On this day in 1974, Gerald Ford granted Richard Nixon an unconditional pardon for all federal crimes that he had “committed or may have committed or taken part in” while serving as president. Ford justified his decision, as you can see above, in several ways: Nixon and his family had already suffered enough; Nixon’s trial wouldn’t begin for months or years, and might not be fair even then; the country would remain bitterly divided throughout the intervening period; Ford had the power to act, his conscience told him that he should, and so he did.
Nixon greeted the news by noting that he was “wrong in not acting more decisively and more forthrightly in dealing with Watergate.” Ford, meanwhile, having announced the defining act of his presidency, traveled to Bethesda, Maryland, where he played a round of golf at the Burning Tree Country Club.
12 comments
September 8, 2009 at 11:31 am
politicalfootball
I remember my disappointment that Nixon was going to get off with mere impeachment and resignation. What a child I was!
September 8, 2009 at 1:00 pm
kathy a.
they still let him golf? oh, wait — maybe it was agnew who kept beaning other golfers.
nixon remained the unspeakably horrible example of a presidency gone bad, right up until the last administration. i’m kind of OK with letting W go for now, because we have a hell of a mess to fix. it encourages me that obama doesn’t spend a lot of time golfing.
September 8, 2009 at 1:28 pm
AaLD
Which was the “defining act” of the Ford presidency – the pardon or the golfing?
September 8, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Gary Farber
Last month having been, of course, the 35th anniversary of Nixon’s resignation, a much happier day, I wrote this meaty post to commerate the event.
If you don’t hate Nixon, you probably won’t enjoy the post, save as something to get your dander up at us libruls who only hate Nixon because of, you know, completely arbitrary and inexplicable reasons, given that Nixon was no conservative.
Remember, if it wasn’t for the liberal stab in the back — oh, no, wait, it was conservatives in Congress, actually — we’da Won Vietnam.
I’d be thrilled to death if more Actual Historians read that latter post, and had any comments, given my amateur status.
September 8, 2009 at 2:33 pm
PorJ
So: was it a quid-pro-quo? Did Nixon promise him the Presidency in return for the pardon? That was the big conspiracy theory for years but when Ford died everyone was quickly dismissive of it. But remember a very key player in the Ford White House was none other than…. Dick Cheney.
September 8, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Anderson
“Did Nixon promise him the Presidency in return for the pardon?”
Anyone honorable enough to honor the quid pro quo, wouldn’t make that deal in the 1st place.
September 8, 2009 at 3:43 pm
N Merrill
I wish I could remember why Hobbes thinks that, if a nobleman is captured on the battlefield and promises a ransom in exchange for his release, he has to pay once he gets home. (Or more exactly, I wish I could remember why Hobbes thinks that’s a promise that can be made in the first place.)
September 8, 2009 at 4:01 pm
bitchphd
Isn’t it because losing the battle = death? Hence slavery is okay, since it’s the natural outcome of losing a battle and therefore the slave’s life belongs to the winner. So presumably the nobleman is basically agreeing/offering to purchase his life from his captor. He has to pay because the captor is under no obligation to hear the offer, let alone take it; effectively, he owes the captor his life, literally.
September 9, 2009 at 6:39 am
Anderson
Hobbes also believed he had squared the circle.
September 10, 2009 at 7:21 am
Barry
Also, if the custom is honored, and those who refuse to pay it suffer, then captors will generally honor a promise to pay ransom.
If the custom is not honored, then the captive nobleman will either be imprisoned (and have trouble raising the ransom, especiall if his estate is ruined by others), or be killed.
It’s a very pragmatic custom.
September 10, 2009 at 7:23 am
Barry
“Did Nixon promise him the Presidency in return for the pardon?”
Anderson: “Anyone honorable enough to honor the quid pro quo, wouldn’t make that deal in the 1st place.”
First, it doesn’t have to be honor, it could be that Nixon had a written quid pro quo from Ford. Second, I believe that your premise is incorect; I’m sure that a fair number of politicians would keep such agreements.
September 10, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Gary Farber
“First, it doesn’t have to be honor, it could be that Nixon had a written quid pro quo from Ford.”
I don’t see that as making the slightest bit of sense. It would have provided grounds for impeachment of Gerald Ford, and who, exactly, would Nixon have submitted it to if Ford didn’t live up to it? A court? The Illuminati?