As John Kerry Becomes Secretary Of State, An Assessment Of The Most Influential Secretaries Of State In American History

With Hillary Clinton leaving the State Department, and John Kerry becoming the 68th Secretary of State, it is a good time to assess who are the most influential Secretaries of State we have had in American history.

Notice I say “most influential”, rather than “best”, as that is a better way to judge diplomatic leadership in the State Department.

Without ranking them, which is very difficult, we will examine the Secretaries of State who have had the greatest impact, in chronological order:

Thomas Jefferson (1789-1793) under President George Washington—set the standard for the department, and was probably the most brilliant man ever to head the State Department.

John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) under President James Monroe—brought about the Monroe Doctrine, treaties with Canada, and the acquisition of Florida.

William H. Seward (1861-1869) under Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson—brought about the neutrality of Great Britain and France in the Civil War, and purchased Alaska from Czarist Russia, a fortunate development.

Hamilton Fish (1869-1877) under President Ulysses S. Grant—involved in many diplomatic issues in Latin America, had America become more engaged in Hawaii, and settled differences with Great Britain, and often considered the major bright spot in the tragic Grant Presidency.

James G. Blaine (1881, 1889-1892) under Presidents James A. Garfield and Chester Alan Arthur briefly, and full term under President Benjamin Harrison—helped to bring about eventual takeover of Hawaii, and promoted the concept of a canal in Central America.

John Hay (1898-1905) under Presidents William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt—-involved in the issues after the Spanish American War, including involvement in the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and a major influence over TR’s diplomatic initiatives in his first term.

Elihu Root (1905-1909) under President Theodore Roosevelt—-a great influence in TR’s growing involvement in world affairs in his second term in office.

Robert Lansing (1915-1920) under President Woodrow Wilson—a major player in American entrance in World War I and at the Versailles Peace Conference.

Charles Evan Hughes (1921-1925) under Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge—-had major role in Washington Naval Agreements in 1922.

Henry Stimson (1929-1933) under President Herbert Hoover—-was a major critic of Japanese expansion, as expressed in the Stimson Doctrine of 1932.

Cordell Hull (1933-1944) under President Franklin D. Roosevelt—-was the longest lasting Secretary of State, nearly the whole term of FDR, and very much involved in all of the President’s foreign policy decisions.

Dean Acheson (1949-1953) under President Harry Truman—-involved in the major decisions of the early Cold War, including the Korean War intervention.

John Foster Dulles (1953-1959) under President Dwight D. Eisenhower—had controversial views on Cold War policy with the Soviet Union, including “massive retaliation”.

Dean Rusk (1961-1969) under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson—highly controversial advocate of the Vietnam War escalation, but served under the complete terms of two Presidents, and never backed away from his views on the Cold War.

Henry Kissinger (1973-1977) under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford—-easily one of the most influential figures in the shaping of foreign policy in American history, earlier having served as National Security Adviser.

George Shultz, (1982-1989) under President Ronald Reagan—-very close adviser to the President on his major foreign policy initiatives.

James Baker (1989-1992) under President George H. W. Bush—very significant in Persian Gulf War and end of Cold War policies.

Madeleine Albright (1997-2001) under President Bill Clinton—-first woman Secretary of State and played major role in many issues that arose.

Colin Powell (2001-2005) under President George W. Bush—-involved in the justification of the Iraq War based on Weapons of Mass Destruction, which undermined his reputation because of the lack of evidence on WMDs.

Condoleezza Rice (2005-2009) under President George W. Bush—second woman Secretary of State and intimately involved in policy making.

Hillary Clinton (2009-2013) under President Barack Obama—third woman Secretary of State, and hailed by most as a major contributor to Obama’s foreign policy initiatives.

This is a list of 21 out of the 68 Secretaries of State, but also there are 15 other Secretaries of State who were influential historical figures, including:

John Marshall
James Madison
James Monroe
Henry Clay
Martin Van Buren
Daniel Webster
John C. Calhoun
James Buchanan
Lewis Cass
William Jennings Bryan
George Marshall
Cyrus Vance
Edmund Muskie
Alexander Haig
Warren Christopher

So a total of 36 out of 68 Secretaries of State have been major figures in American history, and contributed to the diplomatic development of the United States in world affairs!

25 comments on “As John Kerry Becomes Secretary Of State, An Assessment Of The Most Influential Secretaries Of State In American History

  1. Juan Domingo Peron February 4, 2013 6:58 pm

    Colin Powell – First African-American Secretary of State, named by a Republican President. Unfortunately his latest deplorable and unfounded hateful rant against Reagan Conservatives/Classic Liberals demonstrates his lack of character, and intellectual honesty.
    Condoleezza Rice was not only the second woman Secretary of State, but the first African-American woman to hold such a high office.

  2. Ronald February 4, 2013 7:17 pm

    Juan, you have a right to your views, of course, but I think very highly of Colin Powell as a rational, reasonable Republican, who, sadly, sacrificed his reputation promoting a lie, and was manipulated by Dick Cheney, a truly despicable human being, in my opinion. If all Republicans had the character of Powell, the party would not be in trouble today.

  3. Juan Domingo Peron February 4, 2013 7:22 pm

    Why may I ask do you think the Republican Party is in trouble? I see the Republican Establishment in trouble, the Roves, the McCain’s, the Bush’s and the rest. All they have done is contributed to the Republican defeat. Their politics only make the Republican party a permanent minority party, like is was before Reagan and Newt. Never winning the House or the Senate. You know the type, the me-too Republican who always lose elections. The best thing that could ever happen to the Democrats.

  4. Ronald February 4, 2013 7:28 pm

    The Tea Party Republicans and the libertarians are NEVER going to win national elections for President or a majority of the US Senate. We are a nation of 310 million people, the fourth largest in human history behind China, India, and the old Soviet Union, when it existed, and small government will never work. If the GOP does not go back to the way they were in the 1970s–the Rockefeller wing–they will NEVER win national power again, and they MUST appeal to the new voter groups that did not exist back then. We are not able to go back to the 1950s mentality and have the “good old days”! They are gone forever!

  5. Juan Domingo Peron February 4, 2013 7:58 pm

    So the Reagan Conservatives/Classic Liberals, who won 2 landslides in the 80’s, recovered the House again with Newt in the 90’s and by the way worked with Clinton and balanced the budget, and in 2010 recovered the House for the Republicans with the largest win in 70 years and Republicans are supposed to go back to the losing minority of the Rockefeller era? We just had an establishment Rockefeller type candidates in 2008 and 2012 and lost! Why would we want to go with a losing proposition? Just so Democrats can win? What you want is two statist parties, well you have had them since 2000. The establishment Republican is just as statist as the Democrats, and what happens? Democrats win. The McConnell’s, the Boehner’s, the McCain’s , the Graham’s ,all raided the Treasury just as Democrats do.

  6. Ronald February 4, 2013 8:12 pm

    The Newt Gingriches of the world have no future in the GOP, and neither do the Rand Pauls. And you forget how the government became much bigger under Reagan, and he had 17 tax increases. Reagan was not like the so called libertarians and Tea Party of today, and they would repudiate him if he was running today.

  7. Juan Domingo Peron February 4, 2013 8:27 pm

    You conveniently forget that it was Congress controlled by Democrats that raised spending. You know a President cannot spend a single dollar not authorized by Congress, in spite of what Obama wishes. Remember the deal, when they forced Reagan to raise taxes, for every $1 in tax increase $3 in spending cuts. Well just as with the Amnesty of illegal immigrants, the Democrats never kept their part of the compromise. See this is the type of “compromise” Democrats want, reach and agreement then we screw you. Finally Reagan had the biggest net tax reduction in history, remember the top marginal rate was 70% when he came into office. So not only did the tax rate suffered a net reduction but the economy grew and as a result revenues went up. But as I said so did spending , thanks to Congress. You wish he were repudiated by today’s conservatives/classic liberals but that would never happen. Finally we also recognize that no one is perfect , not even Reagan. You see we don’t create cult figures like the left, FDR, JFK, and now BHO.

  8. Ronald February 4, 2013 8:56 pm

    Actually, the Senate was Republican from 1981-87 under Reagan. So what you said about Democratic control was not true totally.

  9. Juan Domingo Peron February 4, 2013 9:01 pm

    Excuse me but per the Constitution each spending bill must originate in the House and the House was controlled by Democrats. So nothing could be done without the Democrats, and just as today back then Democrats never reduced spending, even though Reagan tried and even shut down the government. You see he would shut down the government for the opposite reason Obama would. He would shut it down to reduce spending, Obama would to increase it, and taxes by the way.

  10. A White Southern Christian Progressive February 4, 2013 9:32 pm

    Interrupting this conversation to state that I love the historical information the professor includes on his blog. History was one of my favorite subjects in high school.

    Now, back to Juan vs. The Professor.

  11. Ronald February 4, 2013 9:41 pm

    Right now, Juan has worn me out LOL hahaha He is one tough challenger! 🙂 I salute you, Juan, for that! 🙂 Thanks, White Southern Christian Progressive, for your statement. 🙂

  12. A White Southern Christian Progressive February 5, 2013 6:59 am

    According to the dictionary:

    Liberal is defined as:

    1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
    2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
    3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.
    4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
    5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

    and Conservative is defined as:

    1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
    2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
    3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
    4. ( often initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
    5. ( initial capital letter ) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.

    I don’t get how a Conservative can be Liberal when the two terms mean the opposite.

  13. Ronald February 5, 2013 7:07 am

    The terms “Liberal” and “Conservative” are constantly reinterpreted to benefit the viewpoint of the person arguing his or her attitudes. The terms have changed meanings since the 18th century, with Alexander Hamilton considered a conservative in his time, but loved by liberals, and Thomas Jefferson considered a liberal in his time, but now loved by conservatives, even though Jefferson would actually be horrified by much of what conservatives in America believe in the 21st century. But it is interesting how conservatives love to use the term Liberal to justify their viewpoints of holding back progress for average Americans, and their view that those who have should keep what they have. This is the whole basis of Libertarianism and the Tea Party Caucus, wanting to prevent change, because it would require that the unfair advantage held by the elite for many years would have to be surrendered for advancement of the public good.

  14. Juan Domingo Peron February 5, 2013 9:23 am

    Well to add to the debate I have a very amusing personal anecdote. After living in Argentina for a few years, my political viewpoints coincided with what is considered not only in Argentina but the rest of South America and continental Europe as Liberal. That is that progress in society is best achieved by the pillars of individual freedom, limited constitutional government, the natural economic system otherwise known as free market capitalism not corporate crony capitalism, small efficient government, normal regulation not excessive bureaucratic senseless regulation or government hiper-intervention, and equality before the law, of opportunity which is not the same as equality of result. Furthermore we favor and acknowledge that the progress of society and reform where necessary, and that it is best achieved and most naturally obtained from the civil society itself not from an imposed government top down mandate. Note that we favor “reform” which means to improve where we need to and maintain what is good and works. “Change” on the other hand means tear down everything and build a new , better society/man because we are malcontents. Thus we would never be for “Fundamental change” where we believe that overall the system is good. That is what is considered a liberal worldwide, at least in the non-English speaking countries. Furthermore in the economic field a liberal, as known worldwide, would not be a Keynesian, interventionist or statist. To name a few, a liberal as known throughout the world coincide with the views of Hayek, Von Mises, Milton Friedman not with Keynes, and other statist in economic theory. While in political science they favor Madison, Locke, Hume, Burke, Nocizk as opposed to Rousseau, Kant, Marx, Rawls and the rest of Marxist’s inspired socialism’s whether it be Fabian, internationalist or nationalist.
    So when I am back in the states during the 2004 elections I barely had time to evaluate the candidates, so I quickly asked my friends who was the “liberal”, and they told me Kerry, so I voted for Kerry without even thinking! Plus every time I tuned into CNN, Kerry was presented as the good guy and Bush as the bad guy. But later I realized that he was not a “liberal” in the classical sense that I and the rest of the world understood! LOL He was a progressive/statist in favor of big government, change through government imposition and economic intervention!! His views and the Democrat Party’s ideology were almost identical, save for the normal cultural, historical and national differences, as the Peronist Party of Argentina, the big government intervention, corporate crony capitalism and “social justice” party (rich vs.poor politics)!! I then realized that what represented “liberalism” as understood in the rest of the world were the “conservative” in the US!! The “individual rights, limited constitutional government, small efficient government, free market and true progress through the civil society” party was in the Republican Party, and within the party to be more precise the Reagan Conservatives. We all know the “moderate” Republican establishment wing is also big government, corporate crony capitalism, and interventionist. I was so amazed when I realized that the “progressive” movement hijacked the term “liberal” in the 30’s because “progressive” had become a bad word after Wilson. And decades later after the word “liberal” became a bad word due to its failed policies that led to the coming of the Reagan era, now in the 21st, they go back to using the word “progressive”.
    So Professor, believe it or not, I never voted for Bush and actually voted for Kerry!!

  15. Ronald February 5, 2013 9:40 am

    This is all very fascinating, and I must say one thing for sure! You speak your mind, and you provide what I call “Food for Thought”! This is what this blog should be all about, but often is not–a serious discussion of political views and ideologies. We may not agree, but as long as we are both respectful of the other, that is all to the good, unlike some people who write insults and foul terms, and I refuse to put them on the blog, and say to them to stop character assassination and innuendo, and I will put them on here, but not just to issue diatribes!

  16. Juan Domingo Peron February 5, 2013 10:43 am

    That is why I rather make a few comments on progressive blogs/sites than on a conservative one where one can exchange views. Why would I go and make comments and debate with people who more or less share my views? Nothing is gained there. So where I am allowed to comment with respect I go. I also came to realized that many on the left really don’t know us or what we think. Like I say regarding college and graduate education here in the US. Due to my experience, the kids who lean either independent, left “progressive”, right or really never thought about politics are in general taught the progressive liberal point of view in politics and law as if it is the correct one, and if another view is presented it is either dismissed or mocked. Again I speak of personal experience. Well those kids are not done a favor, because if they lean progressive they end up having no a clear idea of the other point of view, they only end up having a caricature of conservatism. But if they lean conservatives they end up learning everything there is to know about the “progressive” vision of the world. After all kids are spoon fed the left view of the world all their life, through media, Hollywood culture and school. So in the end conservative leaning kids know all about the left view but not the other way around. I also comment in Republican blogs/sites because there is a struggle going on right now between the establishment and conservative/classic liberals where the future of the party is discussed. There I see many “moderate establishment” Republicans afraid of the press, media because they are buying into the narrative of the media.

  17. Ronald February 5, 2013 11:06 am

    You make a good point about the need to hear and read both sides, and then come to one’s own conclusions based upon understanding of the differences. I am glad that we can have a good discussion with respect for both sides, by you and by me!

  18. Juan Domingo Peron February 5, 2013 11:08 am

    Likewise.

  19. A White Southern Christian Progressive February 5, 2013 11:49 am

    I’ve always leaned progressive due to my upbringing by my parents.

  20. Ronald February 5, 2013 12:27 pm

    There has always been a clear connection between many being influenced by parental upbringing and their adult politics, assuming that parents have interest and discuss politics with their children.

  21. A White Southern Christian Progressive February 5, 2013 1:31 pm

    @Juan

    You like the thrill of the debate. I prefer making a few comments on progressive blogs/sites rather than on a conservative ones because I more interested in conversing with people that share the same values/beliefs as I do.

  22. Ronald February 6, 2013 10:51 am

    Thanks, White Southern Christian Progressive, for this important link about libertarianism.

  23. Robert Forsyth April 23, 2013 8:18 am

    John Foster Dulles was the worst American Secretary of State ever appointed to the office. He and his brother the head of the CIA are responsible for the current Iranian and Middle East hatred of America and the West. The Dulles brothers overthrew the only Democracy in the Middle East Iran. They did this because BP Oil (Horizon Oil Rig Disaster), Shell, Exon, Chevron and Texaco did not want the Iranian People to benefit from their own Natural Resources. The Iranian Democratic Government in 1950 wanted to Nationalize the Countries Oil Resources. So British and American Oil went to the Dulles Brothers and President Eisenhaur and got them to stage a Coup to overthrow the Iranian Democracy in 1953. In place they put the Brutal and Bloodthirsty Dictator the infamous Shah of Iran who ruled for 26 years until the Iranian people overthrew the Dictator and put in place the Strict Islamist Militant the Ayetolha Komenie. Al Queda , the 911 disaster and our current Islamic Terrorism all stems from John Foster Dulles and his Brother.

  24. Ronald April 23, 2013 8:58 am

    You are correct, Robert. I wish to point out that I did not say all of these Secretaries of State were “Great”, but rather used the term “influential”, which Dulles certainly was!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.