and not “Ministers”? Also, why “Attorney General” and not “Secretary of Justice”?
In high school civics class, they told us that the Founding Fathers chose the title “Secretaries” as a way to show that we were different from the British. It’s basically the same reason why we have a Congress, and not a Parliment, and why we have a House of Representatives, and not a House of Commons.
Nearly all the members of the British Cabinet are styled “The Secretary of State for … Silly Walks” or something like that.
The U.S. Department of State was briefly called “The Department of Foreign Affairs” but Congress changed the name before Thomas Jefferson got back from France to find out that he had already been given the job.
The Attorney General’s job at the outset wasn’t quite the same as it is now. It started off as a part-time job.
It got bigger.
And to be a minister, you would need to be in charge of a ministry. The US government has departments.
Australia has ministers in charge of departments. Then again, our system is a weird federalised Westminster hybrid.
That was borrowed from the British, who also have an Attorney-General.
The origin lies in the fact that not every British cabinet member is a Minister. Three of the oldest titles were originally held by men who were secretarii in the sense of the definition that Tapioca Dextrin quoted. They were the Secretaries of State for Home Affairs (“the Home Secretary”), for Foreign Affairs (“the Foreign Secretary”), and the Secretary of State for War, who was responsible for the Army. (The Navy, of course, was headed by the First Lord of the Admiralty.)
George Washington’s first Cabinet included four men: the Secretaries of State, the Treasury, and War, and the Attorney General. The derivation of their names from the British offices should be obvious. As additional Executive Branch departments were created, their COOs were termed “Secretary of” based on that precedent. Diceman’s comment that we tried to distinguish ourselves from the British while retaining some of the same law and structure probably played a part as well.
Canada has ministers in charge of departments (at least in English). The first Attorney-General was appointed in 1789 as the President’s chief legal advisor. The Department of Justice wasn’t created until 1870. The Dept. of Foreign Affairs became the Dept. of State after it gained responsbility for some domestic affairs (keeping of the seal, patents, etc.). Most states also have a Secretary of States (who isn’t in charge of external relations). Also didn’t the fact the “minister” means servant have something to do with the Founding Fathers choice?
We have a Congress because we have states, and they come together “in Congress assembled”. The term dates to the First Continental Congress, convened in 1774, well before independence.
Since we don’t have commoners in the United States (or, if you look at it differently, we’re all commoners) we can’t have a House of Commons.
Actually, most of them aren’t. There are, I think, only four Secretaries of State in the British Cabinet: Home, Foreign, War, and Air. (They may have changed the number/designation since last I read up on Cabinet government.) There is, or was, a law that only two Secretaries of State could serve in the House of Commons.
Most British department heads are Ministers of Something or Other. (The Minister of Scilly Walks is, of course, responsible for pavements in islands off the tip of Cornwall.)
According to this site http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/hmg.cfm
There are 14 Secretaries of State. Including one person who is a Secretary of State twice! (Secretary of State for Northern Island and Secretary of State for Wales)
I sit, or stand, or something…
I recline corrected. 