Frederick Douglass on the Constitution and Slavery

By Tony Williams 

In 1860, ex-slave and abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, delivered a powerful speech “The Constitution: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-Slavery?”  Douglass used the speech to criticize his fellow abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison who called the Constitution a “Covenant with Death” and publicly burned the Constitution because he believed it a pro-slavery document.  This view is very common among many modern academics who discredit the Founders for creating a fundamentally flawed constitutional system rooted upon slavery and extinguished through the efforts of uncompromising abolitionists.  

Douglass thought differently. Douglass was a former slave who had escaped the horrors of slavery.  He was raised on a plantation that was many miles from a mother that he rarely saw.  From a young age, he witnessed the brutal whippings of slavery.  His spirit was nearly ruined by a “slavebreaker,” but Douglass recovered his manhood when he fought back and refused to be whipped again.  He eventually learned to read and learned the power of rhetoric by reading The Columbian Orator.  He finally escaped from slavery through the Underground Railroad and recovered his human dignity.  He became such a powerful speaker that his listeners did not believe he was a former slave.  

In 1860, Douglass systematically goes through the supposedly pro-slavery clauses of the Constitution and demolishes the argument that the Constitution is pro-slavery.  Douglass begins with a strong statement that the Constitution is a Newtonian document with immutable principles rather than a “Living Constitution” that can mean whatever the interpreter wants it to mean. 

What, then, is the Constitution?  I will tell you.  It is no vague, indefinite, floating, unsubstantial, ideal something, coloured according to one’s fancy, now a weasel, now a whale, and now nothing.  On the contrary, it is a plainly written document, not in Hebrew or Greek, but in English . . . . The American Constitution is a written instrument full and complete in itself.  No Court in America, no Congress, no President, can add a single word thereto, or take a single word therefrom.  It is a great national enactment done by the people, and can be altered, amended, or added to by the people. 

Many people today believe that Thomas Jefferson did not really mean all people when he wrote “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence and think that they know who Jefferson really meant.  Douglass takes on the same kind of reasoning regarding slavery and the Constitution when he argues that, “The text, and only the text, and not any commentaries or creeds written by those who wished to give the text a meaning apart from its plain meaning . . . . instead of looking to the written paper itself, for its meaning, it were attempted to make us search it out, in the secret motives, and dishonest intentions, of some of the men who took part in writing it.”  For Douglass, the Constitution must “stand or fall, flourish or fade, on its own individual and self-declared character and objects.”

Douglass starts by asserting that the framers purposefully avoided the mention of slavery in the Constitution.  “It so happens that no such words as ‘African slave trade,’ no such words as ‘slave representation,’ no such words as ‘fugitive slaves,” no such words as ‘slave insurrections,’ are anywhere used in that instrument.  These are . . . not the words of the Constitution of the United States.” As Abraham Lincoln said the same year at his Cooper Union address, paraphrasing James Madison at the Constitutional Convention: “Neither the word ‘slave’ nor ‘slavery’ is to be found in the Constitution . . . and that wherever in that instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a ‘person.’” The founders did this “on purpose to exclude from the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man.”

Douglass first addresses the Three-Fifths clause of Article I, section 2 and examines the idea of a slaveholding power.  He indirectly demolishes our modern view that it literally meant that the slaves were considered three-fifths of a person.  Do not forget that the South wanted to count the slave as a full person for the purposes of representation.  Douglass also attacks the idea that this did not create a slave power in the Congress nor did it represent anything less than a compromise over representation and taxation. “A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State, as a basis of political power under the Constitution. Therefore, instead of encouraging slavery, the Constitution encourages freedom by giving an increase of ‘two-fifths’ of political power to free over slave States . . . taking it at its worst, it still leans to freedom, not to slavery,” Douglass avers.

Douglass next addresses the slave trade in Article I, section 9, in which the Congress could not ban the slave trade for 20 years. The founders, Douglass argues, were not protecting the slave trade and thus slavery with this clause but were “providing for the abolition of the slave trade.”  And, indeed on January 1, 1808, that is exactly what happened when the 1807 bill that President Thomas Jefferson signed, went into effect.  Douglass says that the clause “looked to the abolition of slavery rather than to its perpetuity,” and that the founders intentions “were good, not bad.”Douglass tackles the “slave insurrection” clause in Article I, section 8.  He states that “there is no such clause” because it is a general statement that the chief executive has the power and duty to suppress all “riots or insurrections” in the interests of maintaining law and order.  Even if Douglass concedes for the sake of argument that it is aimed at slave insurrections, he turns it on its head and states that, “If it should turn out that slavery is a source of insurrection . . . why, the Constitution would be best obeyed by putting an end to slavery, and an anti-slavery Congress would do that very thing.” 

Finally, Douglass discusses the “Fugitive Slave clause” of Article IV, section 9, and believes that it could only be applied to indentured servants and apprentices because slaves were not “bound to service” in the sense that they were contractually obligated to perform “service and labour,” because they could not legally make contracts. Douglass then examines the larger natural rights principles of the Constitution and argues that they do not support slavery. The purposes of the new constitutional government as stated in the Preamble – union, defense, welfare, tranquility, justice, and liberty – Douglass tells us, “are all good objects, and slavery, so far from being among them, is a foe to them all.” He continues, “Its language is ‘we the people;’ not we the white people.” 

Finally, Douglass argues that “there is no word, no syllable in the Constitution to forbid [abolishing slavery].” The North banned slavery in the wake of the American Revolution, the Northwest Ordinance banned it in that territory, and the Missouri Compromise banned it in the northern part of the Louisiana Territory. Douglass states that, “The Constitution will afford slavery no protection.” Douglass’ speech was aimed as much at the radical abolitionists as slave owners as he thought it remarkably imprudent to say “No union with slaveholders.” If the North were to let the South secede, then there would be no moral pressure to end slavery in the new confederacy. It flourishes best where it meets no reproving frowns, and hears no condemning voices. While in the Union it will meet with both . . . . I am, therefore, for drawing the bond of Union more closely.” 

___________________________

 Tony Williams is the Program Director of the WJMI and the author of four books, including "America’s Beginnings: The Dramatic Events that Shaped a Nation’s Character. 

Daniel Webster’s “Liberty & Union” Speech

Daniel Webster (January 18, 1782 – October 24, 1852) was a leading American senator from Massachusetts during the period leading up to the Civil War. Webster’s “Liberty & Union” Speech (or “The Second Reply to Hayne,” delivered in the U. S. Senate on January 26-27, 1830) argues against the proposed doctrine of nullification (the alleged right of a state to defy or refuse to obey a federal law). It is considered one of the greatest speeches on the Constitution during the first half of the 19th century. Following are excerpts:

“THERE YET REMAINS to be performed, Mr. President, by far the most grave and important duty which I feel to be devolved on me by this occasion. It is to state, and to defend, what I conceive to be the true principles of the Constitution under which we are here assembled…

The inherent right in the people to reform their government I do not deny; and they have another right, and that is to resist unconstitutional laws without overturning the government. It is no doctrine of mine that unconstitutional laws bind the people. The great question is-Whose prerogative is it to decide on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the laws? On that, the main debate hinges…

I say, the right of a state to annul a law of Congress cannot be maintained but on the ground of the inalienable right of man to resist oppression; that is to say, upon the ground of revolution. I admit that there is an ultimate violent remedy, above the Constitution and in defiance of the Constitution, which may be resorted to when a revolution is to be justified. But I do not admit that, under the Constitution and in conformity with it, there is any mode in which a state government, as a member of the Union, can interfere and stop the progress of the general government, by force of her own laws, under any circumstance whatever.

This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government and the source of its power. Whose agent is it? Is it the creature of the state legislatures, or the creature of the people? If the government of the United States be the agent of the state governments, then they may control it, provided they can agree in the manner of controlling it; if it be the agent of the people, then the people alone can control it, restrain it, modify, or reform it…

It is, sir, the people's Constitution, the people's government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people. The people of the United States have declared that this Constitution shall be the supreme law. We must either admit the proposition or dispute their authority. The states are, unquestionably, sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not affected by this supreme law. But the state legislatures, as political bodies, however sovereign, are yet not sovereign over the people. So far as the people have given power to the general government, so far the grant is unquestionably good, and the government holds of the people and not of the state governments. We are all agents of the same supreme power, the people…

This government, sir, is the independent offspring of the popular will. It is not the creature of state legislatures; nay, more, if the whole truth must be told, the people brought it into existence, established it, and have hitherto supported it for the very purpose, among others, of imposing certain salutary restraints on state sovereignties…

The people, then, sir, erected this government. They gave it a Constitution, and in that Constitution they have enumerated the powers which they bestow on it. They have made it a limited government. They have defined its authority. They have restrained it to the exercise of such powers as are granted; and all others, they declare, are reserved to the states or the people…

But while the people choose to maintain it as it is, while they are satisfied with it and refuse to change it, who has given, or who can give, to the state legislatures a right to alter it, either by interference, construction, or otherwise? Gentlemen do not seem to recollect that the people have any power to do anything for themselves. They imagine there is no safety for them, any longer than they are under the close guardianship of the state legislatures. Sir, the people have not trusted their safety, in regard to the general Constitution, to these hands. They have required other security, and taken other bonds.

They have chosen to trust themselves, first, to the plain words of the instrument, and to such construction as the government themselves, in doubtful cases, should put on their own powers, under their oaths of office, and subject to their responsibility to them; just as the people of a state trust their own state governments with a similar power.

Second, they have reposed their trust in the efficacy of frequent elections, and in their own power to remove their own servants and agents whenever they see cause,

Third, they have reposed trust in the judicial power, which, in order that it might he trustworthy, they have made as respectable, as disinterested, and as independent as was practicable.

Fourth, they have seen fit to rely, in case of necessity, or high expediency, on their known and admitted power to after or amend the Constitution, peaceably and quietly, whenever experience shall point out defects or imperfections.

And, finally, the people of the United States have at no time, in no way, directly or indirectly authorized any state legislature to construe or interpret their high instrument of government, much less to interfere, by their own power, to arrest its course and operation…

I profess, sir, in my career hitherto, to have kept steadily in view the prosperity and honor of the whole country, and the preservation of our federal Union. It is to that Union we owe our safety at home, and our consideration and dignity abroad. It is to that Union that we are chiefly indebted for whatever makes us most proud of our country… It has been to us all a copious fountain of national, social, and personal happiness.

I have not allowed myself, sir, to look beyond the Union, to see what might he hidden in the dark recess behind. I have not coolly weighed the chances of preserving liberty when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. I have not accustomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, I can fathom the depth of the abyss below; nor could I regard him as a safe counselor in the affairs in this government whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not how the Union may be best preserved but how tolerable might be the condition of the people when it should be broken up and destroyed. While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil.

God grant that in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise! God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind! When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on states dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original luster, not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single star obscured, bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as "What is all this worth?" nor those other words of delusion and folly, "Liberty first and Union afterwards"; but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American heart -- Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!”

______________________

Source: The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster, Boston, 1903, Vol. VI, pp. 3-75, as published in The Annals of America, Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 5, 1968, pp. 347-355.

Photo: Statue of Daniel Webster in Central Park, New York City, New York

John & Abigail Adams' Peacefield

Two hundred and forty years ago, on February 28, 1774, John Adams purchased his father’s homestead near Braintee (now Quincy), Massachusetts which he and Abigail later named “Peacefield.”  Here is the entry in John’s journal from that day:

_________________

 1774. FEBY. 28.

I purchased of my Brother, my fathers Homestead, and House where I was born. The House, Barn and thirty five acres of Land of which the Homestead consists, and Eighteen acres of Pasture in the North Common, cost me 440. This is a fine addition, to what I had there before, of arable, and Meadow. The Buildings and the Water, I wanted, very much.

That beautifull, winding, meandering Brook, which runs thro this farm, always delighted me.

How shall I improve it? Shall I try to introduce fowl Meadow And Herds Grass, into the Meadows? or still better Clover and Herdsgrass?

I must ramble over it, and take a View. The Meadow is a great Object -- I suppose near 10 Acres of [it] -- perhaps more -- and may be made very good, if the Mill below, by overflowing it, dont prevent. Flowing is profitable, if not continued too late in the Spring.

This Farm is well fenced with Stone Wall against the Road, against Vesey, against Betty Adams's Children, vs. Ebenezer Adams, against Moses Adams, and against me.

The North Common Pasture has a numerous Growth of Red Cedars upon it, perhaps 1000, which in 20 years if properly pruned may be worth a Shilling each. It is well walled in all round. The Prunings of those Cedars will make good Browse for my Cattle in Winter, and good fuel when the Cattle have picked off all they will eat. There is a Quantity of good Stone in it too.

 ___________________

“The John Adams and John Quincy Adams Birthplaces are the oldest presidential birthplaces in the United States. In 1735, John Adams was born in the "salt box" house located only 75 feet away from the birthplace of his son John Quincy Adams. In the John Quincy Adams Birthplace, young John and his bride Abigail started their family and the future President launched his career in politics and law. John Adams maintained his law office in the house and it was here that he, Samuel Adams and James Bowdoin wrote the Massachusetts Constitution. This document, still in use today, greatly influenced development of the United States Constitution.

The Old House, built in 1731, became the residence of the Adams family for four generations from 1788 to 1927. It was home to Presidents John Adams and John Quincy Adams; First Ladies Abigail and Louisa Catherine Adams; Civil War Minister to Great Britain Charles Francis Adams; and literary historians Henry and Brooks Adams. …Adjacent to the house is the Stone Library, built in 1873, it contains more than 14,000 books that belonged to the Adamses. …the Old House grounds which include a historic orchard and an 18th-century style formal garden, [contain] thousands of annual and perennial flowers.” (http://www.nps.gov/adam/historyculture/places.htm)

Remembering George Washington as Father of our Nation

By: J. David Gowdy

Americans remembered and honored Washington on his Birthday long before Congress declared it a federal holiday.[1] Each February 22^nd, in numerous towns and cities, citizens gathered, bands marched and played and patriotic speeches were given in tribute to our first President.[2]  His adopted hometown of Alexandria, Virginia continues this tradition.[3]

The centennial of Washington’s birth in 1832 prompted festivities nationally and Congress established a Joint Committee to arrange for the occasion.[4] The House of Representatives and the Senate commemorated the 130th Anniversary of Washington's birth in 1862 by reading aloud his Farewell Address (this became a tradition that is still observed to this day).  Also, in that same year of 1862, on February 19^th, President Abraham Lincoln issued this Presidential Proclamation to all Americans:

It is recommended to the people of the United States that they assemble in their customary places of meeting for public solemnities on the twenty-second day of February instant, and celebrate the anniversary of the birth of the Father of His Country by causing to be read to them his immortal Farewell address.[5]

More than a passing thought, how many of us as citizens, and how many of our nation’s students, will take time to read and ponder Washington’s Farewell Address? 

It is not always easy for us to remember our own immediate ancestors, let alone a man who lived and died over 200 years ago. Yet, there is a power in remaining connected to our past …to our fathers. As Alexander Solzhenitsyn said, “A people which no longer remembers has lost its history and its soul.”  Let us ask, can a nation forget their father?  Can we divorce the Father of our Nation, or his memory, from the harsh social and economic realities we face in this country as children whose hearts have ostensibly turned from him, ignored his counsel, and even abandoned his legacy?  In the halls of Congress, in our schools, and in our homes … have we forgotten George Washington?

Today, many historians continue to debate whether he was a Christian or a deist  – but no one who earnestly studies his life can doubt that he was a truly virtuous and religious man, by any standard. As Thomas Jefferson said of him, Washington “was, indeed, in every sense of the words, a wise, a good, and a great man.”[6] 

The story of young Washington chopping down the Cherry tree was discredited decades ago, and yet if there ever was an honest statesman and President – he is that man. In spite of that, many self-anointed “experts” have continued to “chop down” Washington himself, while some prominent leaders and politicians embrace equivocations and shades of dishonesty as an “art of governance.”

His portrait used to hang in the halls of our schools,  and his “Immortal” Farewell Address was once required reading for American Civics in high schools and universities.[7]  Now the most students seem to learn of him is that he owned slaves and had “wooden teeth” (his dentures were actually made of ivory).

Finally, some of our generation have dismissed Washington as “racist” – blindly ignoring his life and sacrifices devoted to human liberty, and the foundation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence that he and others laid for us upon which to labor to complete the difficult work of racial equality that they first undertook. Unfortunately, we have come to expect that all great changes must be achieved in a single lifetime, or in the equivalent of a movie trilogy…

Two hundred twenty five years ago this April 30th, 1789, George Washington sworn in as the first President of the United States. Washington took his Constitutional oath of office with his right hand resting on the Bible, which had been opened to Genesis, chapter 49.  His head bowed in a reverential manner, he added in a clear and distinct voice, "I swear, so help me God!"*(see comment) then bowing over the Bible, he reverently kissed it, whereupon Mr. Livingston exclaimed in a ringing voice, "Long live George Wash­ington, President of the United States!" To preserve the memory of that event, a page was inserted in that Bible with the date and an inscription that included this poetic verse:

            Fame stretched her wings and with her trumpet blew.
            Great Washington is near. What praise is due?
            What title shall he have? She paused, and said
            ‘Not one - his name alone strikes every title dead.[7]

George Washington passed from this life on December 14^th, 1799.  In the Official Eulogy delivered by Henry Lee of Virginia, he declared that Washington was "First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen."   Is it still so, or can it be so?  It is our sincere hope at the Washington, Jefferson & Madison Institute that our nation’s teachers and parents will faithfully continue, or choose to commence, the study and teaching of Washington’s life and character, and his Farewell Address, thus turning our hearts and our children’s hearts to him, that our generation and generations to come will not fail to remember and honor America’s Founding Father.

J. David Gowdy is the Founder and President of the Washington, Jefferson & Madison Institute.

---

[1] Washington’s birthday was first celebrated at Valley Forge on February 11, 1778 (Washington was 46 years old) with a serenade by the band of the Fourth Continental Artillery.

[2]  See, e.g., February 22, 1860 Celebration in New York City, http://www.nytimes.com/1860/02/23/news/washington-s-birthday-inauguration-mill-s-statue-washington-speech-hon-thomas-s.html; and "George Washington Birthday Celebrations," http://www.raggedsoldier.com/wash_bday.pdf
[3] The city celebrates the General's birthday throughout the month of February with more than a dozen festivities, including the George Washington Birthday Parade. See http://www.visitalexandriava.com/calendar-of-events/alexandria-george-washington-birthday/

[4]  National Archives online: http://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/washington/

[5] Abraham Lincoln, Executive Letter dated February 19, 1862, James D. Richardson, ed., "Messages and Papers of the Presidents," (Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.,1902), 5:3289-90.

[6]  Jefferson to Dr. Walter Jones, January 2, 1814, ME 14:48-52.

[7]  See Minutes of the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia, March 4, 1825, ME 19:460-61 (http://www.liberty1.org/UVA1825.pdf). In contrast to our modern Civics textbooks, during the 19^th Century prominent Constitutional textbooks written for use in public schools included the entire text of the Farewell Address, such as Furman Sheppard’s The Constitutional Text-Book: A Practical and Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, (Childs & Peterson, Philadelphia, 1855), and Harvard law professor Joseph Story’s A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (Harper & Brothers, New York, 1884).

[8]  Bible owned by Ancient York Masons, St. John’s Lodge No. 1, See: http://www.stjohns1.org/portal/gwib

George Washington: The Indispensable President

By Stephen F. Knott 

With all due respect to Tom Brokaw and our World War II veterans, the founding generation was the greatest American generation. The American founders defeated the superpower of their time and overcame parochial interests and powerful passions to prove that “societies of men are really capable … of establishing good government from reflection and choice.”

What was true of the founding as a whole was true of the American presidency – George Washington was the “indispensable man.” Washington’s reputation for integrity legitimated an office that was viewed with suspicion by many of his fellow citizens. Washington was the only national figure who was known to his fellow citizens (other than Benjamin Franklin, who was 83 when Washington was elected) and trusted by them to safely wield the powers the president was granted in article two of the new Constitution. Suffice it to say that these powers were unlikely to have been granted without the assumption by the delegates at the Constitutional Convention that George Washington would be the first president.

George Washington was inaugurated on April 30, 1789, taking the helm of an executive branch with a mandate to execute, and more importantly, define, the nebulous powers of article two.  His great collaborator and author of the Federalist essays explaining the powers of the presidency was Alexander Hamilton who had a significant influence on President Washington.

In his Federalist essays Hamilton argued that an “energetic executive” was a crucial ingredient for the preservation of the nation and the protection of liberty. Hamilton contended that the President needed to be equipped with “competent powers” and be given incentives to resist congressional incursions on his power through a fixed salary and a lengthy term of office that would allow him to implement his plans. Hamilton also argued that “unity” in the executive, meaning one person, not a committee, was a vital element for presidential success. He noted in Federalist # 74 that “of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand.” The president brings to the conduct of war and foreign policy the essential qualities of “decision, activity, secrecy and dispatch.” Again, for Washington and Hamilton the ability of the nation to coherently conduct war and foreign affairs was deeply felt by both men, for they had seen, up close and personal, the near-disastrous results of conducting war by committee.

George Washington wasted no time in attempting to flesh out the details of the President’s article two powers (and he wasted no time appointing his first cabinet member, Alexander Hamilton). Washington’s First Annual Message to Congress (commonly referred to today as “The State of the Union Address”) included a request for a “secret service fund.” This fund would be controlled by the president and would allow the chief executive to conduct secret operations free from congressional oversight. The “Contingency Fund” passed in 1790 and granted the President the authority to avoid the usual reporting procedures mandated by Congress – the President was essentially given a blank check in order to conduct clandestine operations he deemed to be in the national interest. Those who claim today that the founders were champions of transparency and deference to Congress in the conduct of foreign relations, especially regarding secret operations, are simply wrong.

George Washington set a number of other precedents that would be cited by his successors to justify presidential leadership in matters of war and national security. In the early days of his presidency, Washington believed that his power to negotiate treaties was shared with the Senate, but after a dismal experience where he genuinely sought the advice of the upper chamber, he quickly abandoned the practice. Washington also refused in 1795 to hand over to the House of Representatives correspondence related to the Jay Treaty with Great Britain by invoking for the first time the doctrine of what would become known as executive privilege. And most importantly, by issuing his Neutrality Proclamation of 1793, announcing that the United States would remain neutral in the war between Britain and France, Washington made it clear that while Congress had the power to declare war the president had the authority to declare American neutrality in the absence of such a declaration.

Washington shaped many other aspects of the presidency that we take for granted today. He created the president’s cabinet (and what a cabinet it was); he fulfilled his constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” by suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794; he established (in concert with James Madison) the precedent that the president alone possessed the power to remove executive branch appointees; and perhaps most importantly, he left a legacy of respect for the new office through his deft blend of accessibility and detachment – Washington’s frequent presidential tours of the nation allowed the people to see their president, although always at a distance. This was not a glad handing president who pandered to the people and tried to win their affection by presenting himself as a “regular guy.” Washington believed that the people wanted to look up to their president, and that a certain amount of awe toward the office, even in a republic, was an attribute that contributed to a respectable government.

George Washington and Alexander Hamilton understood something many modern political scientists do not: that the more you democratize the office of the presidency, the more you diminish it. It is important to note that the constitutional presidency provides both a floor and a ceiling that protects but also energizes the office; without this, the office is trapped in a cycle of raised expectations followed by public disappointment and cynicism.

A century of disregard for the Constitution has damaged our nation’s polity, possibly beyond repair. Too much is expected of the federal government, especially the presidency. Even strong nationalists like Hamilton acknowledged limits to what the presidency should do: it should concentrate on administering the government, conduct foreign negotiations, oversee military preparations, and if need be, direct a war. It should not attempt to democratize the world, comfort the sad, or heal the planet. The prospects are remote that we can roll back some of the more egregious elements of the personalized presidency, since any such effort would be portrayed as an attempt to neuter the presidency. Yet the founder’s “energetic” presidency possessed formidable powers, including the ability to respond to emergencies through the vesting clause; the veto power; the Commander-in-Chief power; the pardon power; the power to receive ambassadors (making him the nation’s chief diplomat); and the shared power over treaties and appointments. A restoration of the constitutional presidency might even force Congress to begin to conduct itself in a manner intended by the framers.  While the prospects for such a restoration may be remote, the hope remains that the American experiment will be restored to full health.

_________________________

Presidential historian Stephen F. Knott is a member of the WJMI Board of Visitors and a Professor of National Security Affairs at the United States Naval War College. He served as co-chair of the University of Virginia's Presidential Oral History Program and is the author of several books, including Alexander Hamilton and the Persistence of Myth and Rush to Judgment: George W. Bush, the War on Terror, and His Critics. 

George Washington's Finest Hour

In December, 1782, as General George Washington awaited news of a preliminary peace treaty with Great Britain, he had little reason to be optimistic.  The British still occupied New York, a congressional tax on imports had failed, and his soldiers had not been paid in months or years.  In the midst of these continuing difficulties, a delegation of three officers rode into Philadelphia to issue a warning to Congress. 

The officers met with certain key nationalist members of Congress such as Alexander Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris, as well as with financier, Robert Morris, hatching a plan to use the discontent in the army to force Congress to adopt more powers adequate to a national government.  It was a dangerous game to play in a fledgling republic. 

On January 6, 1783, the officers presented an ominous petition to Congress: “We have borne all that men can bear – our property is expended – our private resources are at an end, and our friends are wearied out and disgusted with our incessant applications.”  The officers demanded that Congress make good on its promise of a half-pension as an “honorable and just recompense for several years hard service in which the health and fortunes of the officers have been worn down and exhausted.”  They gave a final warning of the consequences of not paying the army: “The uneasiness of the soldiers, for want of pay, is great and dangerous; any further experiments on their patience may have fatal effects.” 

Congress responded by appointing a committee.  Meanwhile, Robert Morris ratcheted up the pressure on that body by threatening to resign if Congress did not establish a “permanent provision for public debts.”  Hamilton, Washington’s former intimate aide, worked on the general to win over his support for the scheme.  “The claims of the army urged with moderation, but with firmness . . . may add weight to the applications of Congress to the several states.” 

Washington, however, was not taking the bait.  From his humble acceptance of the position of commander of the Continental Army through his continued deference to the civilian government during the war despite the constant sufferings of the army due to a penurious Congress and state governments, Washington was unwaveringly dedicated to the republican government. 

When the general caught wind of the plot afoot among the officers at Newburgh, he feared that their machinations would plunge the nation “into a gulph of civil horror.”  Washington was sympathetic to their plight and the continental vision but would not countenance military threats to the civilian government.  He called a meeting of the officers at the appropriately-named Temple of Virtue on March 15 – the Ides of March. 

When General Washington unexpectedly marched into the meetinghouse, he immediately addressed the men with a deeply-moving speech, appealing to their patriotic and republican principles:

Let me conjure you, in the name of our common country, as you value your own sacred honor, as you respect the rights of humanity, and as you regard the military and national character of America, to express your utmost horror and detestation of the man who wishes, under any specious pretences, to overturn the liberties of our country, and who wickedly attempts to open the flood gates of civil discord, and deluge our rising empire in blood . . . By thus acting you will give one more distinguished proof of unexampled patriotism and patient virtue, rising superior to the pressure of the most complicated sufferings.  And you will, by the dignity of your conduct, afford occasion for posterity to say, when speaking of your glorious example you have exhibited to mankind, “had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining.” 

Washington loved the theater throughout his life, especially his favorite play, Joseph Addison’s Cato.  Indeed, he had been playing the role of the aloof general for years and commanded as much as anything by his presence.  He understood the human response to a dramatic gesture.  At Newburgh, he pulled out a pair of spectacles, candidly admitting his declining vigor in front of his men, muttering, “Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray, but almost blind, in the service of my country.” 

The cabal collapsed on the spot.  The tension broke and the officers wept openly.  They pledged their “unshaken confidence” in Congress. 

In the end, Congress failed to fulfill its promises and never assumed greater powers.  These failures would help lead to the Constitutional Convention to erect a new framework of government with adequate powers.

For now, Washington established the critically important precedent that in America the republican civilian government was superior to the military.  Washington could easily have decided to march on Congress and become a Caesar or Alexander.  Instead, he became as the legendary Roman Cincinnatus who patriotically served the republic and returned to his plow. 

To paraphrase Churchill’s great praise for the fighter pilots who defeated the Nazi air assault in the Battle of Britain, perhaps we can say of the virtuous Washington that if the American republic lasts a thousand years, men will say, this was his finest hour. 

_________________________________

Tony Williams is the WJMI Program Director and the author of four books including America’s Beginnings: The Dramatic Events that Shaped a Nation’s Character.  

The Character of George Washington as described by Thomas Jefferson

By: J. David Gowdy

George Washington had a complex, constantly evolving relationship with Thomas Jefferson. Prior to the Revolutionary War, Washington and Jefferson labored together as delegates from Virginia to the Continental Congress during 1775. After the war, under the newly adopted Constitution, Thomas Jefferson was appointed by Washington as his first Secretary of State in the new cabinet, where he served from March 22, 1790, to December 31, 1793.  Though Washington and Jefferson’s relationship grew to be somewhat contentious by the end of Washington’s life due to party politics (Jefferson refused to attend memorial services for the President), the two were not always at odds personally and politically. Their dedication to the cause of the American Revolution by far proved to be their greatest common bond; however, as Mary Stockwell points out they were alike in even more ways. Both were “tall redhead[s] from the middling planter class,” “who raised their social and economic “status by marrying a wealthy widow.” Additionally, “Jefferson considered himself a farmer and spent his life improving his plantations… just as Washington cared for Mount Vernon.” (1)

Jefferson and Washington corresponded over many years.  Washington wrote to Jefferson about the Constitutional Convention while he was in France.  In addition to political matters, they wrote each other about western lands and agricultural topics.  Thomas Jefferson admired the pecan tree and sent seeds to George Washington, who planted and cared for his own pecans. Today those pecans have the distinction of being the oldest living trees at Mount Vernon. (2)

In Paris, while serving as Ambassador to France, Thomas Jefferson owned two portraits of George Washington, a full-length by Charles Willson Peale and a half-length by Joseph Wright.  Before leaving Paris, Jefferson presented the Peale to Madame de Tessé. Wright's portrait of Washington became part of the art collection at Monticello. 

After Jefferson resigned from Washington’s cabinet in 1793, he soon became the leader of the Democratic-Republican Party.  He  was elected Vice President in 1796 and President in 1801. In his inaugural address delivered on March 4, 1801, Jefferson called Washington “our first and greatest revolutionary character, whose preeminent services had entitled him to the first place in his country’s love.” Later, upon founding the University of Virginia, Jefferson recommended Washington’s Farewell Address as part of the required reading for the study of the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a detailed description of the great qualities of mind and character possessed by George Washington in a letter written fourteen years after Washington’s death:

I think I knew General Washington intimately and thoroughly; and were I called on to delineate his character, it should be in terms like these.

His mind was great and powerful, without being of the very first order; his penetration strong, though, not so acute as that of a Newton, Bacon, or Locke; and as far as he saw, no judgment was ever sounder. It was slow in operation, being little aided by invention or imagination, but sure in conclusion. Hence the common remark of his officers, of the advantage he derived from councils of war, where hearing all suggestions, he selected whatever was best; and certainly no General ever planned his battles more judiciously. But if deranged during the course of the action, if any member of his plan was dislocated by sudden circumstance, he was slow in re-adjustment. The consequence was, that he often failed in the field, and rarely against an enemy in station, as at Boston and York. He was incapable of fear, meeting personal dangers with the calmest unconcern. Perhaps the strongest feature in his character was prudence, never acting until every circumstance, every consideration, was maturely weighed; refraining if he saw a doubt, but, when once decided, going through with his purpose, whatever obstacles opposed. His integrity was most pure, his justice the most inflexible I have ever known, no motives of interest or consanguinity, of friendship or hatred, being able to bias his decision. He was, indeed, in every sense of the words, a wise, a good, and a great man. His temper was naturally high toned; but reflection and resolution had obtained a firm and habitual ascendancy over it. If ever, however, it broke its bonds, he was most tremendous in his wrath. In his expenses he was honorable, but exact; liberal in contributions to whatever promised utility; but frowning and unyielding on all visionary projects and all unworthy calls on his charity. His heart was not warm in its affections; but he exactly calculated every man’s value, and gave him a solid esteem proportioned to it. His person, you know, was fine, his stature exactly what one would wish, his deportment easy, erect and noble; the best horseman of his age, and the most graceful figure that could be seen on horseback. . . .

On the whole, his character was, in its mass, perfect, in nothing bad, in few points indifferent; and it may truly be said, that never did nature and fortune combine more perfectly to make a man great, and to place him in the same constellation with whatever worthies have merited from man an everlasting remembrance.

For his was the singular destiny and merit, of leading the armies of his country successfully through an arduous war, for the establishment of its independence; of conducting its councils through the birth of a government, new in its forms and principles, until it had settled down into a quiet and orderly train; and of scrupulously obeying the laws through the whole of his career, civil and military, of which the history of the world furnishes no other example. . . .

We knew his honesty …

I felt on his death, with my countrymen, that “verily a great man hath fallen this day in Israel.” (3)

____________________________

(1) See: http://www.georgewashingtonwired.org/2013/05/29/encyclopedia-entry-thomas-jefferson/; and Stockwell, Ph.D., “Thomas Jefferson” (Mount Vernon Digital Encyclopedia), http://www.mountvernon.org/educational-resources/encyclopedia/thomas-jefferson
(2) http://www.arborday.org/programs/nationaltree/pecan.cfm
(3) Jefferson to Dr. Walter Jones, January 2, 1814, ME 14:48-52.