Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
The idea for this guest blog came from Anonymously Yours, who has been around at Jonathan Turley’s Blog, for at least as long as I have. We have had an E Mail relationship, offline for many years. He sent me the link that I’ll be basically using and I think his judgment was on the money. The topic is George Washington’s Farewell Address, how prescient our First President was and how much good advice he gave that we should heed today, after the passage of 218 years.
Like every other American child what I learned about George Washington came from school and little else. When I started learning about him and the revolutionary war, it was common when speaking about him to call him “The Father of Our Country”. As the years passed this description has seemingly fallen out of consciousness and we usually only see him referenced wearing a white wig and a tri-corn hat on President’s Day selling cars. Certainly too, as my education progressed through High School and College, the view of Washington as one of our Founding Father’s was diminished as compared to his more glamorous and brilliant cohort among the Founding Fathers, Jefferson, Franklin and Madison. It is easy to see why this change came about. When you think of Washington, most would see the famous portrait I’ve used as a picture above. The portrait shows a prim-mouthed, rather dour man with a wig. History has given us certain personal details like his famous wooden false teeth. History has also supplied a childish, hagiographic mythology that he never told a lie and threw a coin across the Potomac. There is even some debate about his competence as a General. Indeed, the traitor Benedict Arnold is considered by many to be the best military mind on our side during the Revolution.
So when AY sent me his E Mail, I was at first skeptical about the project until I read the link. While in some sense I knew about his Farewell Address in the back of my mind, rereading it and the commentary on it caused me to rethink George Washington. As I see now he was a great man, in a true sense and he at least gave this country a good start. He also made a contribution regarding how he felt this country should comport itself that is relevant today, although certainly not heeded. Let’s explore Washington’s message and see what wisdom we can draw from it today, or should have drawn in the ensuing 218 years since it was written.
I’m not going into George Washington’s biography, so many are familiar with it, but you can reacquaint yourself at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington When reading it though I found this which intrigued me:
“Washington was the only prominent Founding Father to arrange in his will for the manumission of all his slaves following his death.[177] He privately opposed slavery as an institution which he viewed as economically unsound and morally indefensible. He also regarded the divisiveness of his countrymen’s feelings about slavery as a potentially mortal threat to the unity of the nation.”
“By 1794, as he contemplated retirement, Washington began organizing his affairs so that in his will he could free all the slaves whom he owned outright.[193] As historian Gordon S. Wood writes in his review of Joseph Ellis‘ biography of Washington, “He did this in the teeth of opposition from his relatives, his neighbors, and perhaps even Martha. It was a courageous act, and one of his greatest legacies.”[184] At the time of Washington’s death in 1799, 317 slaves lived at Mount Vernon: 123 were owned by Washington himself, 154 were held by his wife as “dower slaves”, and 40 others were rented from a neighbor.[194] Washington’s will provided for all of his slaves to be freed upon the death of his widow, but she chose to free them about 12 months after his death. The will also provided for the training of the younger former-slaves in useful skills and for the creation of an old-age pension fund for the older ones.”
Though others differ, I’ve always been of the opinion that to judge any historical figure, it should be done in the context of their time. Yes Washington owned slaves and yes he derived economic benefit from it, but in the context of his time and of his being in Virginia’s landed class, he stands out regarding slavery. This in itself clashes with what has become the traditional depiction of Washington as a rather stolid thinker. While certainly not as outwardly erudite as Jefferson and Franklin, he too was a child of the enlightenment in his outlook.
To read the text of George Washington’s farewell address follow this link: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington%27s_Farewell_Address . While it is always profitable to read the original I am going to deal with a summary of it, since the arcane language and the ritualistic political needs of a retiring President, could cause many to struggle through it and would force me to write a lot more than is appropriate for this blog. Please feel free to read it though and apprise me of any misinterpretations I might make.
“George Washington’s Farewell Address is a letter written by the first American President, George Washington, to “The People of the United States”.[1] Washington wrote the letter near the end of his second term as President, before his retirement to his home Mount Vernon. Originally published in David Claypole’s American Daily Advertiser on September 19, 1796 under the title “The Address of General Washington To The People of The United States on his declining of the Presidency of the United States,” the letter was almost immediately reprinted in newspapers across the country and later in a pamphlet form.[2] The work was later named a “Farewell Address,” as it was Washington’s valedictory after 20 years of service to the new nation. It is a classic statement of republicanism, warning Americans of the political dangers they can and must avoid if they are to remain true to their values.
The first draft was originally prepared in 1792 with the help of James Madison,[3] as Washington prepared to retire following a single term in office. However, he set aside the letter and ran for a second term after the rancor between his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, and his Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, convinced him that the growing divisions between the newly formed Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties, along with the current state of foreign affairs, would rip the country apart in the absence of his leadership.[4]
Four years later, as his second term came to a close, Washington revisited the letter and with the help of Alexander Hamilton prepared a revision of the original draft to announce his intention to decline a third term in office. He also reflects on the emerging issues of the American political landscape in 1796, expresses his support for the government eight years after the adoption of the Constitution, defends his administration’s record, and gives valedictory advice to the American people.[5]
The letter was written by Washington after years of exhaustion due to his advanced age, years of service to his country, the duties of the presidency, and increased attacks by his political opponents. It was published almost two months before the Electoral College cast their votes in the 1796 presidential election.”
I note that while Madison assisted Washington in the first draft it was Hamilton who helped him write the second. This was no doubt because Washington and Jefferson had become leaders of different factions, later to solidify as political parties. It was no doubt felt by him that he must deal with the rancor that had developed between Hamilton and Jefferson and he felt Hamilton’s views superior to Jefferson’s. The differences between Jefferson’s philosophy and Hamilton’s could be summarized by saying Jefferson believed in a smaller Federal government, with power shared with the individual States, while Hamilton believed in a centralized Federal Government in effect molding the States into a single entity. These two links give a rough idea where these men were coming from. I caution the reader to understand that the philosophical issues between the two were much more complex than presented, but that in itself would take up its own blog. Nevertheless, it seems to me that those differences are analogous to today’s in the sense we are still arguing over Federal vs. State power and in truth the real argument is similarly between people of an elite class, who differ on how the masses should be ruled. With this context then let’s look at what future advice and predictions George Washington made.
“At the time, the thought of the United States without George Washington as its president caused concern among many Americans. Jefferson, who disagreed with many of the president’s policies and would later lead the Democratic-Republicans in opposition to many Federalist policies, joined his political rival Hamilton, the leader of the Federalists. He convinced the president to delay his retirement and serve a second term, fearing that without his leadership the nation would be torn apart. Washington most likely referred to this when he told the American people that he had wanted to retire before the last election, but was convinced by people “entitled to my confidence” that it was his duty to serve a second term.[6]
Understanding these concerns, Washington sought to convince the American people that his service was no longer necessary by, once again, as he had in his first inaugural address, telling them that he truly believed he was never qualified to be president and, if he accomplished anything during his presidency, it was as a result of their support and efforts to help the country survive and prosper. Despite his confidence that the country would survive without his leadership, Washington used the majority of the letter to offer advice as a “parting friend” on what he believed were the greatest threats to the survival of the nation.”
A quality that must be underscored about Washington is that the man could have been King by almost unanimous acclaim and he rejected it. While cynically I know many in politics say they’re not running for office for themselves, but for the people, while having the psyche of power hungry sociopaths, it has always seemed to me that the proof of Washington’s sincerity was that he could have held office for life, such was the esteem in which he was held, but chose not too and even had to be cajoled into running for a second term. How many in politics after him do you think had the same reticence about seeking power?
“Washington begins his warnings to the American people by trying to convince them that their independence, peace at home and abroad, safety, prosperity, and liberty are all dependent upon the unity between the states. As a result he warns them that the union of states, created by the Constitution, will come under the most frequent and focused attacks by foreign and domestic enemies of the country. Washington warns the American people to be suspicious and look down upon anyone who seeks to abandon the Union, to secede a portion of the country from the rest, or seeks to weaken the bonds that hold the constitutional union together. To promote the strength of the Union, he urges the people to place their identity as Americans above their identities as members of a state, city, or region, and focus their efforts and affection on the country above all other local interests. Washington further asks the people to look beyond any slight differences between them in religion, manners, habits, and political principles, and place their independence and liberty above all else. He wants everyone to be united.[7]
Washington continues to express his support of the Union by giving some examples of how he believes the country, its regions, and its people are already benefiting from the unity they currently share. He then looks to the future by sharing his belief that the combined effort, and resources of its people will protect the country from foreign attack, and allow them to avoid wars between neighboring nations that often happen due to rivalries, and competing relations with foreign nations. He argues that the security provided by the Union will also allow the United States to avoid the creation of an overgrown military establishment, which he sees as one of the greatest threats to liberty, especially the republican liberty that the United States has created.”
Washington foresaw the possibilities of the Civil War and warned the people that sectionalism could tear this country asunder. As a Virginian land owner he knew the feelings of his class and how their resentment and support of slavery could easily provoke a Civil War. Moreover, being a Virginian he knew that his neighbors of his class were far more loyal to their State, than their newborn country. His was a plea for national unity and identification that still rings strong today in our era of factious regionalism.
“Washington goes on to state his support for the new constitutional government, calling it an improvement upon the nation’s original attempt in the Articles of Confederation, and reminds the people that although it is the right of the people to alter the government to meet their needs, it should only be done through constitutional amendments. He reinforces this belief by arguing that violent takeovers by the government should be avoided at all costs and that it is in fact the duty of every member of the republic to follow the constitution, and submit to the laws of the constitutional government until it is constitutionally amended by the majority of the American people.
Washington warns the people that political factions who seek to obstruct the execution of the laws created by the government, or prevent the constitutional branches from enacting the powers provided them by the constitution may claim to be working in the interest of answering popular demands or solving pressing problems, but their true intentions are to take the power from the people and place it in the hands of unjust men.[8]
Despite Washington’s call to only change the Constitution through amendments, he warns the American people that groups seeking to overthrow the government may seek to pass constitutional amendments to weaken the government to a point where it is unable to defend itself from political factions, enforce its laws, and protect the people’s rights and property. As a result he urges them to give the government time to realize its full potential, and only amend the constitution after thorough time and thought have proven that it is truly necessary instead of simply making changes based upon opinions and hypotheses of the moment.”
George Washington warned us about the dangers to the Republic of political factions seeking to obstruct the execution of laws, or preventing the three branches from exercising their Constitutional duties. In this current era of heightened factionalism, with the country seemingly at a standstill from the gridlock in the Congress, his words are prescient. He was able to foresee more than two hundred years ago where the threats to our Constitutional System would from. When he talks of only amending the Constitution after thorough consideration, it seems as if he could conceive the dark wormhole we were led to via Prohibition. He was in effect pleading with the American people of his time and of future generations to give this grand experiment that was the Constitution time to ripen and mature.
“While Washington accepts the fact that it is natural for people to organize and operate within groups like political parties, he also argues that every government has recognized political parties as an enemy and has sought to repress them because of their tendency to seek more power than other groups and take revenge on political opponents.[9]
Moreover, Washington makes the case that “the alternate domination” of one party over another and coinciding efforts to exact revenge upon their opponents have led to horrible atrocities, and “is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.” From Washington’s perspective and judgment, the tendency of political parties toward permanent despotism is because they eventually and “gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual.”[10]
Washington goes on to acknowledge the fact that parties are sometimes beneficial in promoting liberty in monarchies, but argues that political parties must be restrained in a popularly elected government because of their tendency to distract the government from their duties, create unfounded jealousies among groups and regions, raise false alarms amongst the people, promote riots and insurrection, and provide foreign nations and interests access to the government where they can impose their will upon the country.”
Allow me to put my own spin on Washington’s hostility towards the idea of political parties. To my mind he understood that we humans tend to have all sorts of philosophical/political takes on the world. Given that he knew that it was necessary for there to be factions who had differing views of how their elected government should operate. Being a man of the world and a leader of men, I assume that he also had insight into what motivates human beings. Lust for power, personal ego and greed motivate most humans who would seek to lead others. These propensities exist no matter where a given potential leader resides on the political spectrum. The noblest of political ideas espoused by narcissists who run for office become corrupted. This is true of all areas of the political spectrum. Washington knew that political factions were necessary, but he feared the consequences of those factions being controlled by those who would use them for their own self-aggrandizing ends. Sound familiar today?
“Washington continues his defense of the Constitution by stating his belief that the system of checks and balances and separation of powers within it are important means of preventing a single person or group from seizing control of the country, and advises the American people that if they believe it is necessary to modify the powers granted to the government through the Constitution it should be done through constitutional amendments instead of through force. This statement takes on added significance from a man who commanded the armies of British colonists who waged an armed rebellion against the British Government, during the American Revolution, and helped build a plan for a new government against the wishes of the acting Articles of Confederation government during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. The French Revolution, which had fallen into a Reign of Terror during Washington’s second term, may have helped shape Washington’s opinion that while armed rebellions may sometimes result in good, they most often lead to the fall of free governments.”
Time and again in our country’s history we have seen those “separation of powers eroded” and one branch reigning supreme. While it has been a condition common off and on in our country’s history, the downward slope began during the “Cold War”. At the end of WWII the OSS which had guided intelligence operations through the war was morphed, against Harry Truman’s better judgment into the CIA. As the “Cold War” progressed into the 50’s the dictum that only Congress can approve of making war via a declaration became undermined by the CIA operating independently to destabilize countries like Iran and Greece. Truman continued this escalation of Executive power by getting involved in the Korean War under the guise of a “police action”. As the years passed each new President stretched the limits of Executive authority. This is not to say that the other Branches haven’t had their turn. SCOTUS selected the winner of the 2000 Presidential campaign although there was much doubt that Bush really won the contest. The Court also redefined “free speech” to include Corporations and by making campaign contributions unlimited handed the country over to its most wealthy. Today we see the spectacle of a President elected by a healthy plurality, hampered at every turn by a Congress that wants to ensure that nothing gets done. Please understand too that I don’t see this as simply the fault of the Republicans. Harry Reid by refusing to do anything about the filibuster in effect continues to change the constitutionally mandated voting pattern in the Senate from a simple majority of 51, to an unconstitutional 60.
While Washington was very supportive of religion as a moral compass for humans, he was not unaware of its potentially problematic nature:
“Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”
– Letter to Edward Newenham (20 October 1792)
Today we would credit Washington as being fiscally conservative as the following passage shows. However, within that “conservatism” was the recognition that most debt comes from the military and war making; in this the General abjures both. He also acknowledges that taxation is necessary, but onerous.
“Washington provides strong support for a balanced federal budget, arguing that the nation’s credit is an important source of strength and security. He urges the American people to preserve the national credit by avoiding war, avoiding unnecessary borrowing, and paying off any national debt accumulated in times of war as quickly as possible in times of peace so that future generations do not have to take on the financial burdens that others have taken on themselves. Despite his warnings to avoid taking on debt, Washington does state his belief that sometimes it is necessary to spend money to prevent dangers or wars that will in the end cost more if not properly prepared for. At these times, argues Washington, it is necessary, although unpleasant, for the people to cooperate by paying taxes created to cover these precautionary expenses.
Washington makes an extended allusion, possibly in reference to the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania which he led a national army to put down, on how important it is for the government to be careful in choosing the items that will be taxed, but he also reminds the American people that no matter how hard the government tries there will never be a tax which is not inconvenient, unpleasant, or seemingly an insult to those who must pay it.”
Washington spends a good deal of words talking about foreign policy. While he encouraged trading with all nations and dealing with them fairly, he did not believe in America entangling itself with the affairs of other nations, nor aligning itself with alliances, since he felt these might lead to war, in the self interest of a foreign nation.
“Washington dedicates a large part of his farewell address to discussing foreign relations, and the dangers of permanent alliances between the United States and foreign nations. This issue had taken special prominence in American politics during conflict between France and Britain, known as the French Revolutionary Wars, and the efforts of the Federalists to join sides with Britain and the efforts of the Democratic-Republicans to convince Washington to honor the 1778 Treaty of Alliance, which established the Franco-American alliance, and aid France. Washington had avoided American involvement in the conflict by issuing the Proclamation of Neutrality, which in turn led to the Neutrality Act of 1794. He clearly tries to further explain his approach to foreign policy and alliances in this portion of the address.
Once again making reference to proper behavior based upon religious doctrine and morality, Washington advocates a policy of good faith and justice towards all nations, and urges the American people to avoid long-term friendly relations or rivalries with any nation. He argues these attachments and animosity toward nations will only cloud the government’s judgment in its foreign policy. Washington argues that longstanding poor relations will only lead to unnecessary wars due to a tendency to blow minor offenses out of proportion when committed by nations viewed as enemies of the United States. He continues this argument by claiming that alliances are likely to draw the United States into wars which have no justification and no benefit to the country beyond simply defending the favored nation. Washington continues his warning on alliances by claiming that they often lead to poor relations with nations who feel that they are not being treated as well as America’s allies, and threaten to influence the American government into making decisions based upon the will of their allies instead of the will of the American people.”
While I do not fully agree with all of Washington’s vision, re-reading this after more than 50 years I came away much more impressed with Washington that I previously had been. While Jefferson, Franklin, Adams and Madison might have been more charismatic individuals, with dazzling intellectual accomplishments, Washington was certainly no slouch. Beyond that though he may well have been the least egotistical of the Founding Fathers and he saved this country by refusing to replace a King George, with a Kung George the First. I’m impressed. How about you?
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
Dredd: Fair enough. I stand corrected.
Tony C 1, June 1, 2013 at 10:10 am
Dredd: Jefferson probably believed it, but he specifically meant “men” in the sense of “adult male” and not “mankind.”
=========================================
The Smithsonian article I linked to up-thread indicates that when he penned the words he did indeed believe in them:
The southern statesmen understood well what it meant too, so when they forged their constitutions they modified the wording:
The Jeffersonian moral and ideological morph in subsequent years from that anti-slavery belief into one where he could not give up slavery for pecuniary reasons and who knows what else, is confirmation of Lord Acton’s thesis that power corrupts those who are not very, very careful with it.
Excellent post. Too bad our elected representatives don’t take an hour or two to read this and ponder their lives and what they are doing.
I don’t know all the presidents that well, but can you think of another man (either contemporary with Washington or subsequent President) that would walk away from being crowned King? That alone makes him the best President in my estimation.
Dredd: Jefferson probably believed it, but he specifically meant “men” in the sense of “adult male” and not “mankind.”
There was also a prevalent (and IMO repellent and insidious) argument of the time, even among founding fathers, that non-whites were not “men” at all; that simply looking like men with (to them) significant differences was not enough. If their belief system excluded women, children, and blacks from the club of “men,” it was not double speak to claim equality of men and then treat all these others as inferiors, or even (to lesser or greater extent) as property.
“George Washington was (and still is) one of the worst presidents in our history when comes to the treatment of Africans as slaves”
RWL,
If perspective is everything, personal perspective has to assume a role beyond everything. If I were Black my personal perspective on this country for its entire history, would rightly be screw them all. This country was born in racist oppression and while diminished it continues today to oppress people of color. As a Jew I’m still angry with Edward II of England who banished the Jews to avoid paying back loans. Every time the names of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain come up my teeth grind, since they either banished, killed or forcefully converted the Jews of Spain in 1492.
Washington, for his time was “relatively” enlightened about slavery, while that puts him above most of our “Founding Fathers”, it really doesn’t excuse his behavior in not opposing slavery and I think that issue is directly responsible for the flawed nature of our Constitution, with plenty of blame to go around among our “Founding Fathers. Truly enlightened humans should be able to harshly examine their own prejudices and be able to see clearly the prejudices of their own time. There are, however, very few truly enlightened human beings on the planet at any given time. While I have been ruthless in trying to examine my own prejudices, I can neither claim to be enlightened, nor free from prejudice. I simply don’t have that kind of greatness that true enlightenment means.
My point is when we judge historical figures we are always presented with a Hobson’s choice given the era they lived in. Had some of the Founding Fathers opposed slavery as a deal breaker, there would be no country or Constitution today. They made that choice and in compromising on what is a key moral/ethical issue, they created the seeds of future discord. I think that was some of what Washington alluded to in his letter as he literally begged for unity between regions. I think there is some evidence he knew that slavery was untenable and so foresaw that it would lead to conflict. This is precisely why I learned early, having as a young man a budding political career, that if I were to take that path I would eventually compromise all I believed in. I chose to follow another path. Here was this bunch of extraordinary men we call our Founding Fathers and they made the political choice to give in to economic, rather than ethical interests and so slavery/greed became our country’s heritage.
“Presidents are people of their times and in my opinion must be viewed in the context of their time.” – Mike S
No doubt.
It clicked in my mind, while reading about the extreme difficulty presented to the first presidents of the nation, that “doublespeak” had already infected those in power.
Lord Acton believed that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
As the Smithsonian article I linked to above indicates, only real estate was more valuable than the capital slavery generated.
Had the nation kicked the slavery addiction “cold turkey” it may have destroyed the nation economically.
Madison saw that and advocated a slow freeing of slaves, but was afraid that whites would become violent toward them so he wanted to send them back to Africa instead of freeing them into a hostile society.
The corrupting influence of the power which had ensnared those early presidents is shown in part by the history of Jefferson writing the words “all men are created equal”.
At one time he probably had the strength to believe it, but another belief was just as powerful in his mind.
It finally overcame “all men are created equal” and eventually banned it from his mind.
It is a bit surprising that doublespeak has been around so long, and was not first created in Orwell’s “1984”.
Washington took the ideas, plans, and theories of others and actually made them work. We owe much to this man.
Mike: I assume that [Washington] also had insight into what motivates human beings. Lust for power, personal ego and greed motivate most humans who would seek to lead others.
Perhaps not enough insight. No matter how one sets up a contest between people (like an election, foot race, boxing match or chess match), as people take sides it is human nature to become so emotionally invested in “their side” winning that the emotions trump rationality. Even if there are many sides.
The “prize” in the contest, even if just bragging rights, becomes invested with value, and one’s share in that prize is roughly computed as some function of what they see subjectively as their chances of winning, how badly one needs it, and how literally valuable it is, all before the prize is won or lost. In an election with just one winner, the loss is felt as a theft by the factions voting for the losers, especially if money was contributed.
If there are several candidates, it will seem unfair to the losers that what was probably a minority candidate won and the majority (everybody else) lost. If there are two candidates, it will sting because they probably felt they had a better than 50% chance, and thus most of the prize was stolen from them.
In any winner-take-all system of competition, whether it is the NFL or Congress, the equivalent of parties are bound to form, and it is human nature to be irrationally devoted to one’s tribe, to try and inculcate that into your children, and to find emotional value in solidarity with friends and family (even if that demands stubbornly denying reality). Call that solidarity faith, patriotism or loyalty to one’s side, it is an emotional value, and any rationality that does not agree is left on the dock.
Washington may have anticipated the problem with parties. I do not know everything Washington wrote, but apparently his analysis did not extend far enough to propose any mitigations that might prevent the ill effects of parties.
“He did things not because he thought they should be done, but because they were morally right….”
AY,
The thanks go to you for turning me on to the letter and giving me cause to reread it from the perspective of fifty years of further maturity. I agree with you that partisanship is destroying the country, but I believe that partisanship is the excuse that people use to excuse their egomania and greed. Both our parties are Corporate funded and controlled. There is a slight difference in the actions they do, but in the end much behind the scenes agreement. The Republicans tend to serve our elite and screw the people, while telling them their policies are in the people’s interest. The Democrats serve the elite also, but feel that you shouldn’t screw the people too much.
It is estimated that once a member of Congress is elected they must spend at least five hours every day fundraising. This leads me to two conclusions: One that the money they have to work for has to mostly come from people of means and thus gives them clout in return for their largesse. The second is that most Legislators have to be egomaniacs or sociopaths to get elected and then immediately become concerned with the next election.
What impressed me so much about Washington was that I believe he was not
an egomaniac and that is proved by his refusal to be King or President for life.
I think he genuinely believed in the Constitution and in an innovative future for this country. I think he has to rank with our greatest Presidents because he got this country off to the right start which was a daunting task. Presidents are people of their times and in my opinion must be viewed in the context of their time. I think in the context of his time Washington was the right leader for a difficult time.
Washington’s act of overcoming the slavery addiction was no small feat, when compared with his confidant Jefferson, who became completely absorbed by its corrupting influence:
(Smithsonian). As Mike S said, Washington may not have had some intellectual qualities that Jefferson is said to have had, but he did have a better mastery of the concept of freedom.
“You might want to think about updating the font on the section before the fold.”
Anonymous,
I wish I could but I’ve never figured out how to adjust fonts in WordPress. Perhaps one of my fellow guest bloggers could clue me in?
RWL 1, June 1, 2013 at 5:44 am
George Washington was (and still is) one of the worst presidents in our history when comes to the treatment of Africans as slaves (I.e. he endorsed legislation to keep slavery going and to suppress any slave rebellion in not only the US, but in other parts of the world, including Haiti. He also fathered several children from African slaves-some called it ‘legitimate rape’:where term originated from the raping of African women, legitimized by our constitution in the late 1700s). I will be back with more supporting documentation of this. Power is out in STL County, MO due to storms.
================================
Jefferson was worse than Washington in the sense of slavery.
Jefferson became addicted to owning slaves and could not give it up.
In fact an anti-slavery friend of his in Europe, upon his death, willed his forture to Jefferson so Jefferson could free his slaves without economic impact.
Jefferson refused the large sum of money and kept his slaves.
Reading the part on foreign relations, the most prominent country that comes to mind is Israel, and the influence it has had on our legislation and military.
Metaphorically, however, the next biggest “nation” is composed of the “republic of oil” and its member “states” like Exxon and BP.
Mike,
You might want to think about updating the font on the section before the fold. It detracts from the posting, IMO. Thanks.
Thanks Mike….
The more I read and understand about Washington…. The more I have come to understand that partisanship is destroying this country at its core…. He did things not because he thought they should be done, but because they were morally right…. Something lost on many today… They may quote Washington, but I doubt they understand the true humanity of Washington….
Part of Washingtons friction with the inside is he wanted to reinstate Arnold… But the factions remained the way they were and… A great leader was basically exiled…
Thanks Gene, hope all is well…
OS, Ellis is transformational once you realize that things can be changed…. But, you have to know one, that something is wrong and two, that you can change… Great pairing with point with Washington…
He kept the troops together through the winter at Valley Forge and thus forged a nation. His fellow loyalists who were nevertheless born in America were over in Philly drinking tea with the Redcoats. Today those conservatives style themselves as Tea Party folks. Same folks, different strokes, these today would be keeping house for King George in the old days. Take Michelle Bachmann and her rants– where wouwould she be sleeping and with who during the winter of Valley Forge.
I am an admirer of Washington’s ability to take the long view for the country. We had a President, not an emperor of king. It would have been easy for him to pull a “Napoleon” or had himself named “President for Life.” His view of the Presidency as a public servant was somehow lost on many of his successors, especially as the twentieth century ended and the twenty-first began.
Washington was a flawed man, but there has never been a President who wasn’t. He was a man of his time regarding slavery and women, but like Jefferson, obviously was conflicted about the hypocrisy of owning slaves in a democracy with a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Was he the greatest President? I have no idea. We have had great Presidents as well as some who were/are not even halfway decent. Some men were great before they became President, but were lousy Presidents. Grant was a pretty good general, but a disaster in office.
Some were average men, but who became great in the office. Harry Truman was the original average guy. He had been a businessman, but to say he was good at it would be far too generous. He was a veteran, and knew the stink and horror of war first hand. I have often thought his decisiveness in deciding to use the atomic bomb, and his sacking of MacArthur for insubordination were reflections of the fact he was a no-nonsense officer in command of an artillery battery that fired some of the last shots of WWI.
Theodore Roosevelt was the right man at the right time to bring the robber barons to heel. TR was nominated for the Medal of Honor, but Congress never approved it (that’s why the award is often called the “Congressional Medal of Honor). One might think his politics had something to do with Congress holding up the award, y’think? Final approval of his MoH did not come until almost a hundred years after he earned it, when we had a Democratic President and a Republican Congress.
I read somewhere that Harding was chosen to run because, “He looks like a President.” Wow, some choice he was.
I wish Dr. Laurence Peter had done a study of the Presidents and applied his “Peter Principle” theories to the office and the men.
I don’t know how one would choose the “greatest.” It is rather like standing in a Baskin-Robbins debating which flavor of ice cream is the greatest. (Of course, everyone knows that butter pecan is the greatest flavor. 😉 ) From many standpoints, if I were forced to choose, it would be a very close call between Washington and Lincoln. The Louisiana and Alaska purchases were strokes of genius by flawed men. Who’s to say?
Want to have the shivers? Imagine someone like Harding, Reagan or George W. Bush as the first President.
Want a perfect President? I don’t. For one thing, such a person does not exist. Dr. Albert Ellis pointed out that humans are fallible and screwed up, but the important thing is to have the insight to understand that fact and succeed despite it.
OS I agree with most of your post with some exceptions. Washington was most certainly NOT a man of his time when it came to slavery. At the beginning of the Revolution, that was true. After he saw the fact that black Americans could and would fight as well as their white fellow troops, he had a radical change of mind. So he was FAR ahead of his time since virtually ALL the states allowed slavery and most Americans approved of slavery. Lincoln on the other hand only had most of the Union states where slavery was prohibited, and there were many who DID still allow slavery. There is good book called The Radicalism of the American Revolution which demonstrates how Americans made a major break in the course of the war with their past in every day things in life and politics. War changes men profoundly in their views and life, and Washington was no exception to that rule.
Grant was NOT a disaster as a President at all. He was responsible for actually enforcing the 13, 14, and 15th amendments and did a pretty good job. His successors and corrupt cronies were the ones who give Grant a bad name when they did the corrupt bargin to end Reconstruction for Hayes becoming President. He founded and enforced a progressive policy towards the Native Americans, and appointed a full blooded Indian to be in charge of the Bureau of Indian affairs and stamped out most of the corruption there by making Quakers the ones who were appointed as indian agents. He had an excellent record in foreign affairs, and the only black mark is the fact that he had a number of Cabinet members who got caught stealing. His failing was that since he was so personally honest, he had little insight to the corruption that was common throughout the country. It also personally cost him dearly. I just fininshed a good bio of Grant and my estimation of him has increased markedly once you get to tknow the facts. He was also an outstanding general who, along with Sherman, were the founders of strategic modern warfare. His western campaigns were simply brilliant, and he used his resources wisely to win the war.
George Washington was (and still is) one of the worst presidents in our history when comes to the treatment of Africans as slaves (I.e. he endorsed legislation to keep slavery going and to suppress any slave rebellion in not only the US, but in other parts of the world, including Haiti. He also fathered several children from African slaves-some called it ‘legitimate rape’:where term originated from the raping of African women, legitimized by our constitution in the late 1700s). I will be back with more supporting documentation of this. Power is out in STL County, MO due to storms.
Mike,
It’s no secret who my favorite President is, but job well done. Washington’s stand on both political parties and the Separation of Powers Doctrine are particularly admirable as is his restraint is taking a third term. Well done.
Good suggestion, AY.
I was always impressed with Washington in most of his endeavors. He was rather good militarily too, though some of his plans were a bit too intricate at the beginning. He learned as he gained experience, and one has to remember that he was NOT the commander in chief of the Continental Armies, just his army. There were lots of other generals who did what they pleased and fought to make Congress see things their way. One has to judge his military effectivenss by the result. So to take on the greatest power on Earth at the time and WIN is nothing short of outstanding.
I suggest that those who are interested in Washington and slavery read teh book, An Imperfect God, Washington and Slavery. At the beginning of the Revolution, he was the standard Virginia slaveholder, and when he took command in Boston, he ordered that all the blacks in the ranks be dismissed. It was pointed out to him that they needed EVERY man, and to get rid of the black troops would be suicidal. He relented. Then during the war, 25% of his troops were black and for the most part fully integrated into Continental Army. So when Washington looked out over his army, he saw a HUGE proportion of black troops.
It was said that he was the best horseman in America, and his manservant, a slave, had to be the second best one since he rode with him all the time and kept up with him. This man was seriously hurt in the course of his duties, but he kept on and he was freed by Washington and given land and a pension for life. The war and subsequent events changed Washington’s views on slavery and his effective son, Lafeyette had a great influence on him as well, and they were trying to figure out how to solve the slavery problem. Out of the eight Presidents who owned slaves, Washington was the only one who freed his. He tried to lead by example. Unfortunately, his successors were not as good or as decent or as intelligent.
So I have to rank Washington as our greatest President for a number of reasons. He was the first, and he knew everything he did would set a precedent for the future and he worried about this and tried to be as a humble servant of the American people. He was the general who defeated the greatest military power at the time. That was a very improbable thing to say the least, and HE was the main factor in bringing that about by his leadership of the troops. Lincoln who I think is the second best Pres, had a lot of things going for the Union over the Confederacy, and his political skills were a major factor in keeping the union together. So it is hardly necessary to construct any myths about Washington since the truth is quite sufficient to make his greatness clear.