|
CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS FOUNDATION
Bill of Right in Action Spring
1993 (9:2) The Executive Branch After his inaugural celebration, President Bill Clinton has settled into his job as chief executive of the United States. He must confront a widespread anger at the American political system. Many people feel that our system of government is failing to meet our nation's needs. Are our governmental institutions incapable of dealing with our nation's problems? Over the last few years, many Americans have debated this question. This edition is the third Bill of Rights in Action to address these ongoing issues. In previous editions, we examined the electoral and judicial systems. This edition takes a historical and contemporary look at issues in the executive branch. A future Bill of Rights in Action will examine the legislative branch of government. We gratefully acknowledge the support of the following organizations which have made Bill of Rights in Action possible: the Hearst Foundation, the Ahmanson Foundation, Times Mirror, and the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. U.S. History: Policing the Police World History: Ruling in the Name of the Emperor: How Japan Became a World Power U.S. Government: A Hero Betrayed: The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant But who will guard the guardians? Who will police the police? This is a question that has been asked forcenturies. As the most visible arm of the executive branch, the police are responsible for enforcing the law. But what happens if a police officer breaks the law? This question came up again, with new force, after several Los Angeles police officers were videotaped beating an African-American motorist named Rodney King in 1991. In April 1992 they were acquitted of brutality charges, and this led to massive rioting and outrage in Los Angeles and other cities. A CBS/New York Times poll, conducted shortly after the King incident, revealed that 65 percent of white Americans felt most charges of police brutality were probably justified. Over 80 percent of black Americans agreed. Necessary vs. Excessive Force Like all police agencies, the Los Angeles Police Department has a policy on the proper use of force. This policy says that officers are permitted to use the "force that is reasonable and necessary to protect others or themselves from bodily harm." But just having the policy does not guarantee that the policy will be followed. After the King beating, a special commission was created to investigate the Los Angeles Police Department. Warren Christopher, later named Secretary of State under President Clinton, headed the commission. The Christopher Commission found that "a significant number of officers . . . repetitively misuse force and persistently ignore the written policies and guidelines of the department regarding force." From 1986 through 1990, Los Angeles paid out more than $20 million in over 300 lawsuits concerning excessive use of force by police. Rodney King himself is suing Los Angeles for $56 million. Who Should Police the Police? There are many different approaches to investigating citizen complaints against the police. Some police departments simply refer complaints to an internal affairs division, within the police department. Others have independent or semi-independent review boards, usually made up of citizens plus senior police officers. None of these bodies have proven very effective in watching the police. The main problem in reviewing police behavior is often a fierce resistance by the police themselves to being investigated. There is almost always an unofficial code of silence, which means officers refuse to testify against other officers. Review boards are often stuck with contradictory evidence, with citizens claiming one thing and the officers claiming the opposite. In addition, many citizens and jurors are willing to give the police the benefit of the doubt. Police officers perform a dangerous and difficult job, dealing regularly with violence and crime, and many people excuse an occasional overreaction. Still, any abuse by those who enforce the law is serious, and many social critics insist that some system must be developed to police the police. Review Boards Some of the earliest police review boards were formed at the end of the 19th century, but the boards became much more common in the 1960s. Because of the demonstrations and upheavals in the 1960s, police response to street unrest was often in the news. In Los Angeles in 1967 and at the Chicago Democratic Party Convention in 1968, there were massive attacks by officers on demonstrators. Some social critics even called these "police riots." Large groups of officers took off their name tags so they couldn't be identified before beating demonstrators. Many cities around the country set up review boards in the 1960s to provide a forum for citizen complaints. These boards were usually formed in an atmosphere of hostility and confrontation, and they were almost always opposed by local police unions. Many boards lacked any real authority and soon went out of existence. During the 1980s, however, there was a revival of interest in civilian police review boards. One 1992 survey reports that 32 out of the 50 largest U.S. cities have some kind of civilian review of police conduct. A closer examination of the boards in four large cities shows how these police review panels vary in their make-up, authority, and success. New York City: Us vs. Them In 1966, the liberal reformer John Lindsay was elected mayor of New York City, and he established a Civilian Complaint and Review Board. From the beginning, New York police distrusted the civilian-dominated review board. The board was made up of four civilians and three police officials. It held public hearings in which police officers had to defend themselves against citizen complaints. New York's police union fought the board bitterly and, after four stormy months, they persuaded the voters to abolish it. A new board was set up later with an equal number of citizens and police officials. In 1991, the New York Civil Liberties Union launched a drive to set up an all-civilian police review board. The Civil Liberties Union claimed that the public had lost faith in the existing board. In 1989, for example, the board took action on only 93 out of 3,515 complaints against the New York police. Board defenders insisted that this was because the vast majority of complaint cases lacked objective witnesses. Mayor David Dinkins backed the all-civilian board proposal while Police Commissioner Lee Brown and the police union strongly opposed it. On September 16, 1992, off-duty police descended on city hall in a massive and angry demonstration to oppose the civilian board. In late 1992, Mayor Dinkins and the city council were discussing a compromise. Their proposal would include former employees of the police department on the board. Under the compromise proposal, the review board would have jurisdiction over complaints about alleged racism, discourtesy, or excessive use of force. It would also have its own staff of investigators. After independently investigating a complaint, the review board could recommend disciplinary action to the police commissioner. The police commissioner would still have the sole authority to punish police officers for misconduct. This is the situation in virtually all cities with a review board. The boards make recommendations, but actual punishment of officers is still up to the head of the police department. Dade County, Florida: Community Watchdog Dade County, Florida, which includes the city of Miami, set up an Independent Review Panel in 1980 after the beating death of a black motorist by four white police officers. The panel includes civilians named by local community organizations and the county manager. They investigate citizen complaints against officers only after the police department has completed its own investigation. Dade's police review panel uses both police and civilian investigators, conducts public hearings, and recommends officer discipline. It also spends considerable time attempting to settle citizen complaints informally. The Dade approach is a much more modest review body than New York's. Some groups of citizens have expressed skepticism, but there haven't yet been any major moves, either to strengthen it or abolish it. Portland, Oregon: Watchdog with No Bite In 1982, a popular referendum in Portland created a Police Internal Investigations Audit Committee. The police bitterly opposed it, even though the committee is virtually powerless. The city council appoints citizen volunteers to the audit committee. The committee basically only reviews investigations that the police department has already conducted. It has no authority to conduct investigations of its own, hold hearings, or review the police use of force. Portland police officers commonly refuse to cooperate with committee requests for information, and the committee has no subpoena power to demand it. As a result, few citizens take their complaints to the audit committee. Los Angeles: More Civilian Oversight The Los Angeles Police Department has a long history of total independence from civilian control. This developed in the 1930s through the 1950s as a way to fight corruption and keep the police independent from politicians. Most police critics, however, feel the independence went too far. Los Angeles has no civilian review board at all. A citizen with a complaint has to go to a police station to file the complaint. The complaint is then investigated by the department's own Internal Affairs Division. When officers are called to account for their actions, they appear before a Board of Rights made up entirely of other police officers. The Christopher Commission, after the Rodney King beating, stated in its report that "No area of police operations received more adverse comment during the commission's public hearings than the department's handling of citizen complaints." In 1990, only 85 cases out of more than a thousand complaints even went before a Board of Rights. In June 1992, Los Angeles voters approved a measure to include some civilian oversight in the complaint review process. The most significant change was the addition of a civilian to the department's Board of Rights panels. Judging by these four very different approaches, there is no consensus yet in this country on the proper way to implement citizen review of the police. For Discussion and Writing 1. What do you believe is the difference between necessary police force and police brutality? Give an example. 2. You are a police officer. One night you are present when your partner brutally beats a suspect who is not armed or resisting arrest. You are the only witness to this beating other than the victim. What should you do? 3. Who should police the police? Select and defend one of the following choices:
A C T I V I T Y Police Review Board 1. Form four study groups and a fifth group to play the role of your community's city council. 2. The study groups should each design a police review board to propose to the city council. In designing a review board, each study group should read over the examples discussed in the article. Study groups might also interview police officers, city officials, community group leaders, lawyers, and ordinary citizens. Each police review board proposal should address all of the following questions:
3. Each study group should present its proposal for a police review board to the city council. Council members should quiz each group on the reasons for its review board design. 4. Finally, the city council should vote to decide which police review board proposal should be adopted in your community. Ruling in the Name of the Emperor: How Japan Became a World Power In most countries, it is obvious who holds executive power. There is a president or a prime minister () who rules. In some countries, however, it is much harder to tell who is in charge. For example, there may be a king, a president, and a ruling council. They may all act as if they have power, but usually one or the other will be stronger. In the middle of the 1800s, Japan was a perfect example of this divided executive power. There was an emperor who lived in the city of Kyoto but the authority of the royal family had been declining for centuries. Real power was held by a powerful warlord called a shogun. The shogun lived in the city of Edo, which was later renamed Tokyo. Japan had cut itself off from the rest of the world in the 1600s. Foreigners were not allowed to enter Japan or trade with Japan. On July 3, 1853, an American commodore, Matthew C. Perry , forced his way into Edo Bay with a small fleet of American warships. This opened up Japan to outside influences and set off a tremendous struggle for executive power and for change inside Japan. Japan Responds to Foreign Power The Japan that Commodore Perry visited in 1853 was still a feudal society, like Europe 500 years earlier. Feudal lords lived in castles and controlled most of the land. They also virtually owned the peasants who farmed the land. A warrior class of samurai knights were famous for their swordsmanship. The ruling shogun in Edo was the head of a powerful family and the leading warlord. He told the emperor what to do. The Japanese people believed the emperor was descended from the sun goddess, but by 1853 the emperor had become little more than an honored royal hermit. Perry's arrival deeply shocked Japan. The Japanese saw immediately that they could not fight the powerful American ships. Perry's first step was to demand that some Japanese ports be opened for supplying American ships with water and coal. The shogun gave in and agreed. Other Western powers sent their ships, too, and the shogun gave them similar agreements. Then, in 1858, American diplomat Townsend Harris negotiated a treaty that gave the United States the right to trade freely at several Japanese ports. This treaty greatly favored of the United States. For example, the duties on American imports to Japan were set low. Also, the treaty said that Japanese courts could not try Americans. If they committed offenses against the Japanese, they were to be tried in a special American court under U.S. law. The shock of foreign demands set off a power struggle in Japan. The Japanese felt humiliated by what they called the unequal treaties. Some of Japan's most powerful families set up an opposition movement and called on the emperor to resist change. Emperor Komei refused to support the Townsend Treaty. The shogun ignored him, however, and went ahead and signed similar treaties with Holland, Russia, Britain, and France. The shogun was afraid of the Western powers. He had seen the British grab Hong Kong from China, and he hoped the treaties would avoid direct takeover by western powers. "Honor the emperor, expel the barbarians!" the opposition cried in angry rallies. Foreigners were attacked. A band of samurai assaulted the British trade consulate. The combined warships of Britain, France, Holland, and the United States bombarded Japanese shore defenses, and open resistance had to stop for the moment. Japan remained deeply divided. A group of feudal lords from western Japan still opposed the shogun. They supported the emperor and hoped he would throw out the "foreign barbarians." Then Emperor Komei died of smallpox. He was replaced on February 13, 1867, by his 15-year-old son, Matsuhito. The rebels at Kyoto used this moment to denounce the shogun and to proclaim the emperor once again the sole ruler of Japan. The shogun marched an army to Kyoto to remove the boy emperor's counselors. Armed mainly with swords and crossbows, the shogun's army was defeated by a much smaller army loyal to the emperor and armed with modern firearms. This defeat marked the end of the era of the shogun. The Restoration Many of the boy emperor's supporters thought he would restore feudal Japan and throw out the foreigners. Just the opposite happened. His counselors realized that Japan had to enter the modern world. They drafted a statement of principles called the Charter Oath and had Emperor Matsuhito proclaim it on April 6, 1868. The Charter Oath was a remarkable document that guided Japan from feudalism into the modern world. It called for the creation of a representative assembly and encouraged all classes of people "to fulfill their aspirations." It abandoned feudalism, which it called the "base customs of former times" and called for a Western model of law. Finally, the Charter Oath said that Japan would send people all over the world to learn the path to modernization. Like the shogun's men before them, the new leaders recognized Japan's military and economic weakness. They started a massive national effort to win equal status with the European nations and the United States. Their slogan was, "Wealthy country and strong arms." They set up a nationwide school system and encouraged the growth of industry. The new leaders still wanted to cancel the unequal treaties, but they realized they would have to become strong first. This was the only way to prevent retaliation by the Western powers. The teenaged emperor took the title Meiji, which meant enlightened peace. He also moved his capital from Kyoto to Edo and renamed the city Tokyo. The real power was held by a small group of men. These men surrounding the emperor represented Japan's most important families, and they took Japan from a feudal country to equality with the West in a single generation. Modernization The new leaders of Japan believed that the fastest way to achieve equality with the West was to adopt Western ways. The Emperor Meiji supported this view. Japan sent special study groups to America and Europe to learn the ways of the West. The most famous of these was the Iwakura Mission, which toured the United States and Europe from 1871 to 1873. The mission was made up of 50 senior leaders, government specialists, and even young students. They met heads of state such as President Grant and Queen Victoria, and they looked at everything from factories to a fox hunt. The Iwakura Mission concluded that Japan needed long-range planning, organization, and hard work to become a modern nation. Change came fast. The 200-year-old feudal system was quickly replaced by a central state. The emperor issued proclamations that created the new state institutions. These proclamations were actually written by the inner ruling circle of the new leaders. Over the next three decades, Japan followed the mission's plan. They brought in foreign engineers and experts called yatoi, which means "live machines." The British helped to build factories, railroads, and the navy. The French contributed the basis for Japan's new legal code. The Germans trained the army. The Americans helped design Japanese public education. Over a thousand American teachers came to teach in schools that were open to the children of all social classes. The Meiji Constitution The Iwakura Mission also studied Western democracy. After 1873, many Japanese began to speak out for the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Japan's first national political parties were formed, and some of them opposed the government that was still run by the handful of men who had thrown out the shogun. Others demanded a popularly elected parliament, as promised in the emperor's Charter Oath of 1868. The inner circle of leaders suppressed the pro-democracy movement. They passed new laws to limit freedom of speech, press, and assembly. A newly formed national police arrested hundreds of dissenters. By 1884, the new political parties had been destroyed. Japan's leaders did realize, however, that they would have to set up some kind of constitutional system. The West would never accept Japan as an equal without a constitution. A leader named Ito Hirobumi became the father of Japan's first constitution. After traveling throughout Europe and America, he decided he was most impressed with the constitution in the part of Germany called Prussia. In Prussia, the German Kaiser, or emperor, and his appointed cabinet were superior to the elected parliament. Back in Japan, Ito headed a group that worked in secret for over six years to draft a constitution. On February 11, 1889, Emperor Meiji offered Japan's first constitution as his personal gift to the people. The Meiji Constitution was based on the Prussian model. The emperor was considered divine and he was the head of state. He ruled through a cabinet of ministers. In fact, however, the ministers were the same leaders of Japan's powerful families who had overthrown the shogun and run Japan for more than 20 years. Under the Meiji Constitution, there would be a parliament, called the Diet. Only 2 percent of the population, however, were eligible to vote. In addition, the emperor's cabinet could veto any laws passed by the Diet. A bill of rights listed many freedoms, but all of them could be restricted by the cabinet. Most of the real power, as before, rested in the hands of the men surrounding the emperor. A World Power When Emperor Meiji died in 1912, Japan had accomplished its goals. It had made one of the most remarkable transitions in history. In the 45 years of his reign, Japan became a modern industrial nation. In many ways, it was now equal to the Western powers. Japan had built a modern army and navy that had won two brief wars. It had beaten China in 1894-1895 and Russia in 1904-1905. It had made Korea into a virtual colony. It had done away with the hated unequal treaties. And it had adopted a written constitution, though real democracy was still a long way away. Japan's next step was to try to become a world power and dominate the Pacific. This ambition would lead inevitably to the attack on Pearl Harbor and war with the United States. For Discussion and Writing 1. Sometimes an event in history sets off a whole series of unexpected consequences. What were the consequences resulting from Commodore Perry's visit to Japan in 1853? 2. If there are competing claims to executive power -- such as a king, prime minister, and cabinet -- how can you tell who holds the real power? 3. Can you think of any other cases of rapid transformation in other countries? Do they usually involve a strong ruler? Why or why not? For Further Information Japan: A brief history of Japan from the Columbia Encyclopedia. A C T I V I T Y Leadership in a Changing Japan Prepare brief role plays on the meetings described below. Each incident illustrates an event during the period of rapid change in Japan from 1853 to 1912. In reality, many of these meetings only took place through representatives. For the sake of simplicity, we will assume in this activity that Perry, for example, actually met directly with the shogun. After each role play, discuss whether or not the Japanese leader or leaders did the right thing for Japan. 1. Commodore Perry meets the shogun in 1853 and demands a trade treaty in favor of the United States. 2. The shogun and Emperor Komei disagree whether or not to sign the "unequal treaties" in 1858. 3. After the shogun is overthrown, the rebel leaders meet with Emperor Meiji in 1868 to debate whether Japan should remain a feudal society or change to a modern Westernized nation. 4. In 1882 Ito Hirobumi asks an American and a Prussian to help him decide what type of constitutional government would be best for Japan. 5. At the death of Emperor Meiji in 1912, Japanese government leaders meet with representatives of the Western powers to argue that Japan is now equal to them. A Hero Betrayed: The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant Some American presidents have chosen to be active leaders. They stay in touch with all the issues that affect the country. They insist on discussing ever detail of policy with their aides. Other presidents have chosen to be more relaxed. They delegate much of their power to their aides. And they only decide on the broadest outlines of new policies. There can be dangers in both approaches. The active, hands-on president may step into areas where he or she is no expert and may overrule advice from wiser aides. On the other hand, the hands-off, relaxed president may well give too much power to aides who are incompetent or even corrupt. The presidency of Ulysses S. Grant, from 1869 to 1877, is a perfect illustration of what can go wrong in the executive branch if a president hands over too much power to his aides. Grant was the hero of the Civil War, and he wanted to be the hero of the peace— binding up the country's wounds. Unfortunately, he was a hero who was betrayed by the corruption of his own aides. A Modest Beginning In accepting the Republican Party nomination for president in 1868, Ulysses S. Grant declared, "Let there be peace." The four-year presidency of Andrew Johnson, after Lincoln's assassination, had been bitter and full of debate. Some opposed Johnson's lenient treatment of the South, and some opposed his actions in removing his secretary of war from the cabinet. He came within one vote of being removed from office by impeachment and conviction. Grant hoped to have a more peaceful presidency. Grant's first big test came shortly after the inauguration. Wall Street dealers James Fisk and Jay Gould tried to corner the gold market. Grant's brother-in-law, Abel Corbin, persuaded Fisk and Gould that he could get the president to keep the government out of the gold market. This would allow them to bid up the price of gold without interference. Corbin even told the two Wall Street dealers that his sister, Mrs. Grant, wanted a piece of the action. These were all lies and Corbin couldn't deliver on any of his promises. As soon as Grant saw what was happening, he ordered the sale of $4 million in government gold. This caused a price collapse and nearly ruined Fisk and Gould. Grant's quick action stopped the crisis. However, his brother-in-law's greed gave a hint of worse scandals to come. In his first term, Grant and his appointees built a modest record of success. His secretary of the treasury, George Boutwell, reduced the huge national debt left by the Civil War. All the former Confederate states were re-admitted to the Union to try to make peace with the rebels. At the same time, Grant took some steps to stop terrorism against the freed slaves. In many Southern states, blacks and poor whites now sat in legislatures and had real power for the first time. The Southern plantation owners and many of their allies in the towns hated this fact. They encouraged the growth of the Ku Klux Klan to terrorize blacks and stop them from voting. Grant signed an Anti-Klan act that allowed him to send federal troops to the South to fight the Klan. Grant also appeared to want to reform the civil service. Since Andrew Jackson in 1829, every president had followed the "spoils system" in making appointments. This name was based on the old saying, "to the victor belong the spoils," which means the winner should take everything. Upon taking office, every new president would kick out everyone in government service and appoint his friends, contributors, and relatives to every post. In his 1870 annual message to Congress, Grant called for a system of examinations to select civil service appointments. "The present system," Grant said, "does not secure the best men and often not even fit men for public office. . . ." However, when his own Civil Service Commission made its report recommending a system of examinations, Grant ignored the report and continued to hand out positions to friends and allies. In the next election in 1872, Republican reformers split away from their party to pick Horace Greeley for president. Greeley was the founder of the influential New York Tribune. He argued strongly for civil service reform, and he called for an amnesty for all former Confederates. The Democrats were so weak at this time that they, too, nominated Greeley as their presidential candidate. Grant was still so popular as a war hero that he buried Greeley in a landslide. The Second Term: Scandals and Betrayal Even before Grant was sworn in for his second term in 1873, Republican members of Congress were caught up in a bribery scandal. The Union Pacific Railroad had paid huge bribes to congressmen to get them to give federal money and land to the railroads. Although the bribery took place before Grant's presidency, the news began to come out during his second inauguration. It cast a dark cloud over his presidency. Then, just as the country was sinking into an economic depression in 1873, Grant signed a bill to increase the pay of top government officials, including himself. The press called this a salary grab and attacked him. The press dug up other scandals, too, and many voters began to turn against the Republicans. In the middle of Grant's second term, the Democrats won a majority of seats in the House of Representatives, and they pressed for many new congressional investigations. Grant's secretary of the treasury, W. A. Richardson, had to resign because of a fraud involving kickbacks from delinquent taxpayers. The greatest scandal, and the one that came closest to Grant himself, was a plot that came to be called the Whiskey Ring. In Grant's first term, he had appointed John A. McDonald, an old Army friend, as internal revenue supervisor—or tax collector -- for the St. Louis area. McDonald worked out a scheme to let whiskey distillers cheat the government in return for "political contributions" and bribes. The distillers ended up paying taxes on only a third of the spirits they produced, cheating the U. S. Treasury out of a million dollars a year. Some of the money went to the Republican Party, and some went straight into McDonald's pocket. To keep the scheme going, many government officials were bribed, including the chief clerk of the Treasury Department. The Whiskey Ring paid him a regular salary for keeping his mouth shut. The treasury secretary at the time, Benjamin H. Bristow, did not suspect what was going on in his own department. In the summer of 1875, he launched a series of raids on whiskey distilleries that he was certain were cheating on their taxes. Bristow was baffled when the distillers always had their records in good order when his treasury agents arrived. He had no idea that someone inside his office was warning them. McDonald came up frequently from St. Louis to visit the White House. Grant didn't suspect his old friend and even accepted expensive gifts from him. Bristow knew that something was wrong in St. Louis. He tried to transfer McDonald to another district, but McDonald persuaded Grant to stop the move. Grant was not really part of the Whisky Ring, but McDonald bragged to his friends back in St. Louis that the president was helping their illegal scheme. Finally, in June 1875, a federal grand jury in Missouri indicted McDonald and more than 350 distillers and government officials. The indictment named Grant's personal White House secretary, Orville Babcock. He was accused of accepting bribes from the Whiskey Ring to keep them informed about planned raids. When he heard this, Grant declared, "If Babcock is guilty, there is no man who wants him so proven guilty as I do, for it is the greatest piece of traitorism to me that a man could possibly practice." Babcock's lawyers did everything they could to get him off. They even had witnesses lie to keep damaging evidence away from the jury. Grant himself offered a statement of his secretary's good character. In the end, Babcock was acquitted. But he was too controversial to return to the White House. After a private meeting with Grant, Babcock left Washington. When the Whiskey Ring trials were over, John McDonald and two others went to prison. Sixty others paid large fines. The real victim of the scandal was Ulysses S. Grant. Many people began to see him as a president surrounded by corruption. Only a few days after the Babcock trial, Grant's secretary of war, William W. Belknap (), was accused of bribery. Belknap avoided impeachment by resigning and leaving Washington. There were also scandals involving bribes to the board of public works in Washington. Many Grant appointees were caught up in these. Final Betrayal Grant made a sad exit from his troubled presidency in 1876. "Failures have been errors of judgment, not intent," he said in his last message to Congress. He tried to come back in 1880 and win the Republican nomination for president again. He lost to James A. Garfield. The hero of Vicksburg and Appomattox had become too associated with an era of greed and corruption that came to be called the "Gilded Age." Grant was never a wealthy man. He gave up his military pension to become president. In the 1880s, one of Grant's sons persuaded him to invest all of his savings in a banking plan that turned out to be a fraud. Grant lost everything and faced poverty. This was the final betrayal. Fortunately, Congress approved a special pension that allowed Grant to live out his days in dignity writing his war memoirs. His book became a well-respected history of the Civil War. For Discussion and Writing 1. Do you think Grant was responsible for the scandals and corruption that stained his presidency? Why or why not? 2. How would you describe President Grant's style of governing? Could this have had anything to do with his misfortunes? Explain. 3. Which presidents do you think have been hands-on presidents? Which have been hands-off presidents? 4. Most historians have ranked Ulysses S. Grant as one of the nation's worst presidents. Do you agree or disagree? Why? For Further Information Ulysses S. Grant Chronology: A detailed chronology of the life of Ulysses S. Grant. A C T I V I T Y Scandal! Form small discussion groups and rank the following types of government scandals from most serious (5) to least serious (1). Be prepared to explain your choices. A male member of the president's cabinet is guilty of sexually harassing his female subordinates. A close White House advisor accepts gifts from companies being investigated by the government. Whiskey distillers bribe officials in the Treasury Department to avoid paying taxes on all the spirits they produce. The head of the CIA lies to Congress. A military officer working in the White House shreds documents that might incriminate members of the president's administration. Officers: Alan Friedman, President; Harry Usher, Immediate Past President; Publications Committee: Jerome C. Byrne, Chairperson; Peggy Saferstein, Marvin Sears, Eugene Shutler, Lloyd M. Smith, Marjorie Steinberg, Susan Troy, Daniel H Willick; Staff: Todd Clark, Executive Director; Marshall L. Croddy, Director of Program and Materials Development; Lisa Friedman, Program Manager; Carlton Martz, Writer; John Shannon, Editor; Bill Hayes, Copy Editor; Cristy Lytal, Web Editor; Andrew Costly, Production Manager; Peggy Saferstein, CRF Board Reviewer. © 1993, Constitutional Rights Foundation,
601 South Kingsley Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90005, (213) 487-5590
|