This is President’s Weekend, a welcome break in the dreary winter afforded by the celebration of the lives of two of our nation’s greatest presidents, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, both of whom happened to have February birthdays. For many, this is a weekend to go skiing, or maybe even to make a quick escape to warmer climes. I certainly won’t begrudge anyone a few days of winter fun. I, however, cannot resist the opportunity to put on my former history teacher hat, and devote some time to a brief exploration of leadership as embodied in Washington. A disclaimer: this discussion won’t reflect the most recent scholarship, but rather represents a personal reflection on this historic figure.
Washington had the opportunity to serve his country twice, neither time assuming the responsibilities with much enthusiasm, but both times accepting the call because he believed it was right to do so. Put in command of a non-existent Continental Army in 1775, a few months after hostilities had erupted between British troops and Massachusetts militia men, he faced the most disciplined, powerful military power in the world. An uncooperative Congress, lack of supplies and pay for his men—the worst occurring during the winter of 1778 at Valley Force—insubordination by some of his most talented officers (the traitor Benedict Arnold being the most notable example), and a rag-tag force of largely untrained men from widely varying backgrounds generally more loyal to their colony than some abstract notion of the United States. These hardly constitute conditions conducive for success.
However, through courage and force of personality he managed his detractors by confronting them, calling their bluff, ignoring them, or, in the case of some of his officers, even glossing over their disloyalty in favor of keeping their expertise. Likewise, he won the loyalty and admiration of his troops who knew that he always looked out for their interests. He learned from mistakes, listened to wise counsel from the likes of Nathanael Greene, and showed a willingness to dispense with traditional conventions of war—exemplified by the surprise attack on the Hessian mercenaries at Trenton the day after Christmas. With help from key European allies, he ultimately led the Continental Army to victory. At Cornwallis’ surrender to Washington at Yorktown in 1781, the band appropriately played “The World Turned Upside Down.” Significantly, as they fought for the common cause of freedom from British rule, Washington helped his troops forge a new identity as Americans rather than Virginians or men from Massachusetts. Washington’s ability to conceive a nation before many others did, and to put his prestige behind that vision, proved one of his many critical contributions to the formation of the United States.
The country turned to Washington—a national hero credited with the American triumph over the British—again to serve as the first President under the new constitution, to provide leadership that would build a nation from thirteen disparate states. Much as he would have preferred to stay at Mount Vernon, Washington again obeyed the call. As we all know, he established a number of important precedents, including deciding that the President would be addressed as Mr. President, rather than more aristocratic titles such as “His Mightiness,” suggested by John Adams. He also resigned after his second term, establishing a tradition that lasted until FDR and was finally enshrined as a Constitutional amendment in 1951. Both these actions indicate his lack of interest in self-aggrandizement, his humility, and his understanding of what the nascent republic needed.
One of Washington’s skills, and frankly a quality typical of most great leaders, was identifying and surrounding himself with extremely able people. He had done this with his officer corps during the war and he did so again as he appointed his cabinet. Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State, and Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, stood out as among the most brilliant men of their generation. As events unfolded, fierce enmity developed between these two. Washington’s handling of this tense situation once again demonstrated his ability to put the needs of the country ahead of personal interest. He tried as long as he could to keep Jefferson in his cabinet, despite disagreeing with Jefferson’s idealistic attachment to the French Revolution and perhaps more significantly despite Jefferson and Madison’s virulent public campaign against Hamilton and even Washington himself. Washington deplored the development of the political parties that began to coalesce around Hamilton and Jefferson, and implored them to treat each other civilly and respect their differences of opinion. As the two factions garnered strength throughout the country, the partisanship threatened to tear the young republic apart. Washington stayed above the fray and Joseph Ellis, one of his more recent biographers observes that “Without him to center it, the political experiment in republicanism might very well have failed. With him, and in great part because of him, it succeeded.”[i]
Foreign affairs loomed large, particularly during Washington’s second term. The United States was young and weak, and more powerful nations eagerly sought to take advantage of us. Through a series of treaties, Washington’s administration defended U.S. territorial integrity. Through his Proclamation of Neutrality, a position he reinforced in his Farewell Address when he railed against “entangling alliances,” he established the long-standing policy of American neutrality. Failure to take on British aggression or to side with the French revolutionaries, brothers in the overthrow of tyranny, were unpopular decisions but ones that allowed the new nation to concentrate on building itself without expending scarce resources on foreign engagement which promised, to Washington’s mind, no advantage to the U.S.
Of course slavery presents the greatest moral issue of U.S. history, and here again Washington stood above his peers. Like all southern planters, Washington owned slaves, indeed quite a large number. However, over the course of his life, he developed a moral revulsion to slavery and spent a number of years trying to figure out how to disentangle himself from the institution. Always a realist, he could easily be criticized for refusing to support a movement to abolish slavery on a national scale during his presidency—he believed that such action would be too politically divisive. He could also be criticized for not freeing his own slaves during his lifetime. While there were complicated financial reasons that made it difficult for him to emancipate his slaves, by 1793, he had come to the highly unusual conclusion for men of his background that he wished to “liberate a certain species of property which I possess very repugnantly to my feelings.”[ii] Ultimately, he freed his slaves in his will, being very forceful in the wording to his executors on this account. Not only did he free his slaves, but he provided for the care of the elderly no longer be able to work and for children too young to work, including ensuring that they learned to read. He alone among the Founding Fathers took this critical step. Moreover, he did so not just to satisfy his own conscience but, keenly aware of the impact of his actions, to set an example for others.
We cannot underestimate Washington’s contributions to this country. His legacy has stood the test of time and the scrutiny of numerous historians. Ron Chernow, his most recent biographer, summarizes Washington as follows:
History records few examples of a leader who so earnestly wanted to do the right thing, not just for himself but for his country. Avoiding moral shortcuts, he consistently upheld such high ethical standards that he seemed larger than any other figure on the political scene. Again and again the American people had entrusted him with power, secure in the knowledge that he would exercise it fairly and ably and surrender it when his term of office was up. . . . He brought maturity, sobriety, judgment and integrity to a political experiment that could easily have grown giddy with its own vaunted success, and he avoided the backbiting, envy and intrigue that detracted from the achievements of other founders. He had indeed been the indispensable man of the American Revolution.[iii]
The United States’ founding contrasts sharply with most countries’ transition to independence. Consider Senegal, for example, a nation some of us have come to know quite well. Achieving independence from France in 1960, Senegal has been a democracy ever since. The Senegalese people are justifiably proud of their history, all the more significant for its rarity in Africa. However, as I write this, the current president continues his quest to expand executive power and undermine democracy as his police attack demonstrations protesting their leader’s aggregation of power. Washington could have parlayed his military success into dictatorship as so many revolutionary leaders have done, but instead he retired to Mount Vernon. Quite vague about executive power, the Constitution potentially gave Washington the opportunity to construct an imperial presidency and to remain in office for life. He did neither, instinctively balancing the need for a stronger central government with the deep suspicions of power that characterized the revolutionary generation.
As we enjoy this holiday weekend, I hope you’ll take a moment to remember the extraordinary leadership of George Washington, the man whom Congressman Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee eulogized as “First in war—first in peace—and first in the hearts of his countrymen.”
No comments:
Post a Comment