Masarykova univerzita Filozofická fakulta

Katedra anglistiky a amerikanistiky

Magisterská diplomová práce

2008 ...... Stanislav Sýkora

Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Stanislav Sýkora

Washington’s Indispensability in Building up the New Constitutional Government during His First Presidential Term Master’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: doc. PhDr.Tomáš Pospíšil, Dr.

2008

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

......

Author’s signature

Acknowledgments

I would not have enjoyed writing this thesis as much as I have if it had not been for the support of doc. PhDr. Tomáš Pospíšil, Dr. who has repeatedly expressed confidence in the quality of this work and the contribution it would make to the academic studies of Washington’s first presidential term. I do not hesitate to express appreciation for his wise suggestion to order relevant books from overseas, which was an important factor in the expansion of bibliographical sources for this thesis.

Moreover, I appreciate with gratitude his supervisory contributions in the form of constructive critical remarks on various passages of text, and lending me or providing references to books that were of great aid in the legitimate academic treatment of the period.

I cannot omit expressing my most sincere thanks to those individuals of the

University of Virginia that rendered The Papers of George Washington into a digitized format. Since the database is available only to academic institutions, I also give my thankful recognition to Mgr. Věra Jurmanová Volemanová (head of Faculty of Arts’

Central Library) and Jeffrey A. Vanderziel, B.A. (head of the Department of English and American Studies) who were willing to petition for the access in behalf of the institutions they oversee.

Finally, my warm appreciation is directed to my parents who have not minded my thoughts being occasionally riveted back to eighteenth-century America even during my writing breaks. They have been willing to assist me financially to bring this work to pass and to be truly supportive in many ways.

Table of Contents

Thesis Statement ...... 5

Methodology...... 5

Introduction...... 6

1. Washington’s Resistance to the Office...... 12

2. The Triumphal Inauguration ...... 16

3. Royal Ostentation versus Republican Simplicity...... 23

4. Forming the New Government ...... 32

4.1 Believing in the Great Experiment...... 32

4.2 Finding Co-Believers in the Great Experiment ...... 37

4.2.1 Setting up Cabinet Councils...... 45

4.2.2 Criteria for Selection ...... 48

5. Touring and Uniting the New Nation...... 52

5.1 Touring the North...... 53

5.2 Touring the South ...... 56

6. Washington’s Reconciliatory Influence amidst Surfacing Partisanship ...... 61

Conclusion ...... 69

Works Cited...... 74

Thesis Statement

Washington’s first presidential term may seem void of major events, but it was particularly this period that manifested Washington’s indispensability in building trust in the “great experiment.” 1

Methodology

The obtaining of good-quality materials for this thesis turned out to be somewhat unexpectedly difficult. Given the classical topic of the eighteenth-century America, I anticipated that finding good sources on Washington’s first term would not represent an obstacle on its own. My supposition proved naive, for after searching virtually in every major university and public library in the Czech Republic, the overall number of literary works that could be either borrowed or copied in some measure was still insufficient in my view for the purpose of writing this thesis.

My next steps therefore headed abroad. Through an online bookstore

(Amazon.com, Inc.), I was able to purchase a good number of further resources at a fairly reasonable price that greatly contributed to the compilation of this thesis.

Additional invaluable primary resource I dare not to leave unmentioned was University of Virginia and their most obliging services in permitting me to temporarily access their unique Digital Edition of The Papers of George Washington, an online database of

Washington’s correspondence and diary entries in one easily searchable master index.

I have attempted to use primary sources fairly extensively and have given them a higher priority over secondary sources, perhaps because of authors’ possibly inaccurate interpretations of the original documents. Mainly for practical purposes, however, I have found out that omitting secondary sources altogether is not beneficial for the sake

1 The term, in the thesis, is to be understood in the same meaning as Washington described it in 1790: “The establishment of our new Government . . . for promoting human happiness by reasonable compact in civil Society” (Washington, “To C. M. Graham”).

5 of writing the thesis, for they provide much needed summaries and perspectives on events that would have otherwise remained dull and removed without bringing much connection to the modern-day reader, not even mentioning the magnitude of time they have saved me in not having to gather every piece of information from the primary sources.

However, as authors interpret literary data from their perspectives, their viewpoints on some historical events may slightly diverge. This has occurred especially whenever an author has not rejected, in accordance with the precepts of scientific humility, to peruse even the “unknown” writers on the subject in search of an enlightening perspective. Whenever interpretational discrepancies were detected I turned to the primary sources and also to the most authoritative authors on the subject

(Douglas Southall Freeman and James Thomas Flexner) for further insight. I have discovered a few such cases of discrepancy in the course of my research, and whenever pertinent to the discourse, they have been included within this thesis. Generally, however, inconsistencies in information were different merely because of unduly accentuated angles of perception of the corresponding three-dimensional truth.

Introduction

In the selection of topic for my thesis I was led by criteria that were largely dependent on my personal intuitive processes, knowing that no book or scholarly- written paper would reach much high-quality evaluation unless the author’s admiration of the explored subject radiates through his/her “unbiased” quill. Having all the possible topics of interest critically surveyed, my mind was riveted back in history to eighteenth- century America when the nation was practically at its genesis. The Founding Fathers, as they came to be known, have deserved bounteous literary attention and served as

6 sources of inspiration in political science and in diverse academic treaties. My thoughts soon focused on one of them; to that real Father, to that man that was “first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen; 2” the man that is referred to as modern-day Cincinnatus, the only man to have enjoyed the trust of all Americans.

My first “personal” encounter with Washington was in the city of Newburgh near the Hudson River in upstate New York. There, I was privileged to take a guided tour of what used to be the Continental Army’s headquarters during the last two years of the War of Independence. During that tour of the headquarters, I received fresh impressions about the attributes and qualities of that General whose life had always been somewhat clouded from my perception by an aura of mysticism and remoteness.

Perhaps, when treating Washington’s deeds during his first presidential years, one would reach a better comprehension if familiar with the events that occurred prior to 1789. He was born into Virginia’s lesser gentry in 1732, but his inheritance was rather meager mainly due to the fact that upon his father’s death in 1743, most of the estate was bequeathed to Lawrence, George’s eldest half-brother. Although young

George never received much formal education, his gift of mathematics earned him an employment under the auspices of Lord Fairfax, head of one of the most powerful families in Virginia. George gradually acquired an almost insatiable appetite for land surveyance and military adventure (“Miller Center”).

Land acquisition came to him naturally, mainly through inheritance. When his beloved Lawrence, whom he idolized, died in 1752, George inherited most of the family acreage at Mount Vernon. His estate enlarged substantially six years later when he married widow Martha Custis.

2 A phrase used in the eulogy upon President Washington by Henry Lee, fellow officer from Virginia, before both branches of Congress (Lee, “Memoirs”).

7 George was also eminently successful in undergoing military adventures in the

French and Indian War at a tender age of early twenties. Military glory, however, proved elusive. Through family connections he obtained prominent military posts, but he felt he was being considered more courageous than wise. When ignored by his

British superiors in serious battles and blamed, along with other colonials, for the defeat, he resigned from the army and returned to Virginia (McDonald x).

When providing highly respected service as a Justice of the Peace in Fairfax

County and in the Virginia House of Burgesses, his hostility toward all things English grew steadily. “Like most Virginia planters, he saw British policies as a conspiracy to deprive Americans of their life, liberty, and property” (McDonald x).

The Virginia legislature elected Washington to both the First and the Second

Continental Congress held in 1774 and 1775, respectively. When the first clashes of the

Revolution occurred near Lexington and Concord (Massachusetts), the Continental

Congress unanimously chose Washington as the commander-in-chief.

There were only a few candidates that were as qualified for this post as

Washington, so he seemed quite a natural choice. His experience in the military as well as in the legislature was a large bonus for this task. Additionally, John Adams candidly admitted that Washington “looked like a general, 3 having a bearing and demeanor that inspired instant and total confidence” (qtd. in McDonald x).

As a general in the Revolutionary War, he headed a rebellion that was greatly against his odds. Historians generally esteem his tactics mediocre, but his strategy as sound: being patient rather than plunging into irrational battles, adhering to the Fabian maneuvers, retrieving from battles unless the odds were in his favor and waiting for the opponent to make a fatal mistake. That fatal mistake came in October 1781 during the

3 He weighed about two hundred pounds and with his height of six feet and three inches, he towered above most of his contemporaries by more than half a foot. His physical frame was bony, muscular, and strengthened by a lifetime of strenuous outdoor activity (Smith, “Surprising” Prologue).

8 Battle of Yorktown. Finally, Washington and the United States won their independence.

Once the long-sought independence was won, Washington willingly resigned from all military authority and retired to his serene Mount Vernon. The War of Independence

“made him a hero and the retirement made him an even greater one.” His unwillingness to retain a powerful office was likened to Cincinnatus, a Roman political figure who gave up his dictatorship for farming once the military crisis was over (McDonald x-xi).

Washington’s retirement, however, was cut short due to his election to the

Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia. His presidency in the Convention contributed little in the practical affairs of drafting a new government. He lacked the aptitude for legislative draftsmanship and persuasiveness in hotly-contested debates was not Washington’s forte, furthermore it was not expected that a president of the

Convention would engage in the debates; president was to preside. His occupancy of the presiding chair was quite reflective of the draftsmen’s perception of the emerging government, for they designed the federal Presidency with Washington in mind

(Flexner, “Indispensable” 209; McPherson 12).

Henry Knox did not exaggerate, I believe, when he posited that it was George

Washington’s eminent individuality and not the Constitution that held the infant Union together (Smith, “Patriarch” xi; italics added). When Washington assumed his responsibilities as the newly elected President of the United States, the Constitution was yet to be ratified in a couple of remaining states. Yet, the ratification process turned out to be hardly a foregone conclusion, for many had reservations about the contents of the document and the ratification was achieved by a fairly narrow margin in a number of states.

Washington’s acceptance of the presidential office was much unlike that of

9 the Constitution’s ratification. Concurrence of extending such a call to him was widespread, his election unanimous. The exceptional approval of all electors remains unparalleled to date.

The country had just won its independence and was yet in a primitive state; comprising colonies and citizens so diverse that they resembled separate countries, at times even antipathetic towards each other, rather than the “United” States.

In this paper, I have set out to take a closer look at the events that occurred between 1789 and 1793 and the things Washington did (or perhaps what he did not do) that had either a direct or indirect impact on building national trust in the “great experiment” of the new political setup. Furthermore, I have scrupulously attended to the details of Washington’s conduct that rendered this period vitally important in winning mass allegiance to the new republican government.

One may regard the period between Washington’s election in 1789 and his reelection in 1793 as quite uneventful on the executive level (excepting the establishment of the First Bank) and his accomplishments insignificant and of minimal consequence to the welfare of the Republic. And it is true that not much happened during Washington’s first term that would have filled the prominent places in our history books. But in fact, the absence of dramatic events, at least for these few years, seems to have struck the right note for the secure development and unification of the country.

A door turns on small hinges and history does likewise. Though this period will likely remain to be covered meagerly by historians, I have discovered that the seemingly insignificant events were those that occurred at this time that greatly contributed to the consolidation of the Republic and primarily that Washington was indispensable for such a national unification.

10 His first presidential term was unique on its own terms. The office was still in a primitive state and obligations pertaining to it were, in a large measure, yet in the making. For the time being, Washington could not enforce any national laws, for none had been enacted, no appointments to the executive could be made, for congressional authorization was yet anticipated, and no pardons could be extended to federal prisoners, there yet being none (Gaines 287).

What was Washington, the President of the United States, left to do then?

Washington soon found himself, as well in the eyes of the colonists, to be the visual representation of the yet invisible federal government. Washington’s representation of the federal government, thanks to his unique character, played a critical role in national unification during this period. His triumphal procession towards the inauguration in

New York and the social events at the presidential house may be blamed for the rise of fear of monarchical conduct in the government, but these largely ceremonial events, I claim, constituted a perfect theatrical show during which provincial self-interested murmurs were lost in public adulation of their hero.

When considering the massive literary works illustrating the Washington’s era, one may be led to a misleading perception that everything has already been covered and that an approach toward such a massive subject of history beseems a prodigious, multivolume biography. 4 The monumental size of these projects seemed to implicitly imply larger-than-life writing commitment in order to enumerate all the possible details of Washington’s life. This relates to one of Lytton Strachey’s poignant comments about

Victorian biography which apprises: “namely, that the interminable tomes had become an endless row of verbal coffins” (qtd. in Ellis, “Excellence” xiii).

4 Authoritative historians such as Douglas Southall Freeman and James Thomas Flexner surely fall within this scope.

11 With that in mind, we hardly “need another epic painting” of Washington’s life,

“but rather a fresh portrait focused” on one of the few issues to be investigated (Ellis,

“Excellence” xiii). When assessing the available literature on Washington I noticed a conspicuous paucity in literary production, perhaps the least of all, on the events and significance Washington’s first presidential term. Biographies and political-historical treatises covering his presidential years often describe his first term modestly and in comparison with his subsequent term much more succinctly.

Allow me then to take a closer look at the first President of the United States during his first term; the President who lived in the independence-seeking eighteenth- century America and in an age of great intellectual minds experimenting with rearing up a republic in a world of monarchies. He was not alone in that “great experiment,” for a number of brilliant thinkers had diligently worked on the same cause, but his influence was unique and remarkable. Benjamin Franklin may have been more ingenious than

Washington, Alexander Hamilton more pragmatic, John Adams better read, Thomas

Jefferson more intellectually sophisticated, and James Madison more politically astute, but each one of those prominent statesmen later acknowledged that Washington was their unquestioned superior, to be recognized as primus inter pares of the Founding

Fathers. In the pages that follow, I have attempted to provide the answer, in part, to why he was worthy of such approbation in regards to his contributions to the welfare of the

Union.

1. Washington’s Resistance to the Office

The office of the President is not delineated in detail in the Constitution, but rather in fairly broad terms. “Article II was loosely drawn and thus left considerable leeway for future presidents and events to shape the executive office” (Milkis 63).

12 Article II, touching upon the executive branch responsibilities, merely states that

“the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America” and that “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” There is, however, little if any mention of what those executive powers are and what boundaries are there to be erected. Evidently, this task was to be laid upon the shoulders of the first holder of the office (Milkis 63).

General Washington had been regarded as the most influential man in America since the beginning of the Revolutionary War (Rhodehamel, “Experiment” 115).

Having gained experience by the side of the British soldiers in the battles and skirmishes of the French and Indian War as the commander of Virginia forces, General

Washington became nationally renown by taking command 5 of the Continental Army in

1775 and heading the war for freedom and independence against the increasingly burdensome British royal governance.

Undoubtedly, General Washington could have taken up the advantageous position of a military commander and usurp ultimate political power on his own.

Besides the army whose head he was, there was none else vested with such authority.

He “angrily rejected” to “allow himself to be crowned king” or any inclinations towards coup d´état. The notion of seizing 6 political power through his full control of the army received his most vehement renunciation the soldiers could hear (Diller 1499).

He has thus been oftentimes referred to as modern-day Cincinnatus, 7 alluding to the patriotic conduct of the ancient Roman hero that “left his farm to save his country in

5 “He had not asked for the job, and when Congress nominated and then unanimously elected him a general and Commander in Chief of the Continental Army on June 15, 1775, he accepted with dignity but without elation” (Cunliffe 59). Note that his 1775 election to this leading military office was unanimous - such unwavering trust of early American diplomats followed him also in the ensuing years of his life (i.e. presidency of the Constitutional Convention, elections to both the first and second term of his presidency). 6 His remarks on the subject were delivered on March 15, 1783 in Newburgh, New York, where he persuaded his officers “to give up their plan and support Congress” (Diller 1499). 7 For further comments on this topic, I refer to Michael Riccards’s insightful lecture at the University of Virginia in 1992 (see “Riccards, Michael” in the bibliography).

13 wartime crisis, and who then, instead of seizing power as he could have, returned to his plow” (Cunliffe 109). On December 23, 1783, Washington rode to Annapolis to return

“his commission as Commander in Chief to the Continental Congress” after which he galloped to Mount Vernon to be home by Christmas Eve, which he successfully did

(Flexner, “New Nation” 6).

His high prestige soon carried him to the role of presiding 8 at the Constitutional

Convention, which he originally did not even wish to attend for reasons “of never more stepping out of the walks of private life” (Washington, “To H. Knox, 27 Apr. 1787”;

Freeman, “Washington” 536).

Being greatly indebted to General Washington for his service in leading the opposition against British taxing governance, the American leading rebels were determined to label George III as the last king on the American soil. But that brought additional socio-political challenges. “Reared in monarchy, the American people had never known a chief executive who was not a king, and Washington somehow had to satisfy their deeply rooted yearnings for patriarchal leadership while creating a new republican presidency” (McPherson 12).

A vision that the office of the U.S. President should be occupied by none else than George Washington was quite widespread long before the first elections were scheduled. “He had in a certain sense been acting as President of the United States since

1775” (Elkins and McKitrick 34). For illustration of how widespread this notion was, reference to personal correspondence of George Washington during the early months of

1788 is provided here. Marquis de Lafayette, Gen. Washington’s aide-de-camp during

8 “Not that he sought the office; no one could have expressed more reluctance” (McPherson 12).

14 the Revolutionary War, sent his letter from Paris January 1, 1788. 9

Lafayette’s words, pinned down on the first day of 1788, turned somewhat prophetic in advocating Washington’s forthcoming acceptance of political leadership:

“My other Comfort is that you Cannot Refuse Being Elected president . . . I Beseech you, my dear General, Not to deny your Acceptance of the office of president for the first Years—You only Can settle that political Machine, and I foresee it will furnish An

Admirable Chapter in your History” (Lafayette, “To G. Washington”).

Alexander Hamilton, one of the key figures in drafting the Constitution just a year earlier, had already been counting on George Washington to accept the call of his country to serve at its head once the Constitution is ratified. Said he in August 13, 1788:

I take it for granted, Sir, you have concluded to comply with what will no

doubt be the general call of your country in relation to the new

government. You will permit me to say that it is indispensable you

should lend yourself to its first operations—It is to little purpose to have

introduced a system, if the weightiest influence is not given to its firm

establishment , in the outset. (Hamilton, “To G. Washington”)

Another fairly frank letter (dated Sep. 13, 1788) had been sent to George

Washington from Henry Lee, his cavalry officer in the Continental Army. His sentiments in regards to the necessity of General Washington’s acceptance of presiding over the newly established nation were expressed in the following candid manner:

To perpetuate a nation formed under your auspices, it is certain that

again you will be called forth . . . The same principles of devotion to the

good of mankind which has invariably governed your conduct, will no

9 Please note the timing of this letter. The Constitution was yet to be ratified in most states (only three states have ratified it by the end of 1787). Given the lengthy period it took the mail to traverse the Atlantic, one may further wonder how early the vision of George Washington presiding over the Union may have accessed the minds of officials worldwide.

15 doubt, continue to rule your mind however opposite their consequences

may be, to your repose & happiness . . . Without you the govt can have

but little chance of success . (Lee, “To G. Washington”; italics added).

In replying to his correspondents General Washington kept his sentiments firmly restrained on the subject, avowing his associates of his fondest desires to retire from public life and enjoyment of improving his estate at Mount Vernon. “The increasing infirmities of nature and the growing love of retirement do not permit me to entertain a wish beyond that of living and dying an honest man on my own farm,” wrote a year before the first presidential elections (Washington, “To Lafayette, 28 Apr.–1 May

1788”). Nevertheless, he admitted that should such an appointment arrive, it would be appropriate for him to sense the urgency of the call and reconsider extending his public service, although such acceptance would be accompanied “with the most unfeigned reluctance” (Washington, “To Lafayette, 29 Jan. 1789”). But he never enjoyed discussing this possibility since “the event alluded to may never happen” and even the contemplation of the future obliging circumstances was already weighing him down

(Washington, “To A. Hamilton”).

But the more his candid inclinations of surrendering power were known to the public, the more he was elevated to the pedestal. His name was spelled out everywhere and it was becoming increasingly apparent that there would be no other candidate of equal stature for the yet unoccupied office of the President of the United States.

2. The Triumphal Inauguration

The first election to the office was quite unusual and radically different from what elections have been like in subsequent years. Note that no campaigning or fund raising was carried out whatsoever by Washington (Flexner, “Indispensable Man” 213).

16 His inclination was to patiently reserve his steps into any direction of public spotlight until the official results would be rendered public. For its tranquility, Mount Vernon represented the most alluring place on earth to Washington at this time.

“Never was the election of a President so much a foregone conclusion and yet so tortuous in consummation” aptly declared one historian (Flexner, “New Nation” 171).

Selection of the electors was made on the first Wednesday in January 1789 and the electoral college met on the first Wednesday the following month. But the results could not be considered official until the president of the Senate, who had been called for this purpose, tallied the ballots in the presence of both houses of Congress, which was not until April 6 (Milkis 63).

Although various newspapers of the day published preliminary results in early

1789, Washington remained firmly in Mount Vernon. In this situation many a man would probably seek interim quarters in New York by this time, but Washington “was ever concerned with propriety . . . lest unseemly haste suggest that he was improperly eager for the office” (McDonald 23-24).

George Washington, now being aware of the increasing probability of his election to the public office, wrote to Henry Knox, his chief artillery officer during

Revolutionary War, that his:

movements to the chair of Government will be accompanied with

feelings not unlike those of a culprit who is going to the place of his

execution: so unwilling am I, in the evening of a life nearly consumed in

public cares, to quit a peaceful abode for an Ocean of difficulties, without

that competency of political skill–abilities & inclination which is

necessary to manage the helm . . . Integrity & firmness is all I can

promise. (Washington, “To H. Knox, 1 Apr. 1789”)

17 On April 14, 1789, at about noon, Charles Thomson, secretary of the late

Congress, appeared at Washington’s door at Mount Vernon. After greeting his old acquaintance and inviting him to the splendid banquet hall, perhaps the most formal room available at his home, Thomson presented “the expected summons,” signed by the president 10 of the Senate, reporting to Washington his unanimous 11 election to the office of the President of the United States (Flexner, “New Nation” 173; Wright 155).

Since Washington had good reasons to expect a letter of this nature, he had prepared a reply in advance which he read out to Mr. Thomson, setting forth his feelings of “inability to perform” the task before him, but of his acceptance, in large measure, in return for the evidence of trust and support presented to him in America as well as in various parts of Europe (Washington, “Address to C. Thomson”; Ramsay ch. 11). He was fifty-seven years old and had earned enough credit from his fellow men and now he was now going to risk his good name and reputation on the gray and tricky battlefield of politics (Fleming 141).

Two days later, Washington left his home in Mount Vernon and entered his coach setting out 12 for New York in company with Mr. Thompson and colonel

Humphries. His diary entry for the day also indicates feelings of inadequacy that in substance permeates his rhetoric since the time he had been alluded to in various places in expectations of his further duty. He recorded that he was going “with a mind oppressed by more anxious and painful sensations than I have words to express . . . to

10 John Langdon. 11 Every elector cast one of his two ballots (69 votes) for George Washington. The runner-up with about half of G. Washington’s votes (34 votes) was John Adams who was appointed into the office of Vice President. 12 One may find it a little odd that his wife did not accompany him to such a joyous occasion of the inauguration. It seems, however, that Martha’s disposition was akin to that of her husband. “She was too unhappy to accompany her husband to the official world in which they were again to move” (Flexner, “Indispensable” 214). Like her husband, Martha knew that peaceful domestic life at Mount Vernon would have to be abandoned for the sake of fulfilling the role of the First Lady. She and her grandchildren set out on May 17 to join him in New York.

18 render service to my country in obedience to its call, but with less hope of answering its expectations” (Washington, “Diary Entry, 16 Apr. 1789”).

From now on, Washington was increasingly aware of the fact that the eyes of

America were on him again and that his conduct, even before the inauguration itself, could set a precedent and establish traditions for future incumbents of the office

(Flexner, “Indispensable Man” 225). This had caused him some concern lest his abilities and skills would not be adequate to that of a political and social leader.

“Washington’s journey from Mount Vernon to New York was a triumphal progress” (Wright 156). Once the word spread out that Washington is on his way to

New York, scores of cheerful citizens have crowded along his path to New York to salute their great General. Church bells were rung, songs were sung, cannons roared and celebrations were held in his honor (Holmes 326). Addresses of congratulation and praises were delivered almost at every place he passed by. As was his usual disposition, he returned his affections warmly, yet modestly and unassumingly (Ramsay ch. 11).

“Washington had hoped to be spared all military parade, but found it was not to be evaded” (Irving 468; vol. 4). At Chester he was presented a splendid white horse which he was to mount and ride at the head of ever enlarging procession into

Philadelphia. A pontoon bridge over the Schuylkill River at Gray’s Ferry, which served as the entrance to Philadelphia, brought another surprising moment for Washington which he would be unlikely to forget. The bridge was decorated with evergreen branches and laurels, forming two great arches at both ends of the woodwork, through which the General was to pass. “Certain machinery,” installed on the first arch, dropped a laurel wreath upon Washington’s head as he passed underneath (it is argued that the hero, in his modesty, would not have accepted the wreath if offered in a more

19 conventional manner). At Elizabeth Town he boarded a stylish blue-red barge crewed with thirteen white-dressed oarsmen. 13

Upon his arrival in New York shore, governor Clinton and other statesmen and officers were there to greet him. Instead of walking up a red carpet towards a coach, he rather chose to walk to his residence at Cherry Street on foot, during which, one spectator recorded, “the General was obliged to wipe his eyes several times before he got to Queen Street” (Flexner, “New Nation” 180).

Washington’s experiences of recent days were dramatically different from those he was accustomed to on his acres at Mount Vernon. The serenity of agricultural life on

Virginia fields by the Potomac River was replaced by never-ending gleeful cheers, elaborative ovations, and bereavement of privacy. The display along with its clamorous public expressions “filled my mind with sensations as painful (considering the reverse of this scene, which may be the case after all my labors to do good) as they are pleasing” (Jackson and Twohig 447; vol. 5).

Although Washington arrived in New York on April 23, 1789, the inauguration did not take place until next Thursday (April 30) due to a dilemma that had arisen over the proper presidential title that should be used during the inauguration. Questions of appropriate nomenclature for the presiding executive officer were the subject of discussions 14 between the two houses of Congress. After suggestions such as “His Most

Benign Highness” or “His Highness the President of the United States of America, and

Protector of their Liberties” or “His Highness the President of the United States of

America and Protector of the Rights of the Same,” the simple term of “the President of

13 The boat and the crew being symbolic of the thirteen original colonies as well as colors of the national flag. 14 John Adams feared that the lack of President’s appropriate title would diminish his role in intercourse with foreign monarchical nations and was therefore an advocate of a noble title for the President. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, on the other hand, “followed the Roman example far more stringently than even Washington” and viewed noble titles as betrayal of initial republican ideas; and their arguments prevailed. Washington remained rather aloof from such debates (Sturgis 19).

20 the United States,” as written in the Constitution, was finally settled upon (Flexner,

“New Nation” 182-83).

“The historic moment was at hand” (Freeman, “Washington” 565). The inauguration 15 took place on balcony of the Federal Hall overlooking Wall and Broad

Street. Numberless concourses of attentive spectators filled the streets, windows, and even roofs of all adjacent buildings. Washington laid his hand on his heart and bowed to them several times after which he retreated to take his seat. The crowd seemed to understand that he was overcome with emotions and profound silence prevailed for a moment (Irving 474; vol. 4).

Washington soon arose and proceeded with the inauguration. Robert Livingston,

Chancellor of New York inquired, “Do you solemnly swear that you will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will, to the best of your ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States?” Washington replied, “I solemnly swear. So help me God.” “It is done,” announced Livingston and turning to the crowd exclaimed, “Long live George Washington, President of the United

States” (Freeman, “Washington” 565)!

Consequently, Washington’s inaugural address 16 to the Senate and the

House of Representatives was expected. The address was relatively brief and took less than twenty minutes to read out (Freeman, “Biography” 188; vol. 6). The contents of his speech could be grouped into three main topics that permeate the whole of the address in the succession as follows:

• Washington’s feelings of inadequacy – At the beginning of his address,

Washington could not omit mentioning the great anxiety with which he had

15 The exact time of the ceremonial inauguration on balcony of the Federal Hall seems to have occurred shortly after 12:30 p.m. (Freeman 565). 16 Originally, Washington had prepared seventy-three-page inaugural address which he shortened considerably to a four-page letter (Flexner, “New Nation” 183).

21 accepted the notification of his election to the present office on April 14.

Furthermore, he acknowledged his “inferior endowments,” when compared with

other leading politicians of the day, and his lack of expertise in the civil

administration. Despite all of this, his acceptance of the call was facilitated by

his loyalty to that nation whose name he “can never hear but with veneration and

love” (Washington, “Inaugural”).

• Allusion to God – The newly elected President referred, in several instances, to

God’s interference with building up the nation at whose head Washington now

stands. Perhaps, following deistic phraseology, 17 he does not mention God

directly, but refers to him in terms of the deist “Providence.” His supplications

to and pious gratitude for the “Great Author’s” benedictions for the American

cause constitute almost a third of his remarks (Gaines 286). Said he about the

“Providence’s” hand in the evolvement of late American history, “Every step, by

which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to

have been distinguished by some token of providential agency” (Washington,

“Inaugural”).

• Principles of national policy – Citizens’ personal lives and conduct constitute

the basis of a nation: “National policy will be laid in the pure and immutable

principles of private morality” (Washington, “Inaugural”). He foresees and

warns against potential schisms in the government in the form of political

17 Most historical scholars and academic authors concur that describing George Washington’s religious beliefs is no easy task, for he seems to have embraced a combination of Episcopalianism (where he had been baptized and attended the Sunday services, though not exclusively) and Deism. Despite his eclectic rather than creedal faith, he was distinctly mindful of the role of religion and therefore emphasized the practice of virtues such as private morality, which he claimed cannot “prevail in exclusion of religious principle” (Washington, “Farewell Address”).

22 prejudices, animosities and attachments to (political) parties. Correlations

between virtue and happiness, duty and advantage, honesty and prosperity are

drawn as practical principles of national policy making. Following his credo

from Revolutionary War, Washington asked not receive any emoluments 18

during his service in the high office and requested that his pecuniary

compensations be limited only to “such expenditures as the public good may be

thought to require” (Washington, “Inaugural”).

Many witnesses of his inaugural speech attested to the conspicuous expressions of his modesty and feelings of inadequacy with which Washington delivered his remarks. His facial expression was “grave, almost to sadness” (Ames, “To G. R.

Minot”). His voice was rather soft and those present had to lean forward and exert the highest attention in order to understand the phrases distinctly enough. His hands were trembling “so that he could hardly read his manuscript” and his gestures were awkward at times (Holmes 329). Although critics of this fumbling delivery raised their voices, the manifested awkwardness was another indication of the man’s sincerity (Wright 157).

“Many senators wept, overwhelmed by pity for the aging man, and awe at what he had done. John Adams also wept” (Vidal 70).

3. Royal Ostentation versus Republican Simplicity

Washington’s administration, especially during his first term, was an era of precedents. He said, “I walk on untrodden ground. There is scarcely any part of my conduct wch. may not hereafter be drawn into precedent” (Washington, “To C. M.

Graham”). His conduct in the social sphere, the level of his formality, or his

18 Later, after some discussion and further enlightenment of his further duties, he gave in to the persuasions of others and agreed to receive 25,000 dollars per annum to cover his expenses – which, at the end of the fourth year, neared to what his salary would have been (Ketchum 186).

23 administration in the execution of the office would have a shaping influence on defining the Presidency; and Washington was fully aware of that.

There was not much that required his presidential attention for the time being, for there were still no national laws for him to enforce – none had been enacted to this point, no appointments could have been extended since the executive departments had not been authorized by the Congress, and no pardons could be extended to federal prisoners, there yet being none (Gaines 287).

Notwithstanding the temporary absence of executive department duties while laws were in the process of enactment and other necessary duties just being authorized,

Washington soon found himself, as also viewed by the colonists scattered in the several states, as the visual representation of the yet invisible federal government. The first few months of his first term provided Washington with time to symbolically epitomize the new Republic to its citizens.

It did not take very long for the newly elected President to discover that his mansion availed no protection from intruders. The presidential home 19 on Cherry Street in New York soon received numerous visits from citizens coming from all corners of

America. Strangers appeared at the door seeking an appointment in the executive, to pay homage to their President, or just to personally meet their hero. “All acted as if they had every right to be there” (McDonald 25).

The President soon found himself fully immersed in the affairs of correspondence due to practically having no time to enjoy a moment of rest and many visitors calling on him at Cherry Street. His writing desk held a pile of unanswered letters, most of them still unread. It had been his custom to reply promptly to the letters he had received, but now he scarcely could find the time to do so (Holmes 330). His

19 Early in 1790, the Washingtons moved from Pearl and Cherry Street to Macomb House on 39 Broadway.

24 days were spent attending to the stream of callers “from breakfast–often before–until I sat down to dinner” (Washington, “To D. Stuart”).

In his former capacity as commander-in-chief, his privacy was guarded by sentinels and military etiquette. But it was not clear how the President could be protected from intrusions of uninvited guests. Where was to be the balance between the dignity of the presidential mansion with its necessary ceremonials and the public sentiments of republican simplicity and equality (Irving 7-8; vol. 5)?

Soon enough, Washington, peeved by the constant harassment of visitors, published a newspaper article announcing his office hours for “visits of compliment” between two and three on Tuesday and Friday afternoon, returning no visits, and accepting no invitations (Washington, “Gazette”).

Senator William Maclay of Pennsylvania, following his republican ideals, warned that hiding the President from the public and appearing only at specific times

“like an eastern Lama” would not earn him the credit he gained while serving as commander-in-chief (Beard 15). And he was right.

Martha Washington commented on her role as the First Lady, “I live a very dull life here and know nothing of what passes in the town. I never go to any public place.

Indeed, I think I am more like a state prisoner than anything else. There is certain bounds set for me which I must not depart from. And, as I cannot do what I like, I am obstinate and stay home a great deal” (Decatur 46).

In desperate need of seeking advice from his trusted advisors as to the nature of social etiquette for the first family, Washington propounded several of his queries to the leading statesmen, i.e. James Madison, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay.

“Deliberations over matters of form, style, and ritual occupied most of

Washington’s first months as president” (Gaines 286). This aspect of the Presidency

25 was something Washington accepted with minimum appreciation, because it made him behave unnaturally according to a scripted conduct and posed another challenge in surmounting his abiding diffidence in his abilities (Flexner, “New Nation” 197-98).

Washington could have possibly accorded with the example of his partial predecessors in the office of the President of the Congress who held dinners for both males and females of good public character twice a week. Nevertheless, their tables were always crowded and the extending of invitations so indiscriminate that Washington knew he could not provide entertainment of such general nature in his presidential mansion

(Irving 8; vol. 5).

As with titles so with ceremonies, Adams, evincing to be an ardent supporter of nobility, advised the President to enjoy a “great deal of ceremony, to make the government impressive” (Holmes 331). Hamilton’s sentiments towards ceremonies were more austere; he advocated only one levee 20 a week for those who have properly introduced themselves, and where President was to spend no more than half an hour.

Dinner invitations ought to be extended informally to six or eight persons. He was to accept or return no visits (Freeman, “Washington” 568).

Consequently, Washington decided to compromise between the two extremes and “tried to blend republican practices, as he understood them, with royal formality”

(Ferling 310). His levees were open to the public every Tuesday from three to four, but only male company, if suitably dressed for the occasion, was invited. The President opted to hold dinners every Thursday at four in the afternoon, “the guests being only government officials and their families, invited in an orderly system of rotation to avoid charges of favoritism” (McDonald 26). Lady Washington hosted Friday evening tea parties for both men and women from eight to ten o’clock.

20 Levees were quite common in the royal courts of 18th -century Great Britain and served as the Sovereign’s formal reception of his representatives.

26 By far, the most ceremonial social events at the President’s home were the levees. They were “part imperial court ceremony replete with choreographed bows and curtsies, part drop-in parlor social” (Ellis, “His Excellency” 193). They struck the middle note between the monarchical reverence for royalty and republican simplicity.

Eschewing the trappings of a royal court, Washington’s formal dress was in harmony with republican ethics; less pompous and rather resembling clothing worn by some successful merchant or planter (Ferling 310). Citizens were greeted in a receiving line with small bows and bit of talk (Ferling 311).

Some held it against him that bows were expected instead of simple handshakes, 21 but it was according to his preference to follow this English custom.

Habitually, Washington found these occasions insufferable, for after introducing themselves, the guests otherwise ignored him and went on to take the full advantage of the refreshments offered (McDonald 26).

These semi-scripted levees were ultimately boring for most visitors, for they seemed to follow one code of social etiquette after another. The awkwardness of the receptions was reinforced by Washington’s temperament since his ability to remain quiet 22 over an extended period of time made everyone around him “squirming under the social pressure to fill the silence with chatty conversation” (Ellis, “His Excellency”

193).

The levees created such a unique atmosphere that in the year when the French

Revolution broke out and occupied most of the conversations and Congress ratified the

21 One British historian claims that the firm grip of Washington’s enormous paw could be debilitating to the frailer visitor; ladies generally preferred a stately bow (Johnson 98). 22 John Adams admired Washington’s “gift of silence,” for this ability was something that Adams lacked. Washington’s “‘real life’ conversation, if he could be said to have had much, tended to uninformative brevity. Visitors found him disappointingly uncommunicative.” The reason was that as the President he was bound to be quoted – usually dangerously misquoted (Vidal 122). Moreover, several sources indicate a probability that besides deteriorating eyesight (perhaps since as early as 1783), the President might have been becoming somewhat short of hearing too. “Although he never spoke of it to his associates, it may account for the apparent coldness of manner that Maclay and others criticized” (Cunliffe 128).

27 Bill of Rights, “no one at the levees discussed these major events or expected

Washington to comment on them” (Ellis, “His Excellency” 194).

Hapless Washington faced numerous accusations for being too stiff and formal on these occasions. His appearance of stiffness, however, quite likely originated from the fact of being uncomfortable amidst pomp and ceremony (Riccards). That

Washington despised overly ceremonious conduct may be illustrated in the following example. David Humphreys, Washington’s aide-de-camp, had served in the best courts of Europe while an ambassador to Portugal and Spain. Humphreys was therefore familiar with the proceedings of the European royal courts. Arguably, Humphreys had had enough experience to elevate the social levees to a very dignified level and was therefore assigned to serve as Washington’s usher. During one early levee, when the guests had been gathered to antechamber, called by the Humphreys the “presence chamber,” to await the President, Humphreys threw open the door, entered first and welcomed Washington with a majestic declaration, “The President of the United States”

(Flexner, “New Nation” 197)!

According to Jefferson’s accounts, Washington was thrown by this announcement into such disarrangement that his lost composure was evident throughout the afternoon. Once the door shut after the last visitor, he privately reprimanded

Humphreys, “Well, you have taken me in once, but by God, you shall never take me in a second time” (Decatur 43)!

Since then, as it was observed, it took a while for Washington, wearing his most formal clothes with a hat and a sword, to remain fully self-possessed when the door was opened to welcome that week’s jostle of visitors (Decatur 43).

Washington, having hired the best chefs of the city, hosted stuffy dinners for members of Congress and their wives. Despite the restrictions of invitations to the

28 dinner parties, Washington on occasion tried to enliven the dinners by inviting more people to come. “He tried to leaven a lump and create a party more like those at Mount

Vernon” and invited the officials’ children, son-in-laws, daughter-in-laws or the elderly

(Fitzpatrick, “Diaries” 15; vol. IV).

Hypochondriacal and puritanical senator Maclay from Pennsylvania seemed to be always ready to share his captious comments on such proceedings. Suspicious that a couple entering soon after him was in all probability not legally married, he was ready to make the best out of the opportunity. Nevertheless, the senator’s critical remarks were deterred by the delicious servings. 23 He was furthermore pleased to see men flanking Washington on one side of the table and women flanking Martha on the opposite side of the table. Although Maclay admitted the meal was “the best of the kind,” he denounced the unbearably warm room and the solemn silence during the dinner (Journal of W. Maclay, ch. 4).

Then, amidst the quietude of the evening, Washington drank to the health of all those present and the guests imitated him. Profound silence, 24 according to Maclay, entered the room until the ladies have departed. The President then shared some anecdotes with his guests about a man who lost a hat and wig in the river Brunks, which

Maclay did not find particularly funny (Journal of W. Maclay, ch. 4).

Maclay comments on Washington’s posture, “no cheering ray of convivial sunshine broke through the cloudy gloom of settled seriousness. At every interval of eating or drinking, he played on the table with a knife and fork, like drumsticks”

(Journal of W. Maclay, ch. 6). We need to keep in mind, however, that Senator

Maclay’s tongue did not reserve scolding criticism from almost anyone.

23 Dinners at the President’s house typically offered: soup, fish, roasted and boiled meats, gammon, fowls, then apple pies, pudding, iced creams, jellies, then watermelons, muskmelons, apples, peaches, nuts. 24 For further insight on the subject see footnote 21.

29 The President was much more at ease at Martha’s tea parties, at which she presided once she arrived in New York at the end of May. They were open to all persons, native or foreign, without special invitation.

Though historians view them “as free from ostentation and restraint as the ordinary receptions of polite society,” (Irving 15; vol. 5) yet there were those that invidiously resented its levee-like manners and courtly conduct, despite the fact they were the least formal of these three social events. Some republican editors commented on the hair of the guest ushers as the powder threatening “the very fabric of the nation”

(Decatur 45).

Washington, without sword or hat, seemed to be the most relaxed at these tea parties, perhaps because the prevailing social ambiance was gay rather than stiff.

“Washington relaxed in the presence of the fair sex” and loved to circulate and charm the ladies (Flexner, “New Nation” 200). Abigail Adams, the wife of the vice-president and long-time au fait on hosting receptions herself, fully expected to dislike the

President before attending the first tea party. Her first impression was, however, dramatically different. She gushed, elevating Washington over his English counterpart,

“The Pressident then comes up and speaks to the Lady, which he does with a grace dignity & ease, that leaves Royal George far behind him” (Mitchell 35).

President’s intention to organize such a system of social events was not only to provide hospitality and entertainment, but mainly to get his work done. By restricting visits to specific times of the week, he was able to secure several hours a day of undisturbed time for his labors.

His guests often noticed his unnaturally stiff bows and conduct at the levees.

Consequently, libels of republican snobbery with the hauteur of aristocratic behavior were ascribed to the hapless President. Washington knew that pleasing everybody was

30 impossible and, not surprisingly, admitted that he would prefer to be at Mount Vernon rather than “be attended at the Seat of Government by the Officers of State and the

Representatives of every Power in Europe” (Washington, “To D. Stuart”). Would it not be more reasonable to reserve judgment and ascribe his awkwardness to his diffidence, old age, and unproficiency of his instructors rather than pride of presidential office

(Flexner, “New Nation” 198)?

In accepting the Presidency, Washington determined not to model himself into a new man. He could reasonably determine that he was elected thanks to the kind of man he already was. He grew up among Virginia aristocracy, but free of temptation for titles and uneasy with such ceremony that he had not been accustomed to: “to support propriety of character without partaking of the follies of luxury and ostentation”

(Washington, “To C. M. Graham”).

In a very able way, Washington found the prudent balance between ostentation and “too much reserve,” between “respectability” and “too much familiarity”

(Washington, “To J. Madison”). Most importantly, he made himself available to the public.

A proponent of physical fitness, Washington took a daily walk around the capital city daily at two o’clock sharp. It was regarded then not only as an example of maintaining his physical agility, 25 but also as a deliberate gesture to make the Chief

Magistrate appear to the common citizens (Ferling 311). Although Washington tried his best to continue a physically demanding lifestyle he had long enjoyed prior to his acceptance of the Presidency, he soon expressed his dissatisfaction with the lack

25 The years spent in the presidential office must have been especially sedative and vexatious for Washington, for he had spent most of his life breathing lots of fresh air in the open field, riding on horseback, traversing hills and rivers. Landscape navigation, conducting military operations throughout the colonies during the Revolutionary War, and investigation of Mount Vernon estate required physical fitness and regular exercise, which adhered naturally to his physical constitution. Washington greatly missed such opportunities to freely move about in the countryside.

31 thereof: “The want of regular exercise, with the cares of office, will, I have no doubt hasten my departure for that country from whence no Traveller returns” (Washington,

“To Dr. J. Craik”).

4. Forming the New Government

4.1 Believing in the Great Experiment

“When Washington took office, the new Constitution enjoyed neither tradition nor the full backing of organized public opinion” (“Outline”). During that cold spring of

1789, the ratification of the Constitution in various states was still in process. 26 No official departments existed yet; they were yet to come. The Congress, nevertheless, had been meeting for several weeks before New York even elected its delegates.

Washington “inherited from the Confederation only a handful of unpaid clerks and a large number of debts” (Wright 158).

The Union was then in a desperate financial situation. Not only was the federal government heavily indebted to foreign powers, but also to its citizens and large debts also existed among the citizens. Many efforts to pay, or even to fund, these debts have failed “from the imbecility of the federal government” (Ramsay ch. 11). “There was no money in the treasury” and the government even had to borrow money to pay the interests on its debts (Irving 4, 24; vol. 5).

“The president’s caution explains itself when one understands the extraordinarily diverse society he led” (Smith, “Patriarch” 30). The new nation, Washington was called to preside over, was ten times larger than that of any other previous republic and it must have pressed with weight upon his mind considerably. The new nation stretched along

26 Eleven states have ratified the Constitution by the time Washington took the oath of office (although, only nine states were needed to ratify the Constitution to reach two thirds of thirteen states in order to have the Constitution enforced). North Carolina ratified the Constitution during the fall of 1789 and Rhode Island, as the thirteenth state, the following year in May.

32 the Atlantic coast for fifteen hundred miles, abutting the vast colonies of the New World and reaching beyond the Alleghenies. The land was inhabited by a peculiar mixture of people with various manners, traditions, beliefs and hopes (Irving 2; vol. 5).

North of the Ohio and west of the Blue Ridge, where tree grubbers received three shillings and a glass of whiskey for a day’s work, it was said that the land was so scarcely inhabited that the trees formed a thousand-mile stretch of virgin land. The

Eastern states were regarded as “stony fields” inhabited by “stony people.” Boston was increasingly known for its emphasis on the benefits of academic learning, New York for its immodesty and focus on profit, a place “where money was king” (Smith, “Patriarch”

32).

“Pennsylvania became the ideal American state, easy, tolerant, and contented . . .

With twenty different religious creeds . . . and a strong Quaker element made it humane” (H. Adams ch. IV). The Southern states, mainly agriculturally oriented on tobacco, rice, and indigo, were socially and politically subjugated by aristocrats who propended to establish, with the aid of African slaves, English-like country life.

Prejudice-filled Virginians looked askance at rustic North Carolinians whose state was

“valued chiefly for its lumber and naval stores” (Smith, “Patriarch” 33).

When describing the unfavorable conditions of the south of the Potomac,

Washington referred to the local states as “low, sandy and unhealthy, for which reason I shall say little concerning them” (Washington, “To Sir J. Sinclair”).

Foreign relations of the Union have not calmed down. Creek Indians were engaging in clashes with the people of Georgia who had been encroaching on their territory (Smith, “Patriarch” 33). Great Britain was not yet giving ground to territorial solicitude by holding military posts in the distant quarters of the West. The reason of such delay in withdrawing from these posts, as stipulated in the late treaty, was the

33 pending financial obligations by the American government. On the other hand, some accused the British of retainment of these posts on the basis of allegedly serving for the purposes of instigating Indians against northwestern frontier settlers (Ramsay ch. 12).

The British were further recriminated for taking with them several thousand slaves during their post-Revolutionary War withdrawal.

Navigation of the Mississippi was inhibited by the cumbersome negotiations with Spanish authorities in New Orleans who controled both banks of the river’s mouth.

Foreign commerce of the Union was encountering periodic marauds from the corsairs of

Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli, carrying ships’ crews into slavery.

The United States had then only 840 officers and men employed in the army.

There was no navy personnel at all.

Washington, a valorous advocate of the Constitution, saw fit that his role in the government should be to enforce the basic tenets upon which the government was established to a greater extent than they had been revered up to that time. His role in the seat of Presidency was indispensable, for there were yet great many holding reservations about the Constitution. Many citizens, especially in the Southern states, believed that state (local) governments were still of primary importance rather than what was happening in the faraway federal capital, about whose proceedings many still knew very little.

David Stuart, the family representative in Virginia legislature, wrote of the news he had received on the matter, “Many who were warm Supporters of the government, are changing their sentiments from a conviction of the impracticability of Union with

States , whose interests are so dissimilar to those of Virginia” (Stuart, “To Washington”; italics added).

34 Perceiving its inherent weaknesses, amendments to the Constitution had been requested even prior to its ratification. Only three states, New Jersey, Delaware and

Georgia, had accepted it unanimously. Several of the most important states have voted in its favor by a mere majority and five states were willing to accept it only in expectation of specific amendments and modifications (Irving 2; vol. 5).

Diversity of opinions existed within the newly founded republican nation.

“Ominous signs of disunity” and “internal factionalism” were surfacing in the new

Republic (Cunliffe 128; Sturgis 11). Some claimed that the new government was too weak to secure the thirteen colonies and preserve order and unity among the states

(Rideing 168). Others, to the contrary, argued that “it would be too strong for their separate independence, and would tend toward consolidation and despotism,” following monarchical traditions of the British (Irving 2; vol. 5).

Unofficially, Washington seemed to tend toward endorsing what later came to be known as the Federalist politics, whose program publicized strong central government with a unified financial system, overseen by a dignified office of the

President whose public respect bordered on adulation (Smith, “Patriarch” 34).

Although no political parties existed at the time George Washington was elected, there was no shortage of anti-Federalists either. Their earlier suspicions of the contents of the Constitution were confirmed by Hamilton’s seeming ignorance of their states’ interests, agrarian pursuits, “and the classical republican antipathy toward concentrated power” (Smith, “Patriarch” 34).

Nearly all Americans looked to the new President’s influence to address these issues. Washington “hoped somehow to bridge the widening chasm” of political thought in the brand new Republic (Smith, “Patriarch” 34). “The country was in great disorder, almost in a state of anarchy” (Rideing 168). The differences were of such radical nature

35 that it nearly seemed that the government could not go on unless they would be, somehow, mediated. It would require a true national leader to unite the divergent voices of America and prevent possible relapsing disruption into thirteen independent sovereignties. Washington was the one whose genius, patience, and firmness could save the Union. “Never had helmsman a steadier hand or clearer eye than his” (Rideing 168).

Washington was yet without his Cabinet 27 and it would be up to him to appoint the pertinent offices in the executive branch of the government, which was something he could not look anywhere for a beau ideal to draw from. He was the first dignitary in the modern history of the world to walk on this “untrodden ground” of leading a new type of nation 28 no contemporary citizen had ever lived in. Washington knew, he could not offer more than acting to the best of his abilities.

However, Washington’s first administrative duties of forming the government were interrupted in June 1789 when he faced a severe health challenge. A painful swelling in his left hip–variously described as a “tumor” or a “malignant carbuncle”– appeared, causing him to stay home for six weeks and lose so much of his vigor and vitality that he and others thought his life was at stake. Although alarm spread among his associates, he did not seem to show much agitation (Irving 20; vol. 5). Dr. Samuel

Bard, a leading practitioner, could not ascertain the cause of his fever and tumor

(Freeman, “Washington” 571). So critical was the situation that chains were stretched out across the road outside of his house to provide quiet by diverting the noisy traffic further away (Cunliffe 126).

27 “Nothing in the Constitution, of course, had suggested anything like a ‘cabinet’ of advisers,” but the usage of this term has gradually evolved from Washington’s first term (Ketchum 187). Washington did not begin to use the word until as late as April 1793 and formal meetings of his close advisers were called by him only at the very end of his first term (Milkis 64). 28 Although different in many minor details, the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (16-18 th century) was, for a while, of a similar political constitution.

36 Dr. Bard had to open the wound and make a deep incision, which left the

President at pain at every movement of his left leg, making him feel uncomfortable night and day. Washington’s gradual recovery thanks to the provided treatment has led historians of medicine to dispel suspicions of anthrax infection and confirm the probability of a large carbuncle (Freeman, “Washington” 571).

Less than two months after recuperation, Washington received news of his mother passing at the age of eighty-two. Prior to his departure from Virginia,

Washington “paid her a parting visit,” as her condition had already been bleak due to her prolonged illness and elderly age; so her death was not unexpected altogether for

Washington. She was perhaps too little sympathetic for Washington’s propitious career so as “to leave a great gap in his life” (Holmes 334).

4.2 Finding Co-Believers in the Great Experiment

The Philadelphia Convention and its Constitution, though considered phenomenally progressive in itself, had provided only skeletal information about the structure of the future government. It would “be up to Congress to put flesh on the bare bones” (Rhodehamel, “Experiment” 122). Washington spent his first eighteen months of his Presidency organizing the government (Wright 158).

Congress passed bills for the creation and subsequently voted in favor of placing the major executive departments of state, war, and the treasury under the jurisdiction of the President. With regards to appointments of the departments’ secretaries, the

President was to nominate them and then seek Senate’s confirmation. After some debate, it was also determined that it would be the President’s prerogative to extend a release to the departments’ secretaries without the need of Senate’s consent. Another precedent in the presidential office had been set (Rhodehamel, “Experiment” 122).

37 In September 1789, at last, Washington could appoint the heads for the executive departments. Being aware of the widening chasm of political thought in the

Union, he “moved aggressively, if stealthily,” to find those men that could form “a coalition government” that would strengthen the role of the federal capital (Smith,

“Patriarch” 34).

For Secretary of State, generally regarded as the most prestigious office,

Washington called upon John Jay, who had served as the Secretary of Foreign Affairs for five years. Jay must have enjoyed much trust in Washington’s eyes since he was offered the most prestigious office (next to the Presidency itself).

Jay was born into an aristocratic family residing in New York. Educated at

King’s College 29 he began the practice of law in 1768. The unfolding events and unfruitful conciliatory discussions with Britain made him turn from a moderate to an ardent supporter of independence. Jay was a delegate to the First and Second

Continental Congresses, drafted the first state constitution, 30 served as the chief justice of the New York Supreme Court from 1777 to 1778, and as the president of the

Continental Congress from 1778 to 1779.

In 1784 Jay was appointed to serve as the second Secretary of Foreign Affairs, which office during Washington’s Presidency evolved into Secretary of State, so Jay seemed to be a natural choice. But Jay preferred the office of Chief Justice, and

Washington was not opposed to granting his wish (McDonald 38). Washington considered the judiciary branch “as the keystone of our political fabric” (Washington,

“To J. Jay”).

Thomas Jefferson was called to occupy the prestigious office of the Secretary of

State. Jefferson was about to embark on his leave from France where he had served the

29 King’s College is a forerunner of Columbia University in New York City. 30 The first state constitution was that of New York (1777).

38 previous five years as a minister plenipotentiary. In comparison with others,

Washington had few opportunities to associate with his fellow-Virginian from

Monticello. Excepting the Revolutionary period, when Jefferson was a war-time governor of Virginia, they had scarcely communicated with each other. But Washington first observed Jefferson’s political acumen when they both served in the Virginia House of Burgesses. Jefferson soon proved his republican outlook by his eloquently drafted

Declaration of Independence. Washington once wrote to Lafayette, “I early imbibed the highest opinion” of the master of Monticello (Washington, “To M. De Lafayette”;

Freeman “Washington” 576).

Briefly after Washington was notified of the events of July 14 in Bastille he forwarded the nomination to the Senate. Washington knew that Jefferson would be a great asset to the government, for he was an eye-witness of the outburst of republican feelings in revolutionary France and his relations with the government of France seemed “to be cordially sympathetic” (Freeman “Washington” 576; Irving 48; vol. 5).

Besides John Jay, Jefferson appeared to be an experienced statesman in possession of the most excellent diplomatic skills and the most suitable man for the office of

Secretary of State.

In replying to Washington’s nomination, Jefferson expressed his gratitude for the nomination, but felt quite satisfied with the then current duties he held.

Nevertheless, he realized that it was not up to him to appoint, but up to the Chief

Executive: “My chief comfort will be to work under your eye; my only shelter the authority of your name and the wisdom of measures to be dictated by you and implicitly executed by me” (Jefferson, “To G. Washington”).

39 Washington’s natural choice for the Secretary of the Treasury was none other than Alexander Hamilton, a recognized authority on finance and commerce, a founder of the Bank of New York. 31

Hamilton was born on the island of Nevis in the West Indies to an unsuccessful

Scottish merchant and his mother was of Huguenot descent. Hamilton, similarly like

Knox, amassed great knowledge and was noted for his intelligence. 32 While at King’s

College33 in New York he eventually embraced the American cause, giving powerful public sermons and distributing patriotic pamphlets. During the War, Washington first noticed his zeal in erecting the fortification at Harlem Heights (Rideing 151-52).

Hamilton then basically grew to adulthood at Washington’s side (Sturgis 13).

Not merely a Revolutionary propagandist and soldier, Hamilton gradually became a well respected statesman. His oratory earned him a sobriquet “little lion;”

“little” due to his a bit undersized stature, “lion” for “vigor and dignity of his speech”

(Rideing 151-52). His appointment to the office of the Secretary of Treasury was not only advocated by the wide business community, but also recommended by Madison

(Flexner, “New Nation” 225).

Washington could not choose a better candidate for a Secretary of War than by calling upon Gen. Henry Knox, a chief artillery officer of the Continental Army who had already been serving in this capacity under the Articles of Confederation.

Knox became fatherless at an early age and became his mother’s sole supporter.

Finding reading a good book delightful, he frequented his local bookstore in Boston

31 The Bank of New York was founded in 1784 – it was America’s first bank. 32 Washington placed much trust and confidence in Hamilton, and perhaps one of the reasons for that was Washington’s high opinion of his talents: “Few men to be found, of his age, who has a more general knowledge than he possesses, and none whose Soul is more firmly engaged in the cause, or who exceeds him in probity and Sterling virtue” (Washington, “To J. Sullivan”). 33 See footnote 29.

40 “and thus acquired much miscellaneous knowledge” (Rideing 148-50). He later opened his own bookstore and sold books for a living.

Inducements were offered to join the British army, but Knox refused all of them.

Before the first shots of the Revolution were fired, he had already resolved to stay on the American side. Knox must have won Washington’s heart by his deep-seated industry and pertinacity – such as when he offered to fetch artillery and ammunition from distant Ticonderoga, which he “carried on a long train of sledges drawn by oxen”

(Rideing 150).

Edmund Randolph, a competent lawyer and sponsor of the Madison’s Virginia

Plan, 34 was assigned the post of Attorney General. Randolph was unofficially notified of this nomination by a letter dated September 27, 1789. Washington had known him since his childhood and some old recollections of the early days of the Revolution “may have been at the bottom of this good-will” (Irving 25; vol. 5).

Randolph served as an aide-de-camp to Washington during the War of

Independence. He then gained experience in the legislature as a member of Congress for over three years, as a governor of Virginia in 1786 and as a delegate to the

Constitutional Convention in 1787.

His conception of the Chief Executive was that of three-man body. He professed

“to discern in the unity of that power the ‘foetus of monarchy,’” but according to others this plural executive would be nothing else than a “three-headed Cerberus” 35 (Farrand

66; Irving 25; vol. 5).

Being discontented with some points of the Constitution, he refused to sign the document, but later came round to its adoption and greatly promoted it in his own state

34 The Virginia Plan (or sometimes known as the Randolph Plan) served as the prototype of the Constitution during the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in 1787. 35 Greek mythology: three-headed hound guarding the entrance of the realm of the dead, letting new spirits in, but letting none out; only a few managed to sneak past the creature by intrigue (Lindemans).

41 (Flexner, “New Nation” 225). Although the office of the Attorney General did not yet possess the status of a department, its incumbent began to be included in the presidential

Cabinet meetings since early 1793 (Milkis 64).

Samuel Osgood was appointed as the first Postmaster General. The first occupant of this office, which was created prior to the Declaration of Independence, was

Benjamin Franklin who had served in this position for over fifteen months. This was then a prestigious office, which would later become part of the presidential Cabinet.

Osgood studied theology at Harvard University, but pursued a mercantile career.

Promoted to a Colonel during the War of Independence, he was later elected to the

Massachusetts state senate and then to the Continental Congress. Prior to 1789 he faithfully served as a member of a three-man board managing the affairs of the federal

Treasury.

To further illustrate the ad hoc administration of the time we need to remember that the contents of the duties of these department heads depended on their temperaments and talents Washington saw in them. With regards to obligations to the matters of the Secretary of State, Washington believed himself an expert; and in the affairs of the Secretary of War, he was an unquestionable authority (McDonald 41).

He was thus his own Secretary of State as well as Secretary of War, more-or-less leaving Jefferson and Knox to clerical functions: “Jefferson, who was not at all fond of clerical work, was not always as diligent an administrator as he might have been.”

When given a work that caught his interest, he immediately immersed himself in it, but when a marginal participation in a given problem was expected (which happened increasingly more often with time during Washington’s administration) he approached the issue rather languidly (McDonald 41).

42 Washington’s relation with the elected Vice President was of peculiar nature.

John Adams, having been elected as the second most admired man among the electors in 1789, received only a symbolic power in the government. Although his Vice

Presidency entailed presiding over the Senate, as scripted in the Constitution, he could, in effect, become the President’s prime minister (Flexner, “New Nation” 213)

This setup would sound reasonable considering the fact that Adams would have to replace Washington in case of the President’s death and such a role would make him competent and ready enough so as not to throw the nation in a chaotic administrative gap (Flexner, “New Nation” 213).

Washington, however, felt no particular urge to collaborate with the politician who was critically suspicious (and perhaps envious) of the power 36 he held while commander-in-chief (Gaines 80, 86, 415). “And Adams himself was neither conciliatory nor eager to partake in the executive administration” (Flexner, “New

Nation” 214).

Astutely, Adams typically refrained from offering counsel to the President mainly because he was ascertained that he would be labeled the scapegoat if the

President followed his counsel that would later prove to be inauspicious in its consequences. In the beginning of Washington’s Presidency, Adams was regularly included in various executive discussions, but by the end of Washington’s first term, the role of Vice Presidency was becoming more symbolic than anything else (Flexner,

“New Nation” 214). Later, Adams said, “My Country has in its Wisdom contrived for me, the most insignificant Office that ever the Invention of Man contrived or his

Imagination conceived” (J. Adams, “To A. Adams”).

36 In his later inaugural address, however, he could not resist coupling Washington’s attributes of commanding talents with virtues (Adams, “Inaugural Address”).

43 Although Knox and Jay were among Washington’s old friends from the

Revolutionary War, he somewhat hesitated to make them his own general advisers.

Rather, perceiving James Madison’s potential, he turned to this fellow Virginian who had been one of the key figures in drafting the U.S. Constitution.

Madison, then as a leader in the House of Representatives, drafted the address used for welcoming Washington to the office of the Presidency and also Washington’s response to it. Due to these experiences and perhaps also thanks to being the co-author of The Federalist Papers 37 and a brilliant political tactician, Madison was Washington’s

“most trusted consultant on judicial and executive appointments and his unofficial liaison with Congress” during the early stages of the U.S. government (Ellis,

“Excellency” 198).

Washington “was perpetually summoning Madison, sending him written requests for advice” (Flexner, “New Nation” 214). Madison, 38 though not a member of the Cabinet, was perhaps consulted more frequently than any of the department heads.

The beginnings of the republican government thus defied the political traditions by employing a member of the House of Representatives in the function of a pseudo-prime minister (White 38ff).

“No one did more than Washington to make the Presidency the powerful national office it became” (McPherson 14). Washington had had matchless experiences commanding the Continental Army and using his vested authority of commander-in- chief. Indeed, he had more people hired to work for him at Mount Vernon than political representatives in the new federal government.

37 The Federalist Papers outlined the philosophy and motivation of drafting the Constitution and advocated its ratification. They were written by only three men, Hamilton, Madison and Jay (the latter contributing in a much smaller measure). The Papers were published in the years of 1787 and 1788. 38 Madison served as the Virginia Congressman.

44 Washington conducted his duties of the executive office in a very systematic and energetic way. Keeping careful records of status quo, he communicated and counseled regularly with his Cabinet, “to whom he delegated considerable authority,” but never more than it would make it unclear for them as to whom they were amenable

(McPherson 14).

Although his administrative processes were basically without precedents and therefore generally ad hoc and personal, it did not mean that they had no purpose. Quite to the contrary, Washington’s administrative informality allowed for deep considerations of appropriate individuals endowed with the necessary skills and expertise to fit the newly created departments.

Washington knew that the Union could be secured only by the strength of its

Constitution and a strong central government. The criteria, he stated as being most valuable for him when filling up offices in the executive, were moral character, loyalty to the new government and its Constitution, and talent.

Washington is often credited with insight and good judgment for selecting men of intelligence such as Jefferson, Hamilton, or Madison. These men represented “the most important American statesmen in the generation after Washington” (Milkis 64).

4.2.1 Setting up Cabinet Councils

“The cabinet system he installed represented a civilian adaptation of his military staff.” The joint counseling was not dissimilar to what councils of war during the

Revolutionary period looked like. Both of the councils were founded upon the requirement to gather sufficient knowledge of the state of public affairs and discuss the most appropriate resolutions (Ellis, “Excellency” 197).

45 “Lacking the genius and the intellectual confidence of his advisers,” he always made sure that he discussed the affairs of the nation with his Cabinet before proceeding to give consent to a specific policy. By counseling with them often, Washington strove to create unity among his advisers. When seeking advice, Washington was “typically moving slowly and cautiously to judgment, but when ready to act, he acted decisively”

(McPherson 14-15).

Thomas Jefferson later commented on Washington’s administration thus, “His mind . . . was slow in operation, being little aided by invention or imagination, but sure in conclusion” (Jefferson, “Writings” 1318).

Washington made himself “the hub of the wheel,” delegating routine business to his Cabinet advisers at the rim. This system was effective in that it allowed for sufficient distance with close enough supervision (Ellis, “Excellency” 198).

Washington’s relations with his Cabinet members were generally amicable and fraternal. Nevertheless, he knew that placing reasonable limits on the level of collegiality would be beneficial for maintaining dignified formality. Washington was a master at deciphering when it was appropriate for him to remain the hedgehog and when to become a fox to sneak in for information (Ellis, “Excellency” 198). The

President and his advisers were a bit like God and his archangels: “collegiality had its limits” (Smith, “Patriarch” 53).

In day-to-day practice, Washington liked to be informed about the issues the departments were dealing with. Since the President was to follow the Constitution’s stricture to seek the opinions of the heads of departments in writing, supervision of the governmental affairs was practically achieved through writing numerous letters

(McDonald 40).

46 Washington kept his Cabinet officers busy. Letters “were dispatched daily from

39 Broadway to each of the departments” and the President often expected an oral or written reply within twenty four hours (Smith, “Patriarch” 53). He did not settle for superficial probe of the state of the Union, but required detailed information on such items of business as department reports, opinions to submitted questions and plans of actions, judgments of the constitutionality of legislation, drafts of his public papers, and compendiums on various subjects.

Letters of business were communicated to the President, but more often to the department heads to whom the President either referred the item of business or requested an answer from them. If addressed to the President, the department heads usually expected their letters back appended with President’s informal notes on the subject, proposing an alteration or an inquiry. “By this means, he was always in accurate possession of all facts and proceedings in every part of the Union . . . and it produced us in return the benefit of his sanction for every act we did” (Jefferson,

“Works” 311; vol. 9).

Whenever the President was not at ease with the proposed plan of action, he would invite the subordinate for breakfast at which they would engage in a conversation until the President found satisfaction in the proposed resolution (McDonald 40).

Whenever an issue of national relevance appeared, Washington sought the advice of his competent advisers before he expressed his opinion. This propensity attributed to deeper deliberations of possible solutions to problems submitted to the

President. The strength and effectiveness of these Cabinet councils rested on the wisdom and open-mindedness of its members. Washington usually had them debate over an issue as if allowing the most reasonable argument to appear from among the

“competing positions.” Then, adhering to his presidential decorum and disinterestedness

47 (and also perhaps due to his self-depreciation in comparison with his advisers),

Washington let the “winner” of these discussions superintend the issue at hand “with the president’s discreet blessing and support” (Sturgis 13).

4.2.2 Criteria for Selection

“Not much happened at the executive level during the first year of Washington’s presidency, which was exactly the way he wanted it” (Ellis, “Excellency” 192).

Nearly a thousand yet unoccupied positions loomed large before Washington.

The number of vacant positions was daunting, yet Washington was determined to begin a deliberate and long process of filling these offices. There was no drought of candidates for the new executive departments. There were some twenty-five hundred to three thousand applications for federal employment even before the departments were officially enacted. “Congress persisted on long debates on nearly all subjects,” which made many of the applicants “impatient as weeks passed with no distribution of shining offices and exalted titles” (Freeman, “Washington” 571).

It is needless to say that considering the contemplative disposition with which

Washington was wont to select individuals for the right governmental positions to

“advance the acceptability of the new government, ” it took him an enormous amount of time (Milkis 64; italics added).

Even for “minor” jobs in the executive branch of government, the President circumspectly chose men on partisan basis, for they were selected “with attention to the need to establish the legitimacy of the fledgling national government” (Milkis 65). He would decline application from anyone known to cultivate prejudiced sentiments against the Constitution (McDonald 38).

48 Washington had no other alternative. Washington believed in the “great experiment” of establishing the new Republic in the New World. Even more, he believed that this experiment was watched over by an invisible benign power he usually simply referred to as the “Providence” (Flexner, “New Nation” 210). Yet, he knew that if he were the only one placing his trust in this experiment, the Union would dissolve back into its thirteen original colonies. Washington earnestly sought those that shared his vision of success and endeavored to put it to the test, even though at the present time the Union hung on its Constitution only by a thread (Washington, “To C. Carter”).

Hamilton, perhaps somewhat disappointed by much criticism, described the

Constitution then as “the frail and worthless fabric,” which probably reflected the public perception of the document more precisely than Washington’s wishful rhetoric

(Hamilton, “To G. Morris”; Wright 158).

What may seem highly traditional and conservative today was the way

Washington filled the offices in the executive. He prized good reputation in one’s local community (which he himself called “good character”) and loyalty to the Constitution over accumulated intellect and secular expertise in a given profession. Simply said, he endeavored to appoint morally sound and patriotic men in order “to cultivate a favorable opinion of the national government throughout the Union” (Milkis 65).

It is said that Washington was so concerned about the morality of the candidates that whenever he “did not know the candidate personally, he made inquiries” through his associates or the applicant’s Senators from his state until they could attest to their virtuous and aristocratic conduct that would be suitable for the new republican government (McDonald 38). When one considers the vastness of the Union’s territory, conditions, frequency and speed of eighteenth century travel and postal service, it must have required endless mail communications and interviews for Washington to ascertain

49 one’s identity in another state of the Union (Flexner, “New Nation” 223). Washington’s diligence and impartiality was admired even by Adams: “He seeks information from all quarters and judges more independently than any man I ever knew” (qtd. in Flexner,

“New Nation” 223).

Washington, unlike kings and queens, distanced himself from nepotism 39 and favoritism towards any person even when “former presidents of the Continental

Congress wrote unabashedly declaring their eagerness for a slice of the federal pie”

(Fleming 145).

Washington’s associates and friends from the Revolutionary war wrote letters of application “in the highly deferential style 40 that Washington himself had employed toward his British” superiors during his early military career (Ellis, “Excellency” 192).

Many of them would appear at his levees and “added verbal pleas to the hard-luck stories” that they have mailed him in hope of securing a prominent place in the government (Flexner, “New Nation” 223). Washington was, however, uncompromising and followed his republican stance: “Old soldiers received little special considerations, the president’s kin none at all (Smith, “Patriarch” 34).

When his favorite nephew Bushrod Washington aspired to the seat of United

States District Attorney of Virginia, the President wrote him back stating his commitment to deal fairly with all since any shadow of partiality would be subjected to criticism: “My political conduct in nominations, even if I was uninfluenced by

39 With Washington’s evident concern over decorum and circumspection (as well as concern over setting improper precedents for future generations), nominations arising from the ties of “amity or blood” were extremely carefully considered (Washington, “To S. Vaughan”). Fleming even argues that such ties were a minus, rather than a plus, for Washington at that time (Fleming 145). 40 Flexner sheds further light on the subject by postulating that Washington, as a young soldier during the opening phases of the French and Indian War, ascended into the British military Establishment slowly due to his lack of “interest” in aristocratic families, which “interest” was so basic to the aristocratic life (Flexner, “New Nation” 223).

50 principle, must be exceedingly circumspect and proof against just criticism, for the eyes of Argus 41 are upon me” (Washington, “To B. Washington”).

The most numerous batch of offices was created by the customs bill, which called for collectors, naval and other port officers at every major port in the United

States (Flexner, “New Nation” 224). The President was principally hurt in the instance of nominating Benjamin Fishbourn to be the naval officer of the port of Savannah.

Washington was miffed upon finding out that the Senate, on the strength of their preferences 42 alone, refused to confirm the nomination (McDonald 38).

He acquiesced to the Senate’s rejection and forthwith sent in another name for the same office along with a dignified rebuke. Not being acquainted with the reasons of the senators’ dissenting votes, he invited them to request further information in case the nomination would seem questionable to them. Apologetically, Washington then added his inferences of the nominee’s distinguished service and good reputation, “It appeared therefore to me that Mr. Fishbourn must have enjoyed confidence of the militia Officers

. . . of the Freemen . . . of the Assembly . . . and . . . of the Council” (Washington, “To the U.S. Senate”).

We do not know the justification for senators’ objections, but they seemed to have felt Washington’s temperate rebuke, because the following nomination was confirmed instantly (Irving 23; vol. 5). This experience established a precedent which provided that candidates may be appointed on condition that the appointee’s senators do not personally object.

41 Washington uses a fit analogy of classical mythological creature with hundred eyes, which keeps some of them open even during sleep. Washington felt oftentimes awkward, for he apprehended that each step or gesture he made was being immediately scrutinized by government officials and the public, and being taken as the precedent for generations to come (McDonald 30). 42 Senate debated the nomination due to objections raised by James Gunn and William Few, two Georgia senators.

51 5. Touring and Uniting the New Nation

“Politics is theater, and George Washington was America’s first actor-president.

The Washington presidency was nothing if not theatrical.” Why else the elaborately instituted levees, tea and dinner parties, triumphal progress through states, dignified public welcome by men of prominence, deferential addresses from lawmakers, for whom the President was not only a symbol of national unification, but also its only glue? The General knew that wherever he would arrive “partisan murmurs would be lost in a chorus of hero worship” (Smith, “Patriarch” 87).

Washington, during his first presidential term, was particularly sensitive to diverse interests of citizens in various states and worked tirelessly to prevent the new country’s potential fragmentation (McPherson 18). One method of implementing this prevention was to bring the government to the people and reaffirm their trust in it . He would set out on a journey through the Northern states in 1789 and on another journey through the Southern states two years later.

His motives of preventing possible fragmentation during these extended tours were accompanied by efforts to “personally bring the government to the farthest reaches of the land” and rekindle loyalty to the Constitution and confirm confidence towards the

Chief Executive of those citizens who had not yet had the opportunity to see him. He would promote roads, canals, bridges, interstate commerce – anything that would bind the states together and make them more firmly united within the nation (McPherson 19).

Flexner, a prominent historian, adds that “he wished to become familiar anew with an area he had known only in war time and to make, in this powerful part of the nation, the federal government visibly felt” (Flexner, “Indispensable” 229).

52 5.1 Touring the North

Between the sessions of the first Congress, Washington found it expedient to use the spare time 43 touring the new nation and to become personally acquainted with the state of affairs in the Northern states (Holmes 336). Washington departed October 15,

1789 on what turned out to be approximately a month-long tour of New England states.

He visited all New England states, but skirted Rhode Island, 44 which had not yet ratified the Constitution. The General traveled north up to Portsmouth, New Hampshire and when returning, John Trumbull, a prominent painter of the day, sensed that he was “all fragrant with the odour of incense” (qtd. in Wright 160).

His public appearance was always an occasion to unite people’s hearts and to confirm their hopes for a firm national government. The General’s triumphal progress through the nation was probably nothing less that “ever befell a Roman Caesar” (Smith,

“Patriarch” 88). One versifier, in the local periodical ( Keene Recorder ), described the honorary visitor as “next unto the Trinity,” 45 at the very least a rival of any estimable object known to exist in the universe:

Behold the matchless Washington –

His glory has eclip’d the sun;

The lustre of his rays so bright

‘Tis always day, there’s no more night.

The President’s arrival into a locality of any consequence was saluted by boisterous blasts of trumpets and bugles and all men rushed to see the man who had

43 During his transient “executive break” Washington’s primary desire was, as Flexner argues, to retrieve to Mount Vernon for as long as reasonably possible. Nevertheless, his sense of duty took precedence (Flexner, “Indispensable” 229). 44 Rhode Island was the thirteenth and last state to ratify the Constitution on May 29, 1790 with the narrowest margin of 34 to 32 votes. 45 The laudatory expressions of 18th century authors on Washington may raise more than a few modern readers’ eyebrows by referring to his glory to that of eclipsing the sun. Encomiums were one of the tools the Federalists employed to achieve national unification through elevating central figure of the new government – the Chief Magistrate.

53 won their independence. Thus, in accordance with republican ideology Washington left the seat of government and made himself accessible to the common farmer (Johnson

99).

The public greetings and salutations were no longer filled with hysterical overtones, Washington perceived, as those that accompanied him to inauguration.

Washington recognized that citizens “were no longer on edge. They had settled down comfortably with a satisfactory government” (Flexner, “Indispensable” 229).

His previous travel diaries consisted primarily of agricultural observations. His

Northern tour expanded the number of themes written about and began to include such miscellaneous observations such as the nature of exporting products or frequency of ships departing from a particular port. Descriptions of various factories along his route were provided (Flexner, “Indispensable” 229).

The President was especially contented with Faneuil Hall in Boston, “which appeared to be carrying on with spirit, and is in a prosperous way.” A company, producing duck fabric (sailcloth), employed in one of its sections 14 young women to spin on 28 water-powered looms. When assisted by their children (girls) who turn the wheels for them, they are capable of producing 14 pounds of thread per day.

Washington appreciated that the company was promoting the welfare of the poor as only “daughters of decayed families . . . of [good] Character” were employed and no other restriction was laid upon them but to arrive at eight o’clock and finish the work by six in the evening (Flexner, “Indispensable” 229; Washington, “Diaries” 479; vol. 4).

One observer noted that Washington’s merriment was easily discernable and was overheard to suggest to the superintendent that “he believed that he collected the prettiest girls in Boston” (Webb 3:142-44).

54 Thanks to Washington’s and others’ journal entries we read of some remarkable occasions when his personality becomes conspicuous to the contemporary reader, such a when passing through Massachusetts: Washington expected to greet governor

Hancock here, the President of the former of Congress under the Articles of

Confederation and therefore a “proto-President” of the United States to some degree.

But how was that to be done? Who was supposed to pay the first call? Always mindful of maintaining the propriety of his conduct and the dignity of his office, Washington, engaging his diplomatic skills, tactfully invited Hancock to pay his tributes to him, and not vice versa (Wright 160). “The President, it became clear, would take precedence over governors” (Friedel and Aikman 25).

Washington was especially fond of children to whom he liked to refer simply as

“the little ones.” After staying overnight at a private house in Uxbridge, Massachusetts, the residing family insisted that the President’s accommodation be provided free of charge and refused to accept any pecuniary payments for such service.

Shortly thereafter, Washington wrote a letter of appreciation to his host from his next stop in Hartford. Having been informed that some of the host’s children were named after him as well as after Mrs. Washington and having been particularly pleased by the friendliness of the family’s children, Washington sent the daughters a piece of chintz and five guineas to buy some ornaments and “as I do not give these things with a view to have it talked of, or even to its being known, the less there is said about the matter the better you will please me.” Just to make sure that these gifts arrived safe, and perhaps for reasons of allowing the privilege thereof, Washington invited one of the affectionate daughters to write a brief confirmatory reply addressed to “The President of the United States at New York” (Washington, “To S. Taft”).

55 Having reached the northernmost point of his trip through New England states,

Washington resolved to abandon his officially planned progress and take a different route as a private gentleman on his way back, “yet he was too tensed up to relax.”

Arriving into hamlets and villages unannounced entailed more inconveniences than hoped for and rendered the less formal itinerary ineffectual, therefore he later abandoned such progress (Flexner, “Indispensable” 229).

Further illustration of Washington’s traveling experiences could be drawn from his journal entry for November 8. The day being Sunday, Washington adhered 46 to New

England attitudes about traveling on the Sabbath and “my horses after passing through such intolerable Roads wanting rest, I stayed at Perkins's Tavern (which by the bye is not a good one) all day.” The President attended both morning and evening church service, but felt petty spiritual rejuvenation from apparently “very lame discourses” from yet inexperienced Rev. Pond (Washington, “Diaries” 495; vol. 5).

Washington arrived home two weeks before the first Thanksgiving Day, which was set for November 26 and was to serve for acknowledging “the many signal favors of Almighty God” and the opportunity to implement the Constitution “for their safety and happiness” (Annals 92; vol. 1). “These activities strengthened the sense of national unity” also (Wright 161).

5.2 Touring the South

On March 21, 1791, the General embarked on another journey through the nation, this time touring the South. Several reasons made him undertake this grueling over nineteen-hundred-mile-long journey through primitive southern roads, hot climate,

46 Flexner argues that Washington was somewhat “annoyed” by this custom and supports his argument by the rhetoric Washington employs in his journal entry for the day: note the highly evaluative words he uses in connection with the roads, local tavern and the preacher. Despite his irritation, Washington felt it proper to respect local customs and adhere to them.

56 poor accommodations, tedious social events, and rivalry of local factions, competing who can present a better welcome for the matchless Washington (Smith, “Patriarch”

88).

There were other factors, worth mentioning that motivated the General on this journey, besides those that would unify the nation and establish a firmer hope in the

Constitution. Washington, who very likely lacked sufficient exercise in the outdoors during his term, concluded that such a tour would be beneficial not only to the citizens, but also to him as well. While the strenuousness of the journey might have kept Martha at home, it presented enough outdoor experience for Washington to maintain his health and vigor. Undoubtedly, he was also curious about Southern agricultural methods as well as seeing his fellow Southerners and learning of their disposition towards the new government.

The President’s coach was white, secondhand but rebuilt by Clarke Brothers of

Philadelphia for $950. Tom Fagan, a tall and strong German, was a coachman. He sat on a leopard-skin-covered box alongside Major Jackson, Washington’s aide-de-camp.

The company also included a valet, two footmen, a postilion, a light wagon for baggage, and five saddle horses, including the General’s reputable white charger Prescott

(Johnson 99).

“His travels were periodically highly uncomfortable and sometimes dangerous.”

His journey through the Southern states presented more perils while traversing rivers and crude roads than in the North (Johnson 99).

“The trip nearly ended before it began.” Just a few days into his great journey, both Prescott and his rider risked drowning as the frail ferry grounded in the mouth of

Severn River just outside of Annapolis. Sheltering from the stormy weather, the

57 President’s discomfort grew as he squeezed in the ferry’s tiny berth without being able to change into dry clothes for many hours (Smith, “Patriarch” 89).

The following day, transferring onto another boat (because it was the largest), they sailed past the Greenbury Point where they got stuck on a sandbar, from whence they were able to move on only by much “exertion and difficulty.” Soon enough they were grounded again and recognizing that all their efforts were brought to no avail, they stayed where they were, “not knowing what might happen, 'till morning.” He recorded,

“I was in imminent danger from the unskillfulness of the hands and the dullness of her sailing” (Washington, “Dairies” 100; vol. 5).

At another instance, the President’s life was hazarded as the white coach and all its crew plunged into the foaming waters of the Occoquan Creek (Johnson 99).

The traveling conditions of the 1790s were still so primitive as to tone down formal conduct of any dignitary. Washington must have been the exception, for he managed to retain respect of all despite such ordeals as extensively traveling in a springless carriage on rocky roads, listening sometimes up to fifteen loquacious toasts, attending numerous welcome speeches, enduring tiresome and interminable dinners

(Ketchum 189; Johnson 99-100).

Although Washington found it tough to avoid swearing in some distressing moments, he never turned to a grumbling attitude. His heart had always enough room for humor and amusement, such as when harnesses snapped or some “mud splashed through the open carriage window” (Johnson 100).

Tobias Lear, Washington’s personal secretary who had resided at his house for an extended period of time, could attest to the fact that Washington was “almost the only man of an exalted character who does not lose some part of his respectability by an intimate acquaintance” (Lear).

58 When Washington arrived in Annapolis he walked up to see the local State

House – the place where he resigned his command of the Continental Army.

Washington’s journal entry for the day, however, is reticent about his recollection of this memorable event (observing merely that the building “seems to be much out of repair”), but it would not take long for anyone to recognize what attitudes he still harbored about being vested with powerful office, especially political ones

(Washington, “Dairies” 102; vol. 5).

His tour progressed swiftly with no less than about fifty miles traveled in a day

(with twenty or more miles covered before 47 breakfast). Washington spent most of the tour in his coach, but mounted his Prescott before entering a town to allow for a

“carefully choreographed” and dignified entrance into a municipality (Smith,

“Patriarch” 93). The President was cheered with enthusiasm and acclamation everywhere he arrived. The manifested acknowledgments helped him in overcoming the

“criticisms of his ‘court’ 48 that had been grieving his sensitive soul” (Holmes 336).

Those that met him in their towns and municipalities yearned to shake his hand or even to offer him a “ceegar.” For many, it would be the only chance in their lives to take a glimpse at the President of the United States. “And what a sight for families whose humdrum lives lacked color” (Johnson 99)! The mere sight of the General and the splendid retinue that accompanied him was enough to last a lifetime in recollections of rural Americans starved for pageantry (Smith, “Patriarch” 89).

Three months were spent traveling through “sandy roads of the Carolina pine barrens, thin in population and in soil,” stopping by Charleston and Savannah.

Washington’s visit to Charleston was, in fact, his first.

47 Towards the end of the Southern trip, four in the morning was a routine time of departure for Washington’s company (Smith, “Patriarch” 102). 48 Washington attempted to discredit harsh accusations of his monarchical conduct by making himself available to the common man.

59 During his week-long stay there he certainly could not complain about the lack of busy schedule. Holding three receptions, attending two breakfasts, eating seven formal dinners, listening or replying to four addresses, attending two assemblies and a concert, moreover, visiting military posts and drinking sixty toasts, were all part of his program (Wright 164).

The General was particularly pleased by the dancing assembly of “256 elegantly dressed & handsome ladies” (Washington, “Diaries” 130; vol. 6). All of them were

“superbly dressed” and most of them wore ribbons with inscriptions, such as “long live the President,” conveying respect for their President (Washington, “Diaries” 130; vol.

6). His day’s activities were consummated by a late-night supper served at 10:30 p.m.

(Henderson 178).

After attending a host of social events (toasts, minuet and country dance) in

Savannah late afternoon, the President received a surprising and heartfelt celebration of his presence the following morning – three hundred candles placed in front of his house forming a giant W (Smith, “Patriarch” 100). His trip back led through Augusta and

Guilford and several Revolutionary War battle sites (Wright 164).

“The visits also gave Washington an opportunity to affirm the sense of brotherhood that had united Americans of all creeds and sections during the

Revolutionary War” (Fleming 149; italics added). Washington appeared to be pleased by the people’s acclamations and praises, expressive of his own popularity among them.

Furthermore, the country was, to Washington’s satisfaction, found “to be in a very improving state” (Washington, “To D. Humphreys”).

Although the Southern states would soon face problems with slavery, unsophisticated farming methods, and sterility of soil which would in a few years serve as the impulse for some people to migrate to the West, much had improved there since

60 Washington’s last inspection of the South (Wright 164). “Industry and frugality are becoming much more fashionable than they have hitherto been there” (Washington, “To

D. Humphreys”).

The President even found the disposition of the people towards the new government tranquil enough to evoke satisfaction in him. Equal laws and equal protection seemed to be drawing people’s attention and interest and “they begin to feel the good effects of it.” Entrepreneurial enterprise begins to flower for both the farmers and the merchants. However, manufacturers’ progress had been minimal in the Southern states “and it will probably be a long time before they are brought to that state to which they have already arrived in the middle and eastern parts of the Union” (Washington,

“To D. Humphreys”).

As a nationalist, Washington “was apt to confuse” Southern acclamations of his presence for his personal credit with ardent support of policies of his administration. As a proponent of a stronger federal unification, it being one of the key reasons for him to tour the new nation, Washington was now even more aware that the safe future of

America lay in its strong central government envisioned in the Constitution and realized in the national bank. “He had seen and been seen by tens of thousands, in the process winning mass allegiance for a regime his presence made real.” Only future would reveal what implicit message, if any, Washington perceived over the din of popular adulation

(Smith, “Patriarch” 107).

6. Washington’s Reconciliatory Influence amidst Surfacing Partisanship

Washington’s personality was a key unifying element in the political divide that began to surface within the United States during his first presidential term. His vision of

61 a strong federal head as the haven of national security would serve well not only against foreign entanglements, but also within emerging political spectrum at home.

With the fall of Bastille in 1789, seeds of discord were inseminated in the minds of many Americans. There were those that supported the Revolution as well as those that considered the American military power still too feeble to provide any assistance to either side, and advocated non-interventionism as a foreign policy.

Washington “found political parties repugnant.” His expectations of American

Presidency were founded upon a principle that the Chief Executive would be the

“President of all the people” and began to feel disappointment when two distinct parties began to materialize (Friedel and Aikman 24; Cunliffe 128).

Jefferson and Hamilton “were undeniably brilliant–too brilliant, Washington eventually discovered, to tolerate each other’s presence at the summit of power.” In the beginning they gave the President priceless and unstinting assistance in creating a coherent foreign policy and economic stability at home (Fleming 147). But at the same time they have triggered two political factions that Washington unsuccessfully attempted to appease.

The two men differed in their opinions in almost everything, involving resolving the problem of paying off the massive national debt, 49 emanating mainly from the costly

Revolutionary War. Alexander Hamilton, as early as December of 1790, put before the

Congress his brilliantly schemed out plan to institute a national bank, which would assume 50 the state debts.

49 At the end of the Revolutionary War, the United States’ liabilities equaled nearly 80 million dollars, of which 25 million dollars were to be paid off by the individual states. Annual interest on these debts reached 5 million dollars (Ferling 316; Ketchum 187). Hamilton’s plan for the redemption of national debt deserves a chapter of its own, but a more detailed description is omitted here for the sake of relevance to the thesis. 50 Assumption of the state debts by the national bank was also meant to enhance confidence in the new government and was the only reasonable way of refunding the debts at par (Ketchum 187).

62 But things were not so simple, at least not in the theater of politics. Securities, which represented financial obligations, were deeply depreciated, and the original certificates held by farmers and soldiers were in many instances “passed into the hands of speculators at enormous discounts” (Ketchum 187). The suggested scenario would eventually bring about financial redemption, but its measures were controversial at least in two instances, “first by punishing the responsible states [in the South] and rewarding the indebted ones [in the North], and second by loosely interpreting the Constitution” and its circumscription of making laws which are “necessary and proper” as stated in

Article I, section 8 (Sturgis 15; Wright 162).

Hamilton’s economic revival received a heartfelt welcome by Northern traders and mercantile groups. For Jefferson and his followers, who “championed the interests of [mostly Southern] agrarian and libertarian elements,” this plan would be unacceptable (Ketchum 187). For Republican critics, the watchword was

“consolidation,” an ideological cousin to “monarchy,” which referred to the threatening aggregation of political power which American colonies defied during the

Revolutionary War (Ellis, “Excellency” 204).

Since no resolution seemed to be close at hand, Hamilton proposed to Jefferson an exchange of support. Hamilton would back Jefferson’s plan to position the capital more to the South in exchange of his upholding the financial plan. Although Jefferson acquiesced, he felt gulled by some of the things Hamilton was unremittingly trying to push through Congress, especially those elements of the financial plan that emphasized the role of central government rather than decentralized and democratic institutions

(Milkis 66).

However, the seeds of discord were growing. As the French Revolutionary government incrementally gained power in France, Louis XVI, the hitherto king of

63 France, received a trial which commissioned his execution. “A war of all peoples against all kings” was decreed; at that time it meant that at least Great Britain, the

Netherlands and Spain were declared war.

Somewhat arrogantly, France referred to an alliance with the United States which was signed by Louis XVI and George Washington, and therefore demanded that infant American republic side with them in this European conflict. No one had ever been put in such a precarious situation as Washington: “no man had risked more for liberty than” him (Fleming 150).

Washington’s sound judgment did not call for any haphazard action. His reply was reasonable and logical: The alliance and mutual military intervention was provided only in case of being attacked by a foreign power; France was, however, an evident aggressor in this case. Moreover, the treaty had been signed with that French government which was at this time totally defunct. And finally, England was America’s greatest trading partner after all (Fleming 150). Nations such as France and Great

Britain possessed armies incomparable to the one that existed in the fledgling United

States. Washington knew that the nation would overextend or even lose itself in the battles of Europe and thus endanger the very laboratory climate in America for conducting the “the great experiment” (Sturgis 16).

If General Washington succeeded with its Continental Army by retreating from battles that risked its survival, he “fashioned a kind of Fabian presidency that sustained the credibility of the federal government by avoiding” potentially fatal political battlegrounds (Ellis, “Excellency” 214-15). The American government, Washington said, needs to prevent its citizens “from embroiling us with either of those powers, by endeavouring to maintain a strict neutrality” (Washington, “To T. Jefferson”).

64 Did the President actually have such a right to declare neutrality? Was not this a role that Congress was, in fact, obligated to perform as far as foreign policy was concerned? “Contradictory perceptions of the appropriate extent of presidential power” represented the crux of disputes between Hamilton and Jefferson. Republicans argued that Washington had no constitutional authority to decide upon foreign policy (Milkis

66). Hamilton, on the other hand, opted for a broader interpretation of the Constitution with regards to presidential authority on foreign policy (Milkis 67).

The French supporters attempted to sway Washington’s decision. His name was calumniated and his character libeled by those that fervidly upheld the French

Revolution. Philadelphia streets were swarmed by mobs and violent demonstrators

(Fleming 150-51). The French Revolution stirred emotions so much that it may be admitted that the nation was, at least politically, beginning to be torn apart.

The Hamiltonians never really considered themselves a party “but rather the beleaguered legitimate government beset by those seeking to destroy the Union.”

Although Jeffersonian Republicans reluctantly admitted to partisanship, their ideological stance was believed to be only temporary, serving to prevent the establishment of British-like monarchy. Since neither of them accepted legitimacy of the other, animosity and partisan feelings permeated much of the Congress (McPherson

19).

The Hamilton party came to be known as the Federalists (Alexander Hamilton,

Henry Knox, John Adams). It was not accidental that Hamilton’s followers took up the same appellation used by those heavily supporting the ratification of the Constitution.

The Federalists saw themselves as an extension to the nationalist movement which envisioned a strong federal government. Thus, the Hamiltonians were in favor of

“banking and investment, trade and commerce, and solid national credit.” Many of their

65 followers were inevitably in the big cities of the North. They did not hide their admiration of Great Britain’s financial system, noted for its stability and soundness

(Rhodehamel, “Experiment” 125).

Jefferson’s agrarian utopia centered on independent free farmers, far from scheming businessmen and big cities. The Republicans favored states’ rights over federal authority. They advocated that federal government should be more limited in its execution of power. “Tyranny was to be feared more than anarchy.” Thus, Republicans were naturally passionate supporters of the revolutionary events occurring in France at that time (Rhodehamel, “Experiment” 126-27).

Jefferson and his fellow Republicans (Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,

Edmund Randolph) were keenly suspicious that the Federalists had a high opinion solely of Britain’s financial system. Their fears were centered on the Federalist’s alleged imitation of Britain’s monarchical government in the United States, creating nothing less than American aristocracy (Rhodehamel, “Experiment” 126-27).

Washington found such accusations flawed and fanciful, for unlike George III, the American government had been duly elected and it confused, almost willfully so, a strong executive with monarchical despotism. Washington offered his remarks on the subject, saying that “he did not believe there were ten men in the U.S. whose opinions were worth attention who entertained such a thought” and Hamilton, despite his impolitic comments at the Constitutional Convention, was not one of them (Jefferson,

“Memorandum”; Ellis, “Excellency” 218).

Washington learned to be somewhat immune to the virulent attacks on monarchical tendencies within the United States. As a general of the Continental Army he experienced firsthand the consequences of weak Congress. War was substantially prolonged and almost lost and soldiers almost starved to death “all for a lack of a viable

66 central government empowered to raise money and troops” (Ellis, “Excellency” 218; italics added).

Washington was placed in an uneasy position. Whatever decision he would make, it would be attributed to his inclination towards either Jefferson or Hamilton.

Hamilton’s financial plan was heavily supported in the North, while vehemently opposed by the Southern states. Jefferson’s pleas to allow states to act more independently of the federal government also seemed to be regarded with a similar degree of ambiguity.

The ideological position Washington took made Jefferson’s role in the presidential Cabinet untenable. Henceforth, he would become not only the Chief

Magistrate, but also, at least in a titular and symbolic sense, one of the parties’ head.

“Washington despised and resisted and renounced the role, but he could not avoid it”

(McDonald 114).

Despite the emerging tendency to affiliate the President’s stand with one of the party philosophies, he still tried to stand above it all as far as he had the ability to do so, 51 but partisan rivalry kept incrementally growing to animosity. Feuds within the

President’s official family drew Washington to despair (Rhodehamel, “Experiment”

125). Since “ national unity remained a primary interest for George Washington,” he sought appropriate ways to bridge the gaps between them, but this was no easy task for anyone (Sturgis 15; italics added). “Only a patriarchal dominance of Washington’s personality had prevented” the political disputes among his Cabinet members from exploding earlier (Ellis, “Excellency” 216).

Milkis also concurs that it was truly his dominant stature and public acceptance, combined with his commitment to the existence of an independent, but sound legislature

51 “Washington’s renunciation of party leadership, clearly articulated in his Farewell Address, left his successors a legacy of presidential ‘impartiality’ that has never been completely eclipsed” (Milkis 67).

67 that “restrained partisan strife” as long as he occupied the presidential office (Milkis

67).

His mere presence evoked a sense of patriarchal supervision which served as a stimulus for dignified and respectful bearing. Jefferson’s whining and accusing and

Hamilton’s delivery of subtle knives into his adversary’s back ceased and both behaved

“with the most careful attention to decorum” whenever the President was near them

(McDonald 96).

To appease the two men, Washington even went so far as to organize a picnic to provide a ground for their reconciliation (Riccards). Of Washington, Jefferson said in the early 1790s, “The President is an anchor of safety to us” (Jefferson, “To N. Lewis”).

Amidst the troubling political scene, one assertion seemed to be pervasive across the surfacing ideological wrangles within the Congress. And that assertion was his indispensability–a fact about which neither Hamilton nor Jefferson had any doubts

(Johnson 107; Ferling 351). “He was the only man in the United States who possessed the confidence of the whole” (Writings of T. Jefferson 317; vol. 1, italics added).

Nothing seemed more luring to Washington than to retire from public service to tranquil

Mount Vernon.

In late 1792 Washington was unwillingly and inadvertently coming to a realization that his presidential years would be extended for another term for the sake of common good. When Washington had accepted the call to the Presidency, he had initially planned to retire after a few months, just as soon as the federal government would start running (Ferling 351). “The rise of party spirit” was one of the key reasons that called for his “staying on” (Wright 168). With his absence in the presidential office the risks were considered by many to be simply too high.

68 “Madison told him that the Government was in danger unless he stayed in office four more years, to give ‘tone and firmness’ to public affairs” (Cunliffe 128). Fearing the possible tragic consequences of the widening political chasm, Jefferson told the

President that “North and South will hang together if they have you to hang on”

(Jefferson, “To G. Washington” 23 May 1792). Washington, perhaps perceivng the veracity of their arguments, at last concurred.

Conclusion

When referring to the first presidential elections in 1789, one historian wrote,

“Never was the election of a President so much a foregone conclusion and yet so tortuous in consummation” (Flexner, “New Nation” 171). General Washington was carried on a wave of heroism that had swept over the new Republic. For many, it would have filled their minds with some pride, but with Washington, it was a different case.

Being in the focus of attention of others was something Washington never truly got accustomed to.

Struggling with insuperable diffidence in his abilities, his acceptance of the presidential office came about only after much persuasion of other military and political figures who stirred in him a sense of urgency of accepting such a call. The national urgency of Washington’s acceptance was not faked, for with no campaigning whatsoever he was the unanimous choice of all electors in the electoral college. 52

No leader has demonstrated a greater reluctance to accept a public office (Smith,

“Patriarch” 359). His “movements to the chair of Government will be accompanied with feelings not unlike those of a culprit who is going to the place of his execution.” In the evening of his life, Washington fully enjoyed surveying his land and attending to his domestic and agricultural duties at Mount Vernon. Abandoning his peaceful abode in

52 The only U.S. President to have enjoyed such trust and popularity.

69 the fields of northern Virginia and embarking on “an Ocean of difficulties” of public servic was the last thing Washington yearned for (Washington, “To H. Knox”).

“Politics is theater, and George Washington was America’s first actor-president.

The Washington presidency was nothing if not theatrical” (Smith, “Patriarch” 87). This applies to his first presidential term, which I have here analyzed, even twofold.

The triumphal progress to his inauguration only confirmed his prominence among the people. Hoping to be spared much of the military parades along his progress, he soon learned that it was not be evaded. Congratulatory addresses were delivered, songs were sung, and church bells rang upon his arrival in every town. Concerned with his incompetency and uneasiness of the situation, he wrote in his diary, “[public acclamations] filled my mind with sensations as painful . . . as they are pleasing”

(Jackson and Twohig 447; vol. 5).

Washington envisioned and embraced an energetic central government to prevent the American union from its weakening centrifugal tendencies (Smith,

“Patriarch” 360). His unifying efforts were further glued with nothing less than the

Constitution itself, Washington therefore ranked among its most fervent advocates.

The process of Constitutional ratification, as expected, was rather uneasy and faced numerable objections in the American colonies. However, the “very fabric of the nation” established such principles which the United States could draw upon and build a secure nation able to defy any aggressor on earth.

Although Washington never grew to become comfortable with pomp, he knew that some ostentation was requisite for national unification. “He knew, if only instinctively, that he could contribute best by serving as a symbol” (McDonald 24).

Retrospectively, the social events occurring at the Macomb House in New York were fairly risky. Potentially offensive to those that eschewed royal trappings, the

70 courtly levees and dinners could evoke a national disgust for monarchical ambitions in the government and distance the individual states, especially the Southern states, from having much in common with what was happening in the capital.

On the other hand, such ceremonious occasions could serve well to enforce the national unity by making the nation’s helm more conspicuous to its citizens.

“Furthermore, Washington’s role as a national symbol made every man wish him to symbolize the nation as that man visualized it” (Flexner, “New Nation” 193). With

Washington at its head, it was worth taking the risk.

Only by making the government’s head visible could the American union hope for further national solidification. Many states still blandished each other into exercising more control over theirs affairs than the federal government and accentuated only a thread-thick attachment to the Congress.

Prescient of the budding seeds of anarchic disorder in the fledgling Republic,

Washington was fully cognizant of the fact that without supporting the government in its judicial, legislative and executive duties, no national unity would be achieved among so diverse a population as existed on the American continent.

Setting off on Northern as well as Southern journey, Washington was determined, according to the republican ideals, to bring the government closer to the people and make it accessible to the common man. Traveling among his fellow citizens, the President had discerned the befitting equilibrium between royal unapproachability and a merely transparent figurehead.

Besides learning the status quo of the rural areas of America, specifically their disposition towards the new government and the Constitution, metaphorically speaking,

General Washington also “inspected” the country in a similar fashion as he was accustomed to at his Mount Vernon estate. Such a “national inspection” proved to be a

71 good decision not only for Washington, but also for the country. The General’s presence subdued apprehensions towards the future stability and firmness of the new government and “partisan murmurs [were] lost in a chorus of hero worship” (Smith, “Patriarch” 87).

Washington’s almost unfailing sagacity was not prone to be swayed by blind partiality for any political approach. Each decision was deliberately and scrupulously weighed and discussed with his advisors before approbation (Irving 80-81; vol. 5).

When the nation began, at least on the ideological plane, to be incrementally torn apart amidst surfacing partisanship, Washington played a critical unifying role by maintaining his neutral position. Finding political factions repugnant, Washington did all he could to appease the two antagonistic policies.

With regards to politics during the eighteenth century, there is the peculiar phenomenon that Washington could hardly be credited more for what he did than what he did not do. He did not meddle with belligerent foreign powers, “ buying precious time for the United States to evolve a sense of nationhood .” He did not consider himself a democratically elected monarch, nor model his Vice President’s duties into a kind of

Prime Minister, nor designate his Secretary of Treasury as the American Chancellor of the Exchequer (Smith, “Patriarch” 358; italics added).

Washington’s dominant stature, buttressed with his wide public acceptance and commitment to a sound government, “restrained partisan strife” to the extent he had the ability to do so (Milkis 67). Political maneuvering did not occur between formal political organizations but between personalities and their adherents. The leading political minds of the day were Hamilton and Jefferson. Jefferson, taking the initiative, pointed out Hamilton’s alleged efforts to establish on the American continent that very government against which the Americans fought during the Revolutionary War.

Especially in the South, the conjured uncanny image of a scepter and crown was

72 spreading apprehensions of Hamilton’s programs and suspicions whenever Washington promptly consented to Hamilton’s requests (Flexner, “New Nation” 411).

Perhaps excepting the author and Washington no one possessed such clairvoyance to realize that Hamilton’s schemes to found an energetic economic system in the Union would prove to be “history’s most effective underminer of royalty”

(Flexner, “New Nation” 411).

Washington was growing old and weary of serving in the public office, which he, at times, wished he could have avoided altogether. The prospect of retiring from the

Presidency in March 1793 to Mount Vernon was becoming increasingly sweet to him.

History teaches us, however, that Washington’s ambrosial dream to retire from public office did not find its realization then and there. Being warned that the security of the

Union would weaken if Washington resigned too early, he gave in to the persuasions of both Hamilton and Jefferson to “hang on” (Jefferson, “To G. Washington” 23 May

1792).

Washington “would do what he could to confine divergent opinion and would employ his most resolute endeavor to prevent disintegration of the Union” (Freeman,

“Washington” 604; italics added). Washington may justly be credited for forging a climate of perseverance and stability during which the “great experiment” of the new republican government could be carried out. Not only did he never lose faith in the successful accomplishment of this unprecedented undertaking, but he also, in a way, represented the very government which many others believed in and hoped for: “The establishment of our new Government ... for promoting human happiness by reasonable compact in civil Society” (Washington, “To C. M. Graham”).

73 Works Cited

Allen, W. B. George Washington: A Collection . Indianapolis: LibertyClassics, 1988.

Beard, Charles A. The Journal of William Maclay: United States Senator from

Pennsylvania, 1789-1791 . New York: Ungar, 1965.

Commins, Saxe. Basic Writings of George Washington . New York: Random House,

1948.

Cunliffe, Marcus. George Washington and the Making of a Nation . New York:

American Heritage, 1966.

Decatur, Stephen, Jr. Private Affairs of George Washington, from the Records and

Accounts of Tobias Lear, Esquire, His Secretary . Boston: Houghton Mifflin,

1933.

De Pauw, Linda Grant, ed. Documentary History of the First Federal Congress of the

United States of America . 15 vols. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1972-76.

Diller, Daniel C. “Biographies of the Presidents.” Guide to the Presidency . Vol. 2. Ed.

Michael Nelson. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2002. 1497-1574.

Elkins, Stanley, and Eric McKitrick. The Age of Federalism: The Early American

Republic, 1788-1800 . New York: OUP, 1993.

Ellis, Joseph J. American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the

Republic . New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2007.

---. His Excellency: George Washington . New York: Vintage Books, 2004.

Farrand, Max, ed. The Records of the Federal Convention of the 1787 . 4 vols. New

Haven: Yale UP, 1911.

Ferling, John E. A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic .

New York: OUP, 2003.

74 Fitzpatrick, John Clement, ed. The Diaries of George Washington, 1748-1799 . 4 vols.

Houghton Mifflin: Boston and New York, 1925.

Fleming, Thomas. First in Their Hearts. A Biography of George Washington . Lakeville,

CT: Grey Castle Press, 1991.

Flexner, James Thomas. George Washington and the New Nation (1783-1793) . Vol. 3.

Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1969.

---. George Washington: Anguish and Farewell (1793-1799) . Vol. 4. Boston: Little,

Brown and Company, 1969.

---. Washington, the Indispensable Man . New York: Back Bay Books, 1994.

Freeman, Douglas Southall. George Washington: A Biography . Ed. J. A. Carroll and M.

W. Ashworth. 7 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1948-57.

---. Washington . Ed. Richard Harwell. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1968.

Friedel, Frank, and Lonelle Aikman. George Washington: Man and Monument .

Washington, D.C.: Washington National Monument Association, 1965.

Gaines, James R. For Liberty and Glory: Washington, Lafayette, and their Revolutions .

New York: Norton, 2007.

Hamilton, Alexander. “To Governeur Morris, 27 Feb. 1802.” In The Works of

Alexander Hamilton. Ed. Henry Cabot Lodge. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons,

1885.

Henderson, Archibald. Washington's Southern Tour, 1791 . Boston and New York:

Houghton Mifflin Co., 1923.

Hieronimus, Robert. Tajné poslání Spojených stát ů: Spirituální vize a vznik USA,

historie a smysl Velké státní pe četi . Prague, Czech Republic: Alternativa, 1999.

Holmes, M.D. George Washington. The Soul of a Nation. His Complete Life Story .

Philadelphia: The John C. Winston Company, 1932.

75 Irving, Washington. Life of George Washington . 5 vols. New York: Putnam, 1864.

Jefferson, Thomas. The Works of Thomas Jefferson . Federal Edition. 12 vols. New

York: Putnam, 1904-5.

---. Writings . Ed. Merrill Peterson. New York: The Library of America, 1984.

Johnson, Paul. George Washington: The Founding Father . New York: HarperCollins,

2005

Ketchum, Richard M. The World of George Washington . New York: American

Heritage, 1974.

Maclay, William. “Account of William Maclay of President George Washington’s First

Attempt to Obtain the Advice and Consent of the Senate to a Treaty.” August

22, 24, 1789. In The Growth of Presidential Power: A Documented History . Ed.

William M. Goldsmith. New York and London: Chelsea House, 1974.

McDonald, Forrest. The Presidency of George Washington . Lawrence, KS: UP of

Kansas, 1974.

McPherson, James M. To the Best of My Ability: The American Presidents . New York:

DK Publishing, 2000.

Milkis, Sidney M. “History of the Presidency.” Guide to the Presidency . Vol. 1. Ed.

Michael Nelson. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2002. 63-171.

Mitchell, Stewart, ed. New Letters of Abigail Adams, 1788-1801: a First Lady’s Letters

to Her Sister, Throwing Unexpected Light on Great Statesmen of the Formative

Years . Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1947.

Rhodehamel, John. The Great Experiment: George Washington and the American

Republic . New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1998.

---. George Washington. Writings . New York: The Library of America, 1997.

76 Rideing, William H. George Washington . New York: The World Syndicate Publishing

Company, 1916.

Smith, Richard Norton. Patriarch: George Washington and the New American Nation .

New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1993.

Sturgis, Amy H. Presidents From Washington Through Monroe, 1789-1825: Debating

the Issues in Pro and Con Primary Documents . Westport, CT: Greenwood

Publishing Group, 2002.

Vidal, Gore. Inventing a Nation: Washington, Adams, Jefferson. New Haven, CT: Yale

UP, 2003.

Washington, George. “Address to Charles Thomson, 14 Apr. 1789.” Commins 557.

---. “Diary Entry, 16 Apr. 1789.” Rhodehamel, Writings 730.

---. “Farewell Address, 19 Sep. 1796.” Allen 521.

---. Gazette of the United States . Ed. John Fenno. [New York, NY] 2 May 1789.

---. “First Inaugural Address, 30 Apr. 1789.” Commins 558-61.

---. “To Alexander Hamilton, 28 Aug. 1788.” Commins 546.

---. “To David Stuart, 15 Jun. 1790.” Rhodehamel, Writings , 762-63.

---. “To Lafayette, 28 Apr.–1 May 1788.” Commins 544.

---. “To Lafayette, 29 Jan. 1789.” Allen 428.

---. “To Marquis De Lafayette, 10 May 1786.” Rhodehamel, Writings , 597.

Webb, Samuel Blachley. Correspondence and Journals of Samuel Blachley Webb . Ed.

Worthington Chauncey Ford. 3 vols. New York: Wickersham Press, 1893.

White, Leonard D. The Federalists: A Study in Administrative History . New York:

Macmillan, 1948.

Wright, Esmond. Washington and the American Revolution . Great Britain: C. Nicholls

& Company Ltd, 1957.

77 Internet Sources

Adams, Henry. History of the United States: The United States in 1800 (Vol. 1) . History

of the United States of America During the Administrations of Thomas Jefferson

and James Madison . 9 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1889-91. U of

Virginia. 15 Dec. 2007

.

Adams, John. Inaugural Address of John Adams . 4 Mar. 1797. The Avalon Project at

Yale Law School. 18 Feb. 2008

.

---. “To Abigail Adams, 19 Dec. 1793.” Adams Family Papers. The Massachusetts

Historical Society. 17 Apr. 2008

.

“America’s Founding Fathers: Delegates to the Constitutional Convention.” The

National Archives Experience . 28 Oct. 2007

. Path: National Archives Experience; Charters of

Freedom; Meet America’s Founding Fathers; George Washington.

American History: A Documentary Record . The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. 28

Oct. 2007

.

Ames, Fisher. “To George Richard Minot, 3 May 1789.” In Works of Fisher Ames:

With a Selection from His Speeches and Correspondence . Volume 1. Boston:

Little, Brown and Company, 1854. 18 Feb. 2008

.

78 Annals of Congress. 1789-1824. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the

United States. 42 vols. Joseph Gales and William Winston Seaton, eds.

Washington, D.C.: 1834-1856. 29 Dec. 2007

.

Crackel, Theodore J., ed. The Papers of George Washington Digital Edition . American

Founding Era Collection. Rotunda. Charlottesville: U of Virginia P, 2007.

25 Apr. 2008

.

Ferris, Robert G. The Presidents: From the Inauguration of George Washington to the

Inauguration of Jimmy Carter . Washington, D.C.: United States Department of

the Interior, 1977. 15 Mar. 2008

.

Fitzpatrick, John Clement, ed. The Writings of George Washington from the Original

Manuscript Sources 1745-1799 . 39 vols. Washington, D.C.: Government

Printing Office, 1931-1944. 17 Apr. 2008

.

George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress 1741-1799 . 16 Feb. 1999. The

Library of Congress. American Memory. 20 Mar. 2008

.

Hamilton, Alexander. “To George Washington, 13 Aug. 1788.” Crackel. 7 Mar. 2008

.

“History of the President’s House in Philadelphia.” The President’s House in

Philadelphia . Ushistory.org. 15 Mar. 2008

.

79 Jackson, Donald and Dorothy Twohig, eds. The Diaries of George Washington . 6 vols.

Charlottesville: UP of Virginia, 1976-79. G.W. Papers at the Library of

Congress. 20 Mar. 2008

.

Jefferson, Thomas. “Memorandum of a Conversation with the President, 7 Feb. 1793.”

Ed. Lance Banning. Liberty and Order: The First American Party Struggle .

Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2004. 25 Apr. 2008

.

---. “To George Washington, 15 Dec. 1789.” The Correspondence of Thomas Jefferson .

The School of Cooperative Individualism. 25 Dec. 2007

.

---. “To George Washington, 17 May 1792.” The Correspondence of Thomas

Jefferson . The School of Cooperative Individualism. 11 Feb. 2008

.

---. “To Nicholas Lewis, 9 Feb. 1791.” The Works of Thomas Jefferson . Federal

Edition. Ed. Paul Leicester Ford. New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons,

1904-5. Vol. 6. 25 Apr. 2008

.

Journal of William Maclay . United States Senator from Pennsylvania 1789-91. Ed.

Edgar S. Maclay, A. M. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1890. 18 Feb.

2008

.

Lafayette. “To George Washington, 1 Jan. 1788.” Crackel. 7 Mar. 2008

.

80 Lee, Henry, Jr. “Eulogy on Washington, Dec. 26, 1799.” Memoirs of Lee . Resolutions

presented to the United States’ House of Representatives, on the Death of

Washington, December, 1799. 22 Mar. 2008

.

Lear, Tobias. “To William Prescott, 4 Mar. 1788.” The Final Struggle Between George

Washington and the Grim King: Washington’s Attitude Toward Death and

Afterlife . Center for History and New Media. 25 Apr. 2008

.

Lee, Henry, Jr. “To George Washington, 1 Jan. 1788.” Crackel. 19 Mar. 2008

.

Lindemans, Micha F. “Cerberus.” Encyclopedia Mythica . 2008. Encyclopedia Mythica

Online. 18 Apr. 2008

.

Miller Center of Public Affairs . U of Virginia. 28 Oct. 2007

ashington>.

“Outline of U.S. History.” Nov. 2005. USINFO. 28 Oct. 2007

.

“Presidential Series Documents.” The Papers of George Washington . U of Virginia. 28

Oct. 2007

.

Ramsay, David. The Life of George Washington . London: Cadell, 1807. 26 Oct. 2007

.

81 Riccards, Michael. “George Washington.” The Miller Center of Public Affairs . U of

Virginia, VA. 20 Nov. 1992. 30 Oct. 2007

.

Smith, Richard Norton. The Surprising George Washington . Spring 1994, Vol. 26, No.

1. 28 Oct. 2007

washington-1.html>.

Stuart, David. “To George Washington, 15 Mar. 1790.” Fitzpatrick. 17 Dec. 2007

.

“The New Nation.” The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History . 28 Oct. 2007

.

The Writings of Thomas Jefferson . Ed. Albert Ellery Bergh. 19 vols. Washington, D.C.:

Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the U.S.A., 1907. 11 Feb. 2008

.

Washington, George. “To Bushrod Washington, 27 Jul. 1789.” Fitzpatrick. 14 Dec.

2007

.

---. “To Catherine Macaulay Graham, 9 Jan. 1790.” Fitzpatrick. 15 Mar. 2008

.

---. “To Charles Carter, 14 Dec. 1787.” Fitzpatrick. 14 Dec. 2007

.

---. “To David Humphreys, 20 Jul. 1791.” G.W. Papers at the Library of Congress . 31

Dec. 2007

.

82 ---. “To Doctor James Craik, 8 Sep. 1789.” Fitzpatrick. 18 Dec. 2007

.

---. “To Henry Knox, 1 Apr. 1789.” G.W. Papers at the Library of Congress . 19 Mar.

2008

.

---. “To Henry Knox, 27 Apr. 1787.” Crackel. 15 Apr. 2008

.

---. “To James Madison, 12 May 1789.” Crackel. 4 Dec. 2007

.

---. “To John Jay, 5 Oct. 1789.” Crackel. 18 Feb. 2008

.

---. “To John Sullivan, 4 Feb. 1781.” G.W. Papers at the Library of Congress . 20 Mar.

2008

.

---. “To Samuel Taft, 8 Nov. 1789.” G.W. Papers at the Library of Congress . 29 Dec.

2007

.

---. “To Samuel Vaughan, 21 Mar. 1789.” Fitzpatrick. 2 Feb. 2008

.

---. “To Sir John Sinclair, 11 Dec. 1796.” Fitzpatrick. 17 Apr. 2008

.

---. “To the United States Senate, 6 Aug. 1789.” Crackel. 19 Mar. 2008

.

83 ---. “To Thomas Jefferson, 12 Apr. 1793.” G.W. Papers at the Library of Congress . 4

Feb. 2008

.

84