The OLD Philosopher – John M. Miller In my old age, one of my most favored of biblical books is Ecclesiastes. Presumably it was written by an old man who had been around the block many times, and had seen many things, many of them repeated frequently. The author is alternately called Ecclesiastes, which is a misnomer in Christian Bibles, and he is called in Hebrew Koheleth, a description but maybe also a name, which means, “The Preacher.” Tradition says it was Solomon who wrote Ecclesiastes, which almost certainly is not true. One of my favorite verses in Ecclesiastes is 1:9: “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.” I was a history major in college. History majors especially should always remember the truth of Ecclesiastes 1:9. It also gets constantly reinforced by re-reading history long since forgotten, or never fully grasped. My last Old Philosopher essay was based on the sixty pages of Ron Chernow’s biography of Ulysses S. Grant that chronicle the disastrous presidency of Andrew Johnson. This essay shall focus on a few other incidents from that sad chapter of American history, plus observations by Chernow about the eight years of Grant’s presidency which followed immediately after the impeachment of Johnson by the House of Representatives. I found many parallels between those turbulent years and the past three years of American political life. Andrew Johnson, as most will recall, became president upon the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. As the popular commanding General of the US Army following the Civil War, it fell to Ulysses Grant to become the social and political glue of the country during the four-year Johnson presidency. Chernow said of Grant that he “had to deal with a new president who would swing from excessive hostility toward the South to excessive leniency alienating him at both ends of the spectrum” (p. 549). The same mercurial temperament characterizes Donald Trump. With no warning and apparently little or no forethought, Trump lurches from one ill-considered decision to another on a wide variety of policies. There is nothing new under the sun. In 1866, two years after Johnson had become president, Grant testified before the House Judiciary Committee to present his thoughts about a possible impeachment of the president. It is not unlikely that sometime in 2019 0r 2020, the House Judiciary Committee will hold impeachment hearings against President Trump, and, as in 1866, many witnesses shall be directed to testify. There is nothing new under the sun. Gideon Welles was the Secretary of the Navy during the 1860s. During and after the Civil War, he was a negative influence about almost everything and everyone, including Lincoln and Grant. In a Cabinet meeting in 1867 at which Grant was ordered to appear, Welles asked Grant if the recent Reconstruction law “wasn’t palpably unconstitutional and destructive of the government and of the Constitution itself?” Grant responded, perhaps presciently for 2019, “Who is to decide if the law is unconstitutional?” (Grant, p. 595) In 2018 and 2019, the Department of Justice, led by Attorney General William Barr, told Robert Mueller that his investigation into alleged improprieties by President Trump could not recommend criminal charges against a sitting president. The question has been asked by many, “Who should decide whether Barr’s opinion is constitutional?” Only the court system, and almost certainly the Supreme Court, can decide. No Supreme Court has ever ruled on that legal question. Again, there is nothing new under the sun. In 1868, Ulysses Grant was the overwhelming favorite of the Republican Party for their nomination as president. At that time, the Republican Party was the liberal American party. Among other issues, they favored the suffrage of adult male former slaves, which Grant also strongly favored. But the Republicans speculated that a number of conservative Northern Democrats might also vote for Grant because of his great success as war hero. (p. 597) In 1952 the Republican Party was the conservative party. The Democrats were the liberals, except for several million conservative Southern Democrats. The Republicans gambled that many of those Southern voters would vote for Dwight Eisenhower as the greatest war hero of World War II, and thus they would choose him as their candidate. There is nothing new under the sun. On Nov. 30, 1867, in the thick of the impeachment proceedings against him, Andrew Johnson declared to his cabinet that the impeachment hearings were “a revolution changing the whole organic system of our government,” and that “I cannot deliver the great charter of a Nation’s Liberty to men who, in the very act of usurping it, would show their determination to disregard and trample it underfoot” (p. 598). Donald Trump is probably not capable of using such advanced oratorical flourishes to demean the voices calling for his impeachment, but he uses many similar arguments and many dissimilar pejorative words nonetheless to derail his potential impeachment. There is nothing new under the sun. In addressing the 1868 impeachment, Ron Chernow wrote, “(T)he central issue was whether Johnson had committed a serious crime that met the lofty constitutional standard of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ or was simply being hounded for irreconcilable political differences with Congress” (p.599). The difference between an impeachment trial in 1868 and impeachment rumblings in 2019 is that liberal Republicans controlled both houses of Congress in 1867, and liberal Democrats control the House of Representatives, while conservative Republicans control the Senate in 2019. Otherwise, there is nothing new under the sun. The impeachment proceedings against Andrew Johnson took a few months in 1867-8. The impeachment threat against Richard Nixon went on for several months in 1973-4, and the din became deafening by April of 1974 when Nixon capitulated, and resigned. Thereby Nixon avoided an almost certain impeachment conviction. The impeachment of Bill Clinton also was protracted, but not nearly as long as the demands for Nixon’s removal from office. Although Clinton lied to the American people on television (“I did not have sex with that woman - - - Monica Lewinsky”), and he notoriously sparred with Congress over what the meaning of the word “is” is, he was ultimately exonerated. Still, the whole sordid saga in all these cases was similar. There is nothing new in under the sun. Chernow: “Increasingly desperate, Johnson turned to [General] Sherman, hoping to enlist the Army on his side in a showdown with Congress….In the end, Johnson decided that he couldn’t afford to alienate the two leading war heroes [Grant and Sherman,] and withdrew his controversial order” (p. 607). Ultimately, on May 15, 1868, the Senate fell one vote short of the two-thirds majority constitutionally required to convict Andrew Johnson, and he was acquitted. Nonetheless, several weeks later, when the Democratic National Convention was held, his party, following obvious political expediency, refused to nominate him for the presidency. Nevertheless, their chosen candidate lost to the popular General Grant. No one can know what the current Commander-in-Chief might do in 2019-20 if he feels backed into a corner. In light of the innumerable unpredictable actions he has taken in the past, we cannot rule out anything for the future. That uncertainty notwithstanding, there shall likely be nothing totally new under the sun, whatever happens. Similarities and Differences: Presidents Grant and Trump The differences in personality, values, character, and personal rectitude between Ulysses Grant and Donald Trump are immense. Still, there are startling similarities between their presidential administrations. Forecasting the future troubles of the Grant eight-year presidency, Ron Chernow said of Grant that “he brought to the job no deep knowledge of statecraft and had a special need for experienced advisers. Instead, he adopted the secretive, intuitive decision-making style of a general who feared his war plans might leak out” (P. 624). In addition, Chernow said that Grant “wrongly assumed that the skills that made him successful in one sphere of life would translate intact into another. He entered into no consultative process, engaged in no methodical vetting of people, and sent up no trial balloons to test candidates, making his own decisions maddeningly opaque” (p. 625). That description of President Grant applies almost verbatim to President Trump. Donald Trump has long perceived himself to be a four-star general of the business world. The deficiencies of both President Grant and President Trump were very similar when they came to office. By the time Grant finished his eight years of presidential service, however, he had become quite an adroit politician. Mr. Trump has yet to exhibit any useful political skills or inclinations. In general, however, with the dearth of experience both men brought to the presidency, there was and is nothing new under the sun. Despite their lack of experience, the personal characteristics of Ulysses Grant and Donald Trump could not be further apart. Grant trusted nearly everyone, to a glaring fault. Many people failed him. Trump trusts almost no one --- to a glaring fault. Therefore, in his mind, everyone fails him. There is no doubt that prior to becoming president, and even on rare occasions during his presidency, Grant drank far too much alcohol. There is no doubt that before and during his presidency, Trump has been a virtual teetotaler. However, history has shown that a drunken Grant was almost always far more effective than a sober Trump. Although there were numerous scandals associated with Grant’s administration that were correctly and widely reported, none of them directly involved any illegal activity by Grant himself. Grant was scrupulously honest. Nevertheless, he was a poor judge of character for men in elected and appointed political offices, and he allowed too many of them to continue in office long after he should have fired them. Trump has also has had many scandals associated with his administration, but nearly all of them have involved his own participation in those scandals. The Mueller Report has indicated as much, but because of the narrow confines in which the DOJ forced Mueller to operate, Trump was not overtly accused of any wrongdoing in the report. Furthermore, Trump has knowingly enlisted many shady operators into his administration, while at the same time quickly dismissing many of the most able and upright men who were vetted to serve him. He hires too many of the wrong kind of people and fires too many of the right kind of people. Both Grant and Trump were guilty of nepotism. Grant was more guilty of nepotism, if only because he had far more relatives than Trump. However, Grant probably gave government positions to his relatives because he was carelessly soft-hearted and loyal, whereas Trump appears to give government jobs to close relatives in order to maintain as much power as close to himself as possible. Grant wanted a treaty which would make Santo Domingo a possession of the USA. It is the larger and Spanish-speaking part of the Caribbean island of Hispaniola. This probably would have had seriously adverse long-term effects on US foreign policy. Grant was so insistent on his wishes, however, that for the first and only time in his administration, he demanded loyalty from everyone in his administration and political party regarding this measure, and he did not receive it. In that political loss, as in no other, General Grant was confronted by the brutally inescapable reality of how Washington works. If they are backed against the wall, most politicians will finally do the right thing. From his first day in office, Donald Trump demanded loyalty from the highest to the lowest of his subordinates. Invariably he received fealty from his business associates. In government, however, people become more independent. They do not like to be treated like mindless martinets. To generalize, Grant was too congenial and trusting of the people in his administration, whereas Trump is congenial with no one and trusts no one. To summarize, then, there is nothing new under the sun with respect to both President Grant and President Trump. Their similarities are surprising, given the vast difference of their backgrounds and personalities. In other ways, though, each man plowed his own new presidential ground. But compared to all other presidents, there is nothing essentially new under the sun that either man did while in office. It has all been seen before, and it shall be seen again. Recurring Themes from the Grant Presidency in Today’s Headlines Feminism was a factor in American politics in the 1860s and 70s as it still is in the 2010s. That may seem hard to believe, but then, there is nothing new under the sun. In 1872, the Equal Rights Party nominated Victoria Woodhull as their candidate for president. She was a woman, which disqualified her in 1872, and she was only 34 years old, which further disqualified her constitutionally, even if she had not made the constitutional mistake of being born female. Of course it was Susan B. Anthony who was the true leader of the women’s suffrage movement. She became a close friend and supporter of Grant, concluding that his liberal tendencies were far more likely to help the female cause than the conservative Democrats. Ms. Anthony voted for Grant in the 1872 election. She was arrested for doing so, as were the men who allowed her to register at the polls in Rochester, New York. She was never jailed for her crime, thanks to President Grant, but the election registrars did serve five days behind bars. I note these facts simply to suggest that feminism is not a new thing. That some people consider it new verifies the many obstacles it still faces. In seeking feminist gains, there is nothing new under the sun. In the congressional election of 1874, the Republicans lost their large majority in the House, and the Democrats took over. The GOP did retain control of the Senate. In 2018, the same phenomenon occurred in the congressional election, although the party labels were reversed. But then, similar elections in non-presidential election years resulted in similar reverses in 1998, 2006, and 2014. There is nothing new under the sun. Orville Babcock was a member of Grant’s cabinet. He was impeached for malfeasance in office, and Grant was ordered by Congress to testify in Babcock’s trial. The cabinet refused to allow his testimony, declaring that a president could not be forced to appear in a public trial. A compromise was made when Grant gave a five-hour deposition to the Supreme Court chief justice. The resolution of this same issue is being discussed currently regarding some of the allegations against President Trump and members of his administration. Can they or can they not be required by law to testify? There is nothing new under the sun. William Belknap was another Grant associate who was accused of criminal actions while serving in office. Rather than allow Belknap to continue undergoing legal scrutiny, Grant allowed him to resign, returning him to the status of a private citizen. It was feared that it would compromise his trial were he still in service. Shades of Robert Mueller’s circumstances! There is nothing new under the sun. In the election of 1876, after Grant had completed his second term, the Electoral College vote was undecided for his successor. Samuel Tilden, the Democratic candidate, had 184 Electoral College votes, but he needed 185. Because the validity of votes in Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida were in doubt due to their resistance for returning to the Union after the Civil War, the reliability of their written ballots was deemed uncertain. After a very careful re-count, it was determined that the Republican candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes, was declared the victor, 185-184 in the Electoral College, even though Tilden had won the popular vote. Shades of 2000 and hanging chads! There is nothing new under the sun. In the 1876 election, it was determined that thousands of black voters in South Carolina were kept away from the polls by members of white men’s rifle clubs. Conservative males with guns have been a factor in politics far longer than we might ever have imagined. Shades of the NRA! There is nothing new under the sun. * * * * * There are many surprising similarities between Andrew Johnson and Donald Trump. There are also a few similarities between the administrations of Ulysses Grant and Donald Trump. However, the differences between Grant and Trump far outweigh the similarities. As I said in my previous essay, Ron Chernow may tell his readers more than they need or want to know in his unusually thorough and lengthy biographies. After I finished the 965 pages, perhaps my primary takeaway was the scores of parallels between the 1860s and 1870s and the first two decades of the twenty-first century. “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done” (Ecclesiastes 4:9). An old aphorism echoes Koheleth’s observations: What goes around comes around. Noble and ignoble thoughts and actions repeat themselves “to the last syllable of recorded time,” as Hamlet wryly stated in his Great Soliloquy. And, as Mark Anthony said in Julius Caesar, “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.” Notwithstanding, we tend to remember good things about the people we admire and bad things about the people we disdain. We often declare that no one is perfect, but we do not fail to praise those we revere, while we often revile those we impugn. “Is there a thing of which it is said, ‘See, this is new’? It has been already, in the ages before us” (Ecclesiastes 1:10). “The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king of Jerusalem. Vanity of vanity, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity” (Ecclesiates 1:1). It’s a bit much to say that all is vanity. In truth, there is much in history, as in life, that is not vain. However, it is likely a mistake to suppose that there are events in our own time which are completely unique to us. To one degree or another, everything that happens now has happened before. To imagine otherwise may be an exercise in historical and contemporaneous vanity. The presidencies of Andrew Johnson and Ulysses S. Grant were unusually troubled and turbulent. Nevertheless, our democracy survived. The presidency of Donald Trump has been marked by numerous scandals and irregularities. Nevertheless, our democracy has survived, and shall continue to survive. Besides, there is nothing new under the sun. John Miller is Pastor of The Chapel Without Walls on Hilton Head Island, SC. More of his writings may be viewed at www.chapelwithoutwalls.org.