Washington
230 years ago today, our young nation made what continues to be one of the wisest choices in its history.
O n January 10th, 1789, electors were submitting the last of their votes for the first presidential election under the newly ratified Constitution. Due to the slow methods of communication and lack of dependable infrastructure, it will be of little surprise to note that the entire process had taken nearly a month, having begun on December 15th of the previous year. Polling places were far scarcer than in the modern era, and often required a multi-day journey to reach. Nonetheless, the election took place, with less than 2% of the population participating — the low number owing primarily to the many restrictions on voter eligibility in that era.
One might be tempted to consider the above scenario as discouraging, even by the standards of the time: roughly 50,000 voters in a country nearing four million in population, taking place over the course of a month, in an election which many viewed as, in some sense, predestined. In point of fact, this exercise could not have been more consequential for the future of the nation, its standing in the world, and the shaping of the presidency. Washington’s unanimous election sent a signal, both to foreign heads of state and to the disparate factions within America, that we were united behind the cause of self governance. Likewise, Washington’s conduct while in office would set numerous precedents for centuries to follow, serving as a guiding light to his successors and to all Americans.
S ome analyses oversimplify the state of affairs in 1788, to the point of suggesting that Washington’s unanimous support by the electoral college was indicative of unwavering public support. It is of course true that Washington commanded great respect throughout the states, amongst both the intelligentsia and the common men. He had been a prominent figure as a delegate from Virginia to the Continental Congress, led the American Army through the brutal and lengthy Revolutionary War, and subsequently presided over the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention. To be sure, his admiration by citizens of varied political leanings, coupled with his seemingly natural fit as a leader of men, is largely what propelled him to the presidency with such ease.
But consider for a moment the nation’s political circumstances at the time. The Constitution was begrudgingly adopted by many states, with the famous example of New York voting 30–27 to ratify. Indeed, both North Carolina and Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution until well into Washington’s first term. Factions of anti-Federalists, primarily associated with Patrick Henry of Virginia, considered the Constitution to be an illegal document. Figures like Thomas Jefferson, though urging Washington publicly and in correspondence to take up the post, were critical both of the idea of a federal government and even, privately, of Washington himself. Additionally, one must always bear in mind that this was the first presidential election in the history of the country; the confidence we have today in the electoral process was not yet established. Likewise, the voters who would be casting their ballots towards the presidential electors were not necessarily impervious to the kinds of emotional persuasion and demagoguery that might have compelled them to lean towards another candidate who was able to play on the fears and insecurities of the newly formed republic. The electoral college, having been established but untested, could well have flagged and simply followed the will of a reactionary popular vote.
All this is not meant to revise history, of course. Washington’s universal support across the nation is well documented, and no reasonable person would dispute his standing. The point is only to recognize the fragility of the American experiment at this early stage, such that it could easily have been smashed like an egg with a hammer by an inconsiderate electorate and an incendiary presidential candidate.
T hankfully for the future of the United States, the electorate and electoral college made the astute decision to put George Washington at the head of the Executive branch. Washington, ever self-critical and of low self-regard, spoke in his Inaugural Address of his own hesitance to take the position, being one “who, inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpractised [sic] in the duties of civil administration, ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies.” Amongst other qualities, his inability to see in himself what others saw in him, coupled with his unremitting anxieties about his own legacy, led him to be one of the most judicious, deliberative, cautious, but finally resolute, presidents in American history. His universal support allowed him to bring the nation together under the aegises of American exceptionalism (though not yet given that title), self-governance, and honour, both within the country and looking outward towards the rest of the world. This was a feat which few men of the time could have easily accomplished, but Washington’s record as both a general and a statesman had an irresistible gravitas when made manifest in the position of president.
With the federal government being a relatively fresh establishment, the policy choices of Washington were responsible for establishing, if not the primary method of governing, at least an option for administrations moving forward. At the urging of Treasury Secretary and personal confidant Alexander Hamilton, Washington supported the establishment of a national bank, the assumption of state debts by the federal government, and the decision to remain neutral in the French Revolutionary Wars between France and Great Britain. These three policies proved to be some of the most significant long-standing decisions, in terms of precedents which would serve both as guidelines and points of disagreement for future administrations.
As the first president, many of Washington’s personal actions became norms adopted by presidents for decades to come. The list is long, ranging from his comportment and generosity, to his interpretation of executive powers and the ways in which he engaged with and relied upon his cabinet. Undoubtedly, though, the most famous and important norm which he set was that of the two-term limit on the presidency. This unique decision was borne of his two main traits, as previously mentioned: self-doubt, and anxiety about his legacy (as well as a not insignificant degree of frustration with the mudslinging involved in professional politics). On the one hand, Washington considered himself insufficient for the job at hand — in fact, he had initially considered resigning after his first term, finally deciding to run for re-election only after his concerns over emerging factionalism grew to a fever pitch. Alternatively, Washington’s concern for his legacy caused him to be wary of the corrupting effect of unending rule and what it would do to his decision making. Even after two terms which any right-minded historian would describe as successful, Washington reflected in his famous Farewell Address that “in reviewing the incidents of my administration, [though] I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors.” He follows this with the “hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that […] the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion,” leaving his legacy intact while respecting his own shortcomings.
Washington’s Farewell Address is a document which repays extended study, and though it would be well worth the space, an extensive analysis of it will not be provided here, as such literature exists elsewhere and in much greater detail than an essay could properly provide. Suffice it to say that the document is a political tour de force, spanning policy both domestic and foreign, goals national, local, and international in scale (though overwhelmingly national), and having been graced by the pens not only of Washington, but also of James Madison and, most extensively, Alexander Hamilton. The address is the political prose equivalent of the Declaration of Independence, carefully knitting high-minded ideals with tangible policy objectives in order to set the nation on the right course, post-Washington.
W hy, might one ask, write this article now, aside from the mere coincidence of anniversary? The answer lies in the timeless lessons to be wrought from the 1788–89 election, and the administration it resulted in. A study of the Washington presidency and the political atmosphere prior and subsequent to it is not merely an exercise in historical reflection. Rather, it gives us the opportunity to consider what this choice for president meant to the average citizen and well-read intellectual at the time of the founding, and how it might instruct us on the proper outlook for and function of our democratic republic in the modern era.
Washington led the nation through its infancy by appealing to all sides; not as a pandering populist or watered-down centrist — his positions were strong, to be sure — but by appealing to a shared vision that all citizens could rally around. He knew that people of good will would, through honest debate and well-intentioned action, eventually move the country in the right direction; that a rising tide lifts all boats; and that the only way to improve the country for the individual was to improve it for the population at large. Finally, Washington evinced the axiom, “humble in victory and gracious in defeat.” He demonstrated to the world, through calm and thoughtful leadership, that America was not a mere fledgling nation, but rather a serious player on the world stage, and one dedicated to moving ever-closer to its espoused ideals, becoming an ever more perfect union.
If one takes away no other lesson, at least be encouraged by the simple but important acknowledgement that our republic can function properly, and it can elect a president who is simultaneously wise, intelligent, popular, and honourable — in other words, a trade-off is not required. Accordingly, it is the responsibility of every citizen to push for perfection in government; not as an agitator or a skeptic, nor as a demagogue or a bigot. Rather, the citizen must demand the best because the Declaration and Constitution demand it; our continued improvement as a nation demands it; and the legacy of a leader like Washington, who gave his lifetime in service to the country, demands it, of all of us.
Aaron Clarke
January 10th, 2019
