The Constitution sets a minimum age of 35 as president. The two youngest presidents -Theodore Roosevelt at 42 and John F. Kennedy at 43 cleared this by several years. A few potential presidents have been closer to this cut off, such as Vice President John Breckinridge in 1857 and Democratic Nominee William Jennings Bryan in 1896 - both in their 30s.
My question is this: In American history, has there ever been a figure who was seen as “presidential material” (e.g. a popular war hero, a senator or congressman, a governor) whose presidential ambitions were thwarted by this age requirement? Perhaps someone who’s popularity as a political figure led to questions concerning this clause?
I would imagine most such cases were early in American history, when 35 was more clearly “middle age” for many American men.
I can’t think of anyone in American history who WOULD have been a very strong contender for the Presidency had he just been a few years older.
Remember, even a Senator has to be 30. It’s hard to achieve much prominence in Washington before that age.
One of the few ways to achieve fame and popularity at an early age is through war heroism. Have there been any Army officers (preferably generals) who became nationally known before the age of 35?
Well, I suppose Winfield Scott achieved some fame and won a fair amount of acclaim as a young officer in the War of 1812. He was only 29 when that war ended. Of course, a few other generals from that war achieved greater fame and DID get elected President (Andrew Jackson and William Henry Harrison).
Scott himself did run fro President many years later, and lost.
Respected Union general Philip Sheridan was only 34 when the Civil War ended, but he’d have been old enough to run for President by the time the next election rolled around.
Of course, he’d have been up against Grant, who was more famous and popular.
I don’t think he had much of a formal education, but Charles Lindberg was incredibly popular after his big trip. The quintessential All-American Boy. He wasn’t a politician, but probably could have easily become one.
I haven’t heard of a case where someone was thwarted by the age requirement, but I could see a 25-year old governor perhaps someday who gets people excited enough to talk about the White House.
Steven T. Mason was 22 when he was elected governor of the Michigan territory sometime in oh, long before any of us were born. So you never know.
Alexander Hamilton was only 34 when the first Presidential election was held. But while he was respected enough to be named as the first Treasury Secretary, I don’t think anyone would have suggested him as a Presidential candidate - even if Washington hadn’t been available as a first choice.
That clause was probably put in with the expectation of family dynasties: A king can easily assume the throne in his teens or even younger, so it was a natural thing for the founding fathers (who were used to kings) to worry about. But while we have had some political dynasties in the US, they haven’t been nearly to the same degree as actual royalty, and with short and limited (officially or by custom) terms, a young scion of those families can just wait another election or two until they come of age.
I think the more likely effect would have been in modern times, if any ‘pop’ star could have been seriously working to run. Given modern communications media, this could have attracted a lot of younger voters. And those would mostly be new voters, not taken from any existing voter bloc.
Would there have been people supporting an “Elvis for President!” campaign?
Or Vice President. Would a Hubert Humphrey/Bob Dylan Democratic ticket have beaten Nixon/Agnew in 1968? (I’d say yes, and that would definitely changed what would have been…)
Lindbergh is an interesting case, as 1928 would have been the best year for him…I supposed he is the type of person I had in mind - someone who burst on the scene in his late 20s or early 30s, but never had a much of a chance after the age of 35.
Hamilton is also an interesting prospect, given that he probably had a hand in setting the age at 35. I just thought it was an arbitrary age.
Well, there’s Aaron Burr’s lawyer Henry Clay, who was a Senator in his twenties before he became Speaker of the House at thirty-three and kept at it at thirty-four in 1812 (and at thirty-five in 1813, and so on in 1814 and 1815 and 1816 and 1817 and 1818 and 1819 and 1820). If the dates had maybe been a little different…?
Henry Clay did run for president once he was old enough. Indeed, he ran three times, and went down swinging every time! If he couldn’t get elected when he was over 35, I don’t know that he would have had much better luck when he was under 35.
I’ve taken the tour of Henry Clay’s estate in Lexington, Kentucky. I remember the tour guide saying “The only major political office Clay didn’t hold was the Presidency–and it wasn’t for lack of trying!”
Well, ain’t it all about the opposition? Henry Clay was more hawkish than James Madison right when the War of 1812 was kinda sorta the ultimate hot-button issue; it’s not crazy to think he had nothing much to run on against Andrew Jackson, but maybe would’ve had a shot with an incumbent who’s losing the war he failed to keep us out of.
Well, maybe that’s so. And as you note, he did serve in the Senate at 29, when he was constitutionally too young to be there! Maybe he should have tried it with the Presidency as well.
Custer was just 25 years old when he was promoted to (brevet) major general in 1865. The end of the war and the death of Lincoln, followed by Andrew Johnson’s very unpopular tenure, might well have convinced him to leave the army and concentrate on politics (his interest even then was clear, as he accompanied Johnson on a publicity tour in 1866), had he been eligible to run for president in 1868.
He reportedly did not like Grant much, and was certainly more flamboyant and charismatic than the stolid Grant. The money people behind Grant might have seen him as someone who would be just as popular, and because of his youth, easier to influence.
One thing I’ve always wondered is if the public wanted someone under 35 bad enough, if an amendment would pass pretty quickly to allow it. Seems that while amendments are hard in theory, when the public has really seen the need they’ve happened with alacrity.
Short of a constitutional convention, amendments have to be passed by Congress (before being ratified by the states), and in recent years what the public wants has had very little to do with what, if anything, Congress passes. And “alacrity” is the last word I think of when I think of this Congress.
There was some noise a few years ago about amending the Constitution to allow Schwarzenegger to run. Nothing came of it.
But as long as we’re dreaming, I’d support an amendment to ADD some requirements, like passing freshman-level exams in science, history, and economics. And a psychiatric evaluation.
