A History of Cabinet Appointments

...and why they matter

The appointment of a cabinet is one of the most important aspects of every transition. These choices set the tone for the coming term, reveal a president-elect’s preferences and ambitions, and offer early wins or losses. Given that cabinets are very much in the news, I thought a primer about where it started, how the cabinet has evolved, and some historic examples would be helpful. For the new faces, cabinets have long been my focus. I was writing about them in 2016 and still am today.

As many of you know, the cabinet wasn’t in the original Constitution and no legislation created it. George Washington convened the first cabinet meeting on November 26, 1791, after realizing that the existing advisory options provided by the Constitution were insufficient to meet the demands of governing the nation. Over the next several years, Washington established three important cabinet precedents that have largely guided his successors.

First, Washington surrounded himself with men who had experience and expertise that was different than his own. He understood that he couldn’t possibly have all the answers and sought out advisors who might offer creative solutions beyond his own thinking.

Second, he genuinely sought their advice. He rarely entered a cabinet meeting with his mind made up. Instead, he requested opinions from the department secretaries, studied his options, and then made an informed decision. He encouraged dissent and debate, believing that it made his presidency stronger to hear all perspectives. As I wrote for a Brookings article, “when Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson tried to retire, Washington pleaded with him to stay in office because “he thought it important to preserve the check of my opinions in the administration in order to keep things in their proper channel and prevent them from going too far.” Washington knew Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton and Jefferson disagreed on almost everything, which is why he wanted them both in the Cabinet.” Put another way, he did not surround himself with yes men.

Third, Washington created a diverse cabinet. While we might look at this picture and see a group of five dead white guys, eighteenth-century Americans did not. They understood that Washington selected candidates that represented different geographic, educational, religious, and economic backgrounds. He tried to pull together the fragmented factions of the new nation and solidify the fragile emotional bonds between the states.

In that same Brookings article, I wrote about how early presidents followed Washington’s example and assembled cabinets that included geographic, experiential, and ideological diversity. For example, Thomas Jefferson’s Cabinet included James Madison (Virginia), Albert Gallatin (Pennsylvania), Robert Smith (Maryland), Henry Dearborn (New Hampshire), and Levi Lincoln (Massachusetts). They also represented the different ideological factions of the Democratic-Republican Party. Jefferson’s protégé, James Monroe, replicated these efforts. He selected John Quincy Adams (Massachusetts), William Crawford (Georgia), John C. Calhoun (South Carolina), Richard Rush (Pennsylvania), and Benjamin Crowninshield (Massachusetts).

Subsequently, there were noteworthy moments when the modern sense of “diversity” emerged. These include Theodore Roosevelt’s appointment of Oscar Straus, the first Jewish member to serve in the Cabinet. In 1906, he was appointed as Secretary of Commerce and Labor (in 1913, these became independent cabinet departments). Roughly three decades later, FDR made history by appointing the first woman to the Cabinet: Frances Perkins as Secretary of the Labor Department.

******

The best presidents since Washington have generally followed these three precedents. Lincoln’s team of rivals, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, and Eisenhower. They have also demonstrated that cabinet choices matter. They shape the biggest policies, control huge budgets, manage millions of people, and can change the course of history. Let me give one example that is particularly instructive.

Amos Akerman was Attorney General for about a year Ulysses S. Grant, but boy did he make a difference. Akerman was born in New Hampshire but spent most of his adult life in Georgia. When the Civil War began, he joined the Confederate Army, rising to the rank of colonel. In 1865, after the war ended, he joined the Republican Party and enthusiastically embraced Reconstruction—just a few short years after owning a plantation and enslaving eleven human beings.

As Attorney General, he was an outspoken defender of civil rights and urged President Grant to use the full force of the presidency to prosecute the Ku Klux Klan Act under the Enforcement Acts. His insight into southern culture and his experience fighting for civil rights offered unique and valuable insight for Grant. He also brought that experience to the over 1100 prosecutions of KKK members and the creation of the Department of Justice. Although Akerman’s tenure in office was short, it contributed to one of Grant’s greatest strengths as president.

The worst presidents have flouted these precedents. Andrew Jackson is a noteworthy example. He engineered three complete overhauls of the cabinet before he found a group of yes-men willing to comply with his every whim. Warren Harding appointed a bunch of cronies and business associates from home, known as the Ohio Gang. The Gang took advantage of Harding’s friendship and lax oversight and conducted a lucrative and corrupt ring of schemes to enrich themselves at the taxpayer’s expense. A series of scandals broke out, but Harding’s unexpected death on August 2, 1923, saved him from legal consequences and the subsequent investigations.

Until recently, the Senate has largely deferred to the president’s cabinet wishes, especially in the first term. Occasionally, nominees will withdraw their nomination or the senate will reject a candidate with a particularly egregious conflict of interest.

For example, in January 1993, Zoë Baird withdrew her nomination for attorney general after news broke that she had broken the law by employing two illegal immigrants as a nanny and chauffeur. The following month, Clinton’s second choice, Judge Kimba Wood, also withdrew her nomination after similar allegations.

Sometimes, presidents have pushed forward with controversial nominations and the Senate rejected their choices. In a few cases, the Senate was concerned about the nominees’ close ties to a particular industry. In 1925, President Calvin Coolidge nominated Charles B. Warren as attorney general. The Senate rejected Warren’s nomination because the senators worried his close ties to the Sugar Trust would undermine his ability to enforce antitrust laws. 

Despite all this colorful and full past, I suspect we are living through a historic moment. More on that as it unfolds. If you are interested in learning more about past cabinet moments, I’ve written a few pieces over the years:

Biden’s Cabinet Diversity

Cabinet Representation and Citizenship

A Quick History of Cabinet Turnover

A History of Cabinet Representation

---

If you are new to my newsletter, thank you! If you’d like to read more, please consider The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution and Mourning the Presidents. You can also buy my new book, Making the Presidency: John Adams and the Precedents That Forged the Republic.

Available for purchase on Amazon, Bookshop, or wherever you like to buy books.

Op-eds:

“The Echoes of 1800 in the 2024 Election,” The Bulwark, November 4, 2024.

Podcasts/Radio:

Diplomatic Immunity, November 14, 2024: Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky: U.S. History & the Biden-Trump Transition

On With Kara Swisher, November 7, 2024: Trump vs Democracy: Two Historians’ Perspectives

This Day in Esoteric Political History, October 24, 2024: Hamilton’s Diss Letter To Adams (1800) w/ Lindsay Chervinsky

Timeless Leadership, October 14, 2024, #84: Making the Presidency with Lindsay Chervinsky

Press:

“The cognitive dissonance of presidential transitions,” Wake Up To Politics, November 14, 2024.

“Analyzing women’s votes in the 2024 election and beyond,” CBS News, November 11, 2024.

“Biography Offers a Revisionist Take on the Presidency of John Adams,” The New York Sun, November 6, 2024.

“John Adams, man for the job,” Washington Examiner, October 17, 2024.

Events:

November 21st: Teaching Honest History, Revolutionary Spaces Boston

February 11, 2025: Sulgrave Club, Washington, DC

March 4th, 2025: Oregon Historical Society

March 8th, 2025: Virginia Sons of the American Revolution

March 27, 2025: Vail Symposium

April 1, 2025: Cosmos Club, Washington, DC

April 8, 2025: Grand Rapids, MI