the article itself, this one appears to be under the United States Secretary of Defense. -Susanlesch 07:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Image of a piece of paper

Could the editor who used the IP (unintentially I am assuming) please explain why an image of a sheet of paper is more encyclopedic than two images of two notable former secretaries.--STX 22:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

Requirements to be appointed

I was wondering, given some rumours that Colin Powell may be appointed SoS by Obama, whether or not there are any requirements before appointment as Secretary of State? For instance, does one need to be an elected official (congress, senate, governor), or could he just pick anyone he wanted? I am assuming that it's not like the British system in that one needs to be an elected MP before you can get these roles? El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 08:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is that anyone nominated to a Cabinet position who holds an elected office in either House must resign in order to accept the position. The United States Cabinet article gives a good overview of the US Exucutive and cabinet system. The section Constitutional and legal basis should address your main questions. If you still have questions on the matter, feel free to ask here or on that article's talk page. - BillCJ (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much! El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 10:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)
Done. Remember (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks! It Is Me Here (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of lumping people!

The part where it lists people who ran for president "after or before" being SoS is a little ridiculous, especially considering that the context of the article is the use of the office of SoS as a stepping stone to the Presidency. Linear time is still in right? If the intent is to mention how appointees tend to be prominent people in politics, then that can be more effectively stated aside. 70.171.231.243 (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE NEEDS TO BE UPDATED

HILARY CLINTON IS SECRETARY OF STATE, PLEASE CHANGE ARTICLE TO REFLECT 2009. HAS THIS REALLY NOT BEEN EDITED SINCE 2005? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brmpbrmp (talk • contribs) 02:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is just a result of vandalism. 72.201.237.39 (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Specific Duties of the Secretary of State

After reviewing the source for the listed "specific duties of the Secreatary of State" I've noticed that claims are present on this page without any cited substantiation and to my knowledge are entirely without merit:

  • Supervises and supports the foreign affairs activities of other U.S. Government entities including the Defense Department, CIA, and Department of Homeland Security
  • Supervises the Special Activities Division of the National Clandestine Service.
  • Foreign trade missions and intelligence assets report directly to the Secretary of State.
  • Responsible for overall direction, coordination, and supervision of interdepartmental activities of the U.S. Government overseas.

These claims need to be substainted or deleted in quick order.

68.44.28.30 (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Consolation prize for failed presidential candidates

John Kerry has become the latest failed presidential candidate to become Secretary of State and this obviously shows that this office is a consolation prize for people who were unsuccessful in either getting their party’s nomination for the presidency or losing the general election as the presidential nominee. Other failed presidential candidates to become Secretaries of State includes Kerry’s immediate predecessor Hillary Clinton, Ed Muskie, Charles Evans Hughes and William Jennings Bryan. I mean how many more failed presidential candidates being appointed as Secretary of State to get people see the significance of this office being used as a consolation prize for them. I mean failing to see this significance is simply putting one’s head in the sand. Even The West Wing has noted this significance.

The Secretary of State is not only office that has come under significance with its holders. Just look at the Assistant Secretary of the Navy articke and look under the heading of Famous Assistant Secretaries of the Navy.

I have inserted the aforementioned significance of the holders in this article before but it got removed on the basis of it being a factoid. This is not about it being a factoid but to raise questions for readers whether the failed presidential candidates being appointed as Secretaries of State was because of merit or is it simply as a consolidation prize for failing to become President.

I however am not saying that there isn't merit for appointing a failed presidential candidate per se. I mean John McCain could make a good Secretary of State, not so with Mitt Romney.

The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

(not TST)

We don't write the encyclopedia based on your opinion but on reliable sources. You want to add it - find someone else who published the idea first and quote them. Rmhermen (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Abbreviation

In the mode of POTUS and SCOTUS, it seems like SECSTATE is used in some contexts but we could use an official source and explanation of that usage. It seems like it is used as a stand-in for the name; when the last name also appears, the title simply seems to be (the obviously ambiguous) Secretary or Sec. (although, again, it'd be nice to have a link to some gov't style guide).

Some websites list SOS and SS but both have less-than-pleasant associations and I've never seen them used. Likewise, State's flowchart lists him as simply S but that's probably just intraägency shorthand. — LlywelynII 17:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Notable Secretaries of State

Would it be worth having a few lines in the article on some of the Secretaries of State whose actions as Secretary were particularly notable? Seward, Hay, Marshall, and Kissinger are some that come to mind.--Wikimedes (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

duties

http://www.state.gov/secretary/115194.htm

the government website lists these as responsibilities to American citizens not U.S. citizens. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.24.93.89 (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
As Til Eulenspiegel is hinting, in the USA, American citizens generally means citizens of the USA, not all the citizens of North, South, and Central America.--Wikimedes (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2018

The Current Secretary of State is Mike Pompeo. Bruddy111222 (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: No, he isn't. Presidential tweets do not equal confirmation. Mike Pompeo is the secretary-designate until such time as Mr. Pompeo's nomination is processed. At the current time, Pompeo's nomination has not even been formally forwarded to the Senate. If and when Pompeo gets confirmed, this will be updated. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Secretary_of_State/Archive_1&oldid=1149685591"