Picking up on some of the themes of last week’s episode – historians Lindsay Chervinsky and Craig Bruce Smith discuss how George Washington conceived of civic virtue, honor, and public service both as a general and as president. They explain why, during the Revolution, “without Washington there was no army” and, how, later, President Washington was considered by many to be “the embodiment of the nation.” Smith and Chervinsky offer a holistic portrayal of Washington — the good and the bad — and contemplate his constitutional legacy as the creator of a powerful executive branch and the first president to peacefully transfer power. Washington’s birthday is this Saturday, February 22.
Correction: In this episode, Jeff mistakenly said that Alexis Coe’s book You Never Forget Your First: A Biography of George Washington includes a claim that Washington “likely engaged in premarital sex - nonconsensual sex - with an enslaved woman.” Instead, Coe actually quotes a letter written about Washington that describes his possible premarital sex with a “Cirprian Dame,” and explains what that term might have meant.
FULL PODCAST
PARTICIPANTS
Lindsay Chervinsky is White House Historian at the White House Historical Association. Prior to that, she completed her postdoctoral fellowship at the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University. Her book The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution will be published in spring 2020.
Craig Bruce Smith is an assistant professor of military history at the School of Advanced Military Studies at the US Army Command and General Staff College in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Previously, he was an assistant professor of hisory and the director of the history program at William Woods University. He authored American Honor: The Creation of the Nation’s Ideal during the Revolutionary Era (2018) and co-authored George Washington’s Lessons in Ethical Leadership (2017).
Jeffrey Rosen is the president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization devoted to educating the public about the U.S. Constitution. Rosen is also professor of law at The George Washington University Law School and a contributing editor of The Atlantic.
Additional Resources
- “How American Honor Became a Potent Political Weapon” by Craig Bruce Smith in Washington Post
- American Honor: The Creation of the Nation's Ideals during the Revolutionary Era by Craig Bruce Smith
- The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution by Lindsay Chervinsky
- “Interpreting Article II, Section 2: George Washington and the President's Powers” by Lindsay Chervinsky in American Society for Legal History Law and History Review
- Democracy: An American Novel by Henry Adams
This episode was engineered by Dave Stotz with editing by Greg Scheckler and its producer Jackie McDermott. Research was provided by Michael Markus and Lana Ulrich.
Stay Connected and Learn More
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.
Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.
TRANSCRIPT
This transcript may not be in its final form, accuracy may vary, and it may be updated or revised in the future.
Jeffrey Rosen: [00:00:00] I'm Jeffrey Rosen, President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, and welcome to We the People. That weekly show of constitutional debate. The National Constitution Center is a nonpartisan nonprofit chartered by Congress to increase awareness and understanding of the Constitution among the American people.
On Monday, we celebrated Presidents Day here at the National Constitution Center. It was so wonderful to see the center full of kids in costumes of the presidents and other historic figures. And this Saturday, we celebrate George Washington's Birthday, happy birthday president Washington. So on this episode, we will explore his values, his conception of civic virtue, his constitutional philosophy, and his approach to the presidency.
I'm joined by two of America's leading historians of George Washington and I'm so thrilled that they both convened for this discussion. Dr. Chervinsky is White house historian at the White House Historical Association. She was previously a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for presidential history at Southern Methodist University. And her new book, The President's Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution will be published this spring. Lindsay, thank you so much for joining.
Lindsay Chervinsky: [00:01:19] Thanks so much for having me.
Rosen: [00:01:21] And Smith is Assistant Professor of military history at the School of Advanced military studies at the US Army Command and General Staff College in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. previously, he was an assistant professor of history and the director of the history program at William Woods University. He is the author of American Honor: The Creation of the Nation's Ideals During the Revolutionary Era. And he co-authored George Washington's Lessons in Ethical Leadership. All of the views he expresses on this program are his own. Craig, it is wonderful to have you with us.
Craig Bruce Smith: [00:01:57] Oh, thanks so much. Thrilled to be here.
Rosen: [00:01:59] Craig, let us begin with you, your book American Honor: The Creation of the Nation's Ideals During the Revolutionary Era, picks up on a great discussion we had on last week's podcast about civic virtue and the founders. And in your book, you argued that the notion of civic virtue changed during the founding era from one based on hierarchy and tradition to one based on ethics. And that sense it was democratized. And you talk, of course, about George Washington's contribution to that evolution. And you single out his teenage list of the rules of civility and decent behavior and company which sounds a lot like, Benjamin Franklin's 13 Virtues, which we talked about last week.
are those rules of civility, the best place for listeners to begin to get a sense of Washington's conception of honor. And tell us about how his conception of honor changed along with those of other founders during the founding era?
Smith: [00:02:55] Well, it's, it's a really long and drawn out topic that I'm going to condense. so I think you, you're absolutely right in your characterization of how, civic virtue and more- more so the term honor change particularly among, in Washington's life, which had a tremendous impact and how it was huge, in the new nation more generally.
so his- his rules of civility, you can get a glimpse into the- the thinking of a young Washington then, but the ... there's some, there's some issues there. And it's largely the rules of civility, which you could purchase pretty much at any, any historical site gift shop. they weren't ... he wasn't the actual author. they were taken ... the ... It's a really circuitous place where they came from. They're Italian English should have etiquette guides, and at the very least, it could have just been in handwriting exercise for- for Washington. But it shows his understanding of the more traditional, rules of honor and gentility, and, everyone has a certain a physician in how one was to carry themselves and how that would, relate how they would be viewed by society.
if you want to look at the earlier sort of understanding of- of Washington and- and- and what he thought honor, and virtue was you have to look at what he read things like The Spectator or novels such as, Tom Jones, and that's where he's really taking his ideas of what honor meant.
his father dies when he's very young, 11 years old, and he doesn't have access to the English education like his older half brothers do. And he sort of cultivates his own sense of what honor is from- from, reading, but also from his interactions with his older half brother, Lawrence Washington, who marries into the Fairfax family who were titled aristocrats. And Washington's version is very much in line with an older, British aristocratic model. and it's going to- to evolve through the French and Indian War and into the American Revolution.
quick rule of thumb that ... or a quick definition I like to use is, honor and v- ... honor traditionally was related to reputation, s- ... birth status, and even things such as valor on the battlefield. Virtue was usually tied to religion. and the further north you went honor and virtue became separated, virtue took precedence over honor. And the further south you went, the terms could almost be interchangeable.
What is going to change though, for Washington during the French Indian War is he initially is very consumed about rank and he's going to resign oversights to his honor. he is going to resign saying that he's doing so for his honor first and his country second. by the American Revolution he is going to assume, the role of commander in chief and he's gonna say he's doing it for, his country's honor first and his own character, second. It's a conscious choice.
And for Washington, honor and virtue are essentially interchangeable. They're tied to an ethical idea. And it's tied to the greater good of the nation. He's going to say later on that any post is honorable if it's in service of the nation of the country, paraphrasing slightly.
So for Washington, it was acting in the best interest of the nation that was deemed honorable, not necessarily your birth, not necessarily your position, but rather, how you acted for the greater good. Now, it doesn't mean that that social hierarchy vanishes, but it opens up a degree of social mobility or democratization that did not exist prior to the American Revolution. And a lot of these lessons he learned from, the treatment he received at the hands of British officers during the French and Indian War. And then that becomes sort of collectivized in- in how Americans understood the resistance, to British taxation and other forms of oppression, from the 1760s into the 1770s.
Rosen: [00:07:00] Thank you so much for that fascinating introduction to Washington's conception of honor, which you define as an ethical idea of the greater good of the nation and acting in the best interest of the nation rather than in your self interest.
Lindsay, tell us more about, first of all, the sources of that idea of honor for Washington. Craig mentioned Joseph Addison's The Spectator, a magazine that influenced all of the founders. May- maybe you could tell us about some of the Greek and Roman philosophical sources of it. And then how did it play out during Washington's presidency? How did he embody this ideal of disinterestedness and the public good that transcended partisan politics?
Chervinsky: [00:07:43] Sure. Well, all of the, founding generation, they tended to be very well versed in history. And they were deep lovers of ... and students of history as well. And as historians, I'm sure I can speak for Craig that we applaud that about them.
and Washington, well, he didn't have a traditional education. As Craig mentioned, he was very aware of his traditional shortcomings. And so he worked hard to read and to try and supplement that education, in whatever way possible. He was constantly buying books for his entire life. And if someone recommended something or spoke about something at a dinner party, or at a lunch, he would go and buy it to make sure that the next time it came up, he could be familiar with the subject they were talking about.
There's a great story when Washington was in Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention. He went out with Benjamin Franklin and the Spanish minister and they were talking about Don Quixote and Washington hadn't read it, and, was a little embarrassed about the fact that he hadn't read it. And so the next day he went and he found a copy, and he ordered it and took it home and read it and was able to finally then write a letter to Benjamin Franklin about the book. And then a couple of months later, he received in the mail a- a present from the Spanish minister, and he said, I hope you will accept this gift. It is the most beautiful version of Don Quixote I could find. it's has unbelievable details and designs and pictures and inscriptions. Of course, it was in Spanish, which Washington couldn't read. But nonetheless, it was a very generous gift.
and I love this story, because it shows that Washington was never content with the knowledge and the experience he had, but he was constantly searching for more and that included the antiquities and the classics and the Greek and Roman mythology. but he was also really a man of experience and his experience was what I think shapes who he was when he got to a place of real leadership for the nation. And he discovered very early on during the Revolutionary War that, for many of the soldiers, they believed that Washington was essentially equivalent to the army. Without the ... Washington, there was no army. And without the army, there was no war.
And so Washington in a lot of ways, was the embodiment of the nation. And that is a tremendous burden to carry for any person, let alone one that was, ill-equipped in terms of actual ammunitions and soldiers and equipment. And so he, I think, had a sense of duty and honor that was really forged by hardship, and by the burdens of- of that position, and that really crafted who he was. He- he was not ... and he was under no false illusions about the fact that this was a tremendous challenge, and one that he perhaps and only he could bear.
Rosen: [00:10:33] Thanks for the great Don Quixote story which inspires all of us to read as deeply as we can have to follow up on the great recommendations we receive from others. Craig, tell us about how this conception of honor as a kind of democratic disinterestedness played out during Washington's presidency. In a recent oped in the Washington Post, you've told the story about how in the middle of the French Revolution, President Washington decided not to commit American lives to a war that pose no immediate threat out of duty or interest in the nation, promising Madison to lamented Jefferson and Washington's unfortunate error wounds the nation's honor. What was the notion of honor that Washington was upholding there and- and why was it significant?
Smith: [00:11:18] Well, thanks to the Hamilton musical this story is- is very much in- in pop culture, on- on issues of neutrality when de- ... when, dealing with, the French Revolution and the French Republic in their- their wards against the monarchies of Europe.
so the issue being, and- and this is something that Washington has relayed, again, in this, declaration neutrality, but again, in- in his farewell address, and it's the idea of placing national interests as paramount, so the greater good of the nation. And in the 18th century as- as- as it had been prior, the idea of national honor had previously been understood and in some capacities as glory, as duty, as valor in a military sense. And for- for someone like Jefferson and Madison, it was very much the idea of upholding obligations of following through on- on one's word or one's bond, and to break that would be inherently dishonorable.
now the- the issue of maintaining the alliance of 1778 which, the French came in, to help the Americans in the American Revolution, there were lots of legal issues and interpretive issues such as since the treaty was signed by, King Louie the 16th, and he was now dead. Was it still binding? Was he standing in for the people of France? was this simply a document with this king, this government and null and void. And there are arguments made by Jefferson and Hamilton in various ways, Hamilton, opposed to aiding the French Jefferson in favor.
Where Washington took the stand was that the duty was to protect the republic, to protect the United States, and national honor was tied into what was best for the United States. Not necessarily upholding an obligation that would force the United States to act in a way that was not conducive to their- their interest. And, there- there's ... he's very much again gonna turn to- to reading and there's a book he's reading it right about that same time. And one of the passages is on ... in gratitude and that at this point it was that gratitude for a man of honor was- was insufferable that you have not fulfilled your obligations. But what he is gonna take away is that regardless of ingratitude, regardless of- of any other obligations, you cannot be forced to behave in a dishonorable way or a non ethical way. And that's what chooses him to maintain, neutrality.
And he takes this beyond simply, a public statement. In fact, at this point, the Marquis de Lafayette a pseudo son is- is imprisoned, and his Lafayette son who's named after Washington, George Washington, Lafayette is sent to, America.
And Washington refuses to meet with him because he knows if he does, it's a recognition of- of taking a stand on the issue of France and he refuses to do it until, he says arrangements of a political nature could be made. So it's not something Washington just did publicly or politically, he followed through it in his own personal life.
Rosen: [00:14:47] Thanks, very much for that and for emphasizing how Washington's values versus personal life influences foreign policy and how he had a horror of in either sphere behaving in a way that could be considered, dishonorable or ungrateful or less than ethical.
Lindsay, how well did Washington uphold these values in his personal life? There's a new biography of Washington by Alexis Coe. It's been described as a life in full without sentiment or what ... whitewashing ba- basically, describes not only his moral failings in his slaveholding, but also claims that he's been made into a demigod and noting that he likely engaged in premarital sex, non consensual sex with an enslaved woman. It's quite a strong indictment of- of his failings. So, how can you describe how well he upheld his high ideals in practice? And- and what do you make of this recent revisionist case against Washington's honor?
Chervinsky: [00:15:48] well, let me start by saying that I think, one of the things I've tried to do with my work is show Washington, really, realistically, and, that doesn't mean that I think he has to be this perfect figure. And I also don't necessarily try and focus only on the negatives, I think focusing on Washington as a, holistic person, the good and the bad is actually far more productive. And, it's more productive for our nation because, no one is ever fully good or fully bad. And by ignoring His flaws, we set up a completely impossible standard to try and meet again.
And by only focusing on the negative, we- we risk really, forgetting the very important contributions that he did make to the founding of the nation. So, you know, I think that he had, he obviously did a lot of good there was a lot of precedent that he set in terms of the executive branch and the presidency that is critical. And many of the things that he did best were actually, inaction. So he knew when not to say something or when not to do something. Most famously of course, the two times that he gave up power and knew when to step aside. But there are 1000 small examples of that case.
but then on the other side, he had a really bad temper he, you know, really worked hard to try and keep it, in- in line and, under in- in check. but he sometimes would blow up at his sub-, at his subordinate officers and he would get really angry and basically throw a temper tantrum in his cabinet meetings when something was going wrong or when newspapers were particularly critical of him.
He was also incredibly cunning and he had, an enormous amount of political savvy. So even if he did try and appear to be outside of politics, he was very aware of what was going on. He was very careful to cultivate a certain image. He was very careful to cover his bases, especially before he was going to take up, you know, a potentially controversial decision. so he wasn't all good. He wasn't all bad.
I haven't read Alexi's book. I've heard great things about it. I know some people are unhappy about, the treatment of Washington. again, I just try and focus on there's, there's good and there's bad and both of those things are really valuable to me and to understand. I think, you know, he one of the things that we can take from Washington is that he was always trying to improve himself. He was never content to be ... he was never content with the status quo. He was never content to remain the way he was. And perhaps that's the best thing we can take away and we can all try and strive for.
Rosen: [00:18:34] The inspiring example of a constant, lifelong effort to cultivate our faculties and improve ourselves is one that we can absolutely take from Washington and profit from. Craig, you write in your book about honor, about the glaring contradictions between many of the founders conduct when it comes to enslave people and- and also their personal lives and their ideals. How would you say Washington lived up to his own ideals, both with regard to slavery and- and other questions? And how would you balance, the good and the bad with regard to this, paragon of, virtue?
Smith: [00:19:13] No, I think what- what Lindsay laid out is exactly right that there is this dichotomy there. There is good there is bad there are, there are contradictions and I think that's important and I think that's important for- for deeper understanding of our nation's founding. And it makes Washington a real person not the marble man or some- some demigod or, ... and I think it's, it's crucial there are these moments of- of- of sheer selflessness giving up power multiple times of, setting norms, and- and precedents that have remained into the modern era that have preserved, the ideals of the revolution.
The- the inherent contradiction is- is slavery, and slavery is wa- was and continues to be America's great sin. The issue is for- for some, founders there's there's a recognition of- of the wrongs of slavery even as their slave holders. Patrick Henry is gonna famously say that he, he just simply couldn't live without slave labor. Thomas Jefferson's views, on- on slavery, or- or- or contradictions I should say hypocrisy are very well known adding clauses in the declaration of independence and then having to remove his- his mentions the notes in the state of Virginia of it would be the divine will of, slave uprisings.
Washington it's ... he's a bit more complicated than- than either of these two, in that, he's a lifelong slaveholder. He, is going to initially be very resistant to the- the inclusion of African Americans free or enslaved in the Continental Army, he's gonna reject them along with- with other, officers on his generals, Council. but he's slowly going to alter this. Now there's a question of, does he do it for pragmatic reasons when the British offer freedom, for slaves to fight in the British Army of ... with Doug Moore's proclamation? that's one interpretation. Another interpretation is that he starts to hear the heroism of African American soldiers, black patriots who fight in campaigns in and around Boston prior to his taking over the Continental Army.
And this seems to have potentially played a role especially as reports are coming out of how, these- these African American soldiers have done themselves great honor for ... on par with that of not just a- a white soldier, but- but officers. he's going to have some moments in his letters where you'll see, his support of an African American enslaved regiment that never comes to fruition. you're going to see him, petition, to aid, black veterans after the revolution, but he never takes a public stance on slavery. And this is one of the telling issues and the question is, why doesn't he? And one interpretation is that he was concerned about what it would do to the nation much like the question of neutrality, with the French Revolution. If he was afraid if he took a public stand a public statement against slavery or forced slavery, that it would ... could lead to civil war. And he was hesitant to do that because he felt it was in the interest of the nation- national honor, and he said. Even though privately by the end of his life he's growing to be quite resentful and viewing slavery as- as- as morally wrong.
in fact, in his library in his later years, he's reading anti slavery tracks. And famously, he frees, his slaves not- not Martha's because this is a whole sort of issue with inheritance upon his- his death. Now, there are different caveats where it extends beyond his death, but it includes certain financial support for- for slaves. Now, the issue is, does he add free slaves? Yes. Does he ... are there caveats? Yes. Does he do it during his lifetime? No. And this has led to all sorts of- of- of questioning of, is he a repentance slaveholder? Where does this stand? And one interpretation of this is that he felt slavery personally wrong. He felt a personally as a dishonor and he chose in his last moments to sort of attempt to rectify this. Why doesn't he do it in life? Again, perhaps he's concerned about what it would do to the nation. But it's a really controversial issue. And it's one because he doesn't speak openly on it. It's left to lots of conjecture.
Rosen: [00:24:12] Lindsay in your forthcoming book, The President's Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution, you describe how the constitution didn't establish a presidential cabinet. But Washington in 1791 convened his department secretaries, Hamilton, Jefferson, Henry Knox and Edmund Randolph for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he convene them? How did he come to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body that greatly expanded the role of the executive branch? And what was the relation between this creation and the rise of political parties?
Chervinsky: [00:24:48] Well, thanks so much for this question and the opportunity to, share a little bit about my book. As you said, the cabinet isn't in the Constitution, the word is not there. And the delegates to the Constitutional Convention really intended for the President to use two different options. first, they intended for the Senate to serve as a advisory body on foreign affairs. So not just sort of be a rubber stamp on treaties and appointments, but really take an active body.
And, that makes a lot more sense when the Senate is under 30 people obviously now that really wouldn't be feasible. and Washington initially really tried to use this model. He visited the Senate in August of 1789, just a few months after taking office, and it really was a total failure. The Senate wanted to refer the issue to committee and wanted to generally act as a legislative body does. And Washington was really frustrated. He was a military man. He wanted efficient, immediate advice. And so it was really a clash of personalities. And after that initial meeting, he never went back for advice, which is amazing.
The other option that's outlined in Article II, section two of the Constitution is written advice from the department secretaries on matters pertaining to their department. And this phrasing is crafted in a very specific way. First, their written component was intentional, because if you write down what your advice is, then there is a paper trail. And you have to take responsibility for the position you have advocated. And so thi- this was put into the constitution to ensure that people at the highest levels of government were, taking responsibility for their actions to ensure that there was transparency, and to really make sure that the president was actually responsible for the decisions that were being made.
they also didn't want the secretaries to be bloviating about issues that they didn't know anything about. So, you know, they didn't want the Secretary of Treasury to necessarily be talking about diplomacy. And anyone who's seen Hamilton knows that Hamilton had quite a number of opinions on that subject.
And so, that was really the system that was set up. But if you think about how, today when we send emails back and forth, oftentimes there is miscommunication or something isn't conveyed in the right tone, or maybe you have a follow up question. And so now imagine trying to do that with quill and parchment. And you have to wait for that to be delivered. And then you have to wait for someone to write back, and it's a very slow, very cumbersome process.
And so Washington really grew impatient with written correspondence very quickly, because the matters facing the presidency, and the executive departments were incredibly complex and really required a more nuanced conversation. So he started initially with individual meetings and then about two and a half years into his administration, and that's really important because most people sort of assume the cabinet just sprouted up from the very beginning and it wasn't in- inevitable. But it was two and a half years into the administration before Washington actually, convened his first cabinet meeting with the secretaries that you mentioned.
And the point was really that there were these complex issues. It was usually about diplomacy or constitutional question or a domestic rebellion, you know, big, big, chunky matters of state, that he needed advice and he needed support. And one of Washington's great strengths was his ability to know his limitations, and his ability to find advisors that he could surround himself with that had experience and expertise that was different than his own. And so he started convening cabinet meetings, only a couple, in the first year or so, of its existence.
And then in 1793, when the neutrality crisis really took off after the war with France and Great Britain, they met ... the cabinet met 51 times in 1793. And trying to- to grapple with these big issues of international diplomacy and the ramifications for people back at home. and after that the cabinet was really sort of a, a really central part of the presidency.
But, Washington left a very important legacy for the cabinet because later on in his presidency, he actually convened far fewer meetings, and reverted back to individual consultations. And that legacy was that the cabinet was really intended to serve at the President's pleasure. And so whatever system worked best for the president was what they were supposed to use.
And so that means that while the cabinet has evolved and institutionalized, and the National Security Council has taken over a lot of its responsibilities, each president gets to determine who their closest advisors are going to be and how they're going to consult with them, whether they're going to consult with them, whether they're going to take their advice. And there's really very little public or congressional oversight. And so the nature of that relationship, the- the very private nature of those relationships and the power of the president over them, is really Washington's legacy.
Rosen: [00:30:03] That's a fascinating insight into the relationship between Washington's creation of the cabinet and the growth of presidential government and executive power unchecked by public accountability. And the creation of the cabinet was combined with other Washington innovations, like his removal of executive officers, the ability of the president unilaterally to fire executive officers. And his not always soliciting the advice of the Senate, which further expanded executive power.
Craig, what can you tell us about the growth of executive power under President Washington, what his innovations were, and also how it was that the party system which just exploded after the election of 1800, maintained under check during Washington's presidency?
Smith: [00:30:56] So even from the very beginning Washington choosing or becoming president of the Constitutional Convention said a great deal about his support of, this new government that was being drafted. And, when the documents finally formalized, and, you know, printed, if you see George Washington's copy of the Constitution, you see these handwritten notations in- in the margins. And they're nothing profound, but there ... he is showing that he's carefully going through the constitution and noting what powers are going to the executive. so this is something he- he's, he's studying in pretty much in an academic sense.
and the idea of precedent setting I think, is crucial, as we've, we've, we've discussed before. so the issue of defining executive power, is something that he in many ways is developing and setting a- a framework or a foundation for others to follow. And you saw that in the ... what we've mentioned earlier in the, neutrality with friends in, acting as, sort of the chief ... as acting as chief diplomat and making a determination on treaties and US, involvement abroad. you- you see him in forming his cabinet having a- a- a cabinet of multi of different views by partisan showing he's trying to, not act as ... on behalf of a single party, as Washington was in fact of no party. So certainly, he leaned federalist if we had to make a determination.
but he is very much, guided by an attempt at balance at acting in national interests. And we see this very much so in his farewell address. So after giving up power, giving a ... serving two terms again setting another precedent, being concerned that if he died in office, what would that do to the nation would that set off some sort of power s-, struggle. and so literally the first peaceful transition of power, where it's not from a dynasty as a, you know, George II to a George III, but literally a transfer of power to, who would be the next president John Adams. But in his farewell address, he's laying out what he views as some of the inherent problems that would arise within the nation, being entangling foreign alliances, that could force the US to act against its interests based on- on, charges of- of ingratitude.
his other concern with regional, allegiances whether to the north, to the south, to the- the frontier or what have you as potentially dividing the nation. And the one aspect, that you brought up is his concern about what could be done with political parties. And political parties existed under- under Washington. Federalists, anti Federalists, anti Federalists becoming democratic Republicans, but he was concerned about them. And his concern was that they were contrary to the national interest. In so doing they were contrary to national honor. What was interesting though, if you look at the- the political parties, Federalist and then Democratic Republican each maintained that they were acting on the behalf of national honor. And in turn their opponents were not. So they're ... both- both parties are using the same language of acting in the greater good suppressing individual, motivations, but then they would accuse the other of the same thing.
Washington was trying to strike a balance and trying to maintain the ideas of, the revolution. sadly, his- his warnings were not headed. And, after he leaves office, the political party's intention increases and then after his death, leading into the- the election of 1800, we see it really, start to bubble over. And if you- you look at, historian Alan Taylor, potentially, potentially even on the verge of a civil war.
So Washington again, is adamantly opposed party loyalty in favor of national loyalty. And that's where we see, lots of, sort of discrepancies, from again, whether Federalists or anti Federalists democratic Republican and in his later years, Washington even starts to receive, some very strong criticism particularly from- from, Democratic Republicans building from his- his declaration of neutrality and, with France.
Rosen: [00:35:48] Lindsay tell us more about how Washington dealt with partisanship within the cabinet and with national representation inside the cabinet to give us some more insight into how he resisted this growing partisanship.
Chervinsky: [00:36:02] Absolutely. So one of the things that ... one of the precedents that Washington set that, until very recently, was still intact is that the cabinet is a way for a president to get the nation to buy into his or her administration, and so they can appoint people usually it's ... you know, now- nowadays it's at the same party, but they can appoint people that represent different interests, different regions, different backgrounds, different experiences.
So Washington, obviously women and, African Americans and other minorities were not included in sort of what the concept of a citizen was. But he had someone from New York, he had someone from Boston, he had someone from Virginia representing the sort of planter class. He had someone representing the more mercantile trade interests. And so he was really careful to try and keep that sectional regional interest balance. And this is something that his immediate successors and even up to President Obama continued this pattern. And of course, our definition of what it means to have an inclusive cabinet has expanded, but it was really important for him as a way to ... as the nation was forming and coming together, and maybe the ties between the states were a little bit tenuous. It was really important for him to try and allow for everyone to see themselves in some way in the cabinet.
And, sometimes this works better than others. So when we think of the- the rise of partisanship initially in Washington's administration, what a lot of people don't necessarily think about is what did those interactions look like with Hamilton and Jefferson, and they were meeting together in a room that was about 15 by 21 feet. And in 1793, as I said, they met 51 times. Sometimes it was five ... up to five times per week for several hours at a time. We know that that summer in Philadelphia, it was particularly hot because there was a really bad yellow fever outbreak that fall. So it was hot and humid. There was no air conditioning, and they already really detested each other by then and yet they were stuck in this small space for hours at a time.
And it was essentially a hothouse for political tensions. And so that physical element and the fact that they just could not get away from each other, really helps explain why they felt compelled to pursue these more partisan options. But Washington really tried to actually balance their perspectives, even though he did eventually lean more federalist while Jefferson was still in the cabinet. He was very careful and very attentive to almost go back and forth between siding with Hamilton and siding with Jefferson. And at times went out of his way to sort of speak positively of Jefferson's perspective, while in the cabinet as a way to try and keep that balance of opinions in his presidency.
it obviously didn't work really because Jefferson really hated that type of conflict. And so he retired but, it wasn't for a lack of effort on Washington's part.
Rosen: [00:39:09] So Craig, ultimately, of course, the rise of political parties pose the greatest threat to Washington's ideal of non partisan disinterestedness of a single national interest that would transcend party. Could he have done more to stop their, rising or in the end was it the power of his personal example that fended them off for so long?
Smith: [00:39:31] I can't think of a way that Washington could have or would have attempted to stop, political parties or- or partisan politics, any more than he did, he made a national statement upon surrendering power, so giving a personal example, to follow through with his words, on what he viewed as the problems. this is the individual that had, in many ways kept a- a or did keep an army together during the most, brutal of- of conditions. this is someone who maintains civil, civil milli-, military supremacy throughout the war. this is someone who has set all the precedents for the executive branch to this point. And he was very open and very public about his warnings. Were they headed? no.
I don't think there's, there's, there's much more he would have been willing to do, given the ideals of the revolution, given the ideals of freedom of thought, freedom of liberty. and the- the- the tenants of the Bill of Rights, I think he- he did as much as he believed he could, given his position. Privately, are there other things? Certainly. But again, I think he viewed, upholding the ideals of the revolution and of the Constitution as paramount.
So, I do think that a lot of what prevented, partisanship from- from taking root earlier was in fact, Washington himself, and the example he set. And the fact that he does have this bipartisan, cabinet, and he is taking views from- from multiple sides is what ... I think that's what kept them at bay.
And once you see, after Washington individuals, leaning more towards partisan politics is when you see the- the, partisan fighting really grow. And it even takes hold after that. So not even the revolutionary generation, but the generations following who are trying to live up, to these older generations. the striving are really looking for personal advancement, and they're finding ways that may not necessarily be purely in the national interest. They may be more personally motivated or more part ... more based on partisan motivation to really advance themselves and try to live up to their revolutions fathers and grandfathers.
Rosen: [00:41:59] Well, I'd like to end by asking you to reflect on a wonderful debate that appears in Henry Adams' Novel, Democracy. And in chapter six, the protagonists take a trip to Mount Vernon and they have a debate about the meaning of George Washington. And there's some, there's a British nobleman and visiting Irish nobleman, and some American- American senator and the- the protagonist, Madeleine Lee. And the debate basically boils down to a- a version of the one we've been having. one side led by, Victoria Dare says that Washington was overrated. She said the truth is even when George Washington was a small boy, his temper was so violent. No one could do anything with him. His aged wife suffered agonies against him. and my grandfather s- .... told me he'd seen the general pinch and swear it hurts until the poor creature left the room in tears. It's in the spirit of Alexis Coe's new biography.
But then the visiting Irish nobleman, would rather be George Washington than an earl and says that his virtues, his Roman virtues, outweighed them. Now, you've both said, of course, that he was a mix of good or bad, but for the protagonists in democracy, the question of whether Washington truly was a transformative influence on the US constitution or whether he was an overrated, paper saint is the meaning of America. e- either Washington is great, or America is a lie, is a debate they're having?
So I wonder, in the Great Spirit of Henry Adams, if I could ask you, Lindsay to make a case for whether or not you think that, Washington, deserves his, reputation as the paragon of virtue and how significant he actually was in shaping America's constitution.
Chervinsky: [00:43:50] Oh, that's quite a question. [laughing].
Rosen: [00:43:52] It's great. It's so well done in the book, so I can't resist to ask both of you.
Chervinsky: [00:43:56] i think it's both. But I think it's both be and that is the nature of what the United States is. Washington was flawed and messy, and his evolution as a leader was organic and convoluted, and imperfect. And that's what the constitution is. The constitution is a- a bundle of compromises that suited the moment whose framers hoped that the next generation would do better. And, that's what the nation is, the nation is supposed to be an ongoing evolution and ongoing project. And so, viewing Washington as perfect, to me suggests that the nation has somehow let him down and has somehow not up to his standards.
And in reality, I think that, the nation should be always striving to- to be better and to have Comments flaws and the ... especially the sort of inherent flaws from the very beginning. And I think that he would say the same thing. So, I think that he is very much a ... the constitution is very much a product of who he was and the nation is a product of- of who he was. And that is both a ... something to be celebrated and respected but a very much a flawed and- and messy process and human being.
Rosen: [00:45:10] Thank you for that illuminating and sophisticated response very much in the Adams', spirit. Craig, the last word is to you we're having our Mount Vernon style Henry Adams democracy debate about whether or not George Washington was a saint or whether America is a lie or whether the answer is somewhere in between. What are your thoughts?
Smith: [00:45:33] No, I think it's a great discussion. I think it's a great debate and this is something you see played out in Alexis Coe's new biography. You see it being played out in the New York Times, The 1619 project. and- and the resulting criticism of- of each. And I think Lindsay's answer was- was- was spot on and I think it's a very well thought out response. And- and I- I agree with everything she said. However, I'm gonna be a little bit controversial now just for a point of difference.
And I'm gonna answer the question by what did George Washington's, you know, greatest opponent think of him and- and, here I'm speaking of King George III. So King George III, was having his portrait painted by Benjamin West. And he was remarking how he- he assumed that America would ultimately return to the British Empire when they grew tired of their new King George, the new King George being George Washington. And he was reminded ... he was told by West, "Well- well actually Your Majesty Washington is surrendering power and this is in 1783. And George the Third replies, "If he does that, then he shall be the greatest man in the world." And Washington did, he surrendered power in Annapolis in 1783, returned his commission, affirmed civil, supremacy over the military. Took an action that, if we're looking for comparisons a military ... victorious military leader who gives up power at the end of the war, we know Caesar doesn't do it. We know Napoleon doesn't do it. In fact, Napoleon, supposedly is quoted as saying they wanted to meet ... me to be George Washington, and he simply couldn't be.
So Washington I think, very much is, he's, he's flawed. No one's going to deny this but at the same time, he has these moments ... he has ... There are these moments of perfection, in surrendering power. There ... He is not a- a paper saint or ... if that was the term. he very much was the indispensable man in the revolution in the constitutional era. He is the one person that could not be altered for the survival of- of the revolution. and I think it's great as you, as you note, the Henry Adams story, how there are international figures. And my- my new book I'm working on is called, The Greatest Man in the World: The Global History of George Washington.
And it looks at Washington how other nations viewed him. And he is celebrated throughout the world in France for his humanity in- in, in the German states by Frederick the Great, for his military skill. In Latin America, for, create ... for espousing and- and, the spirit of liberty he's viewed as above Simone Bolivar in- in some discussions.
you see representations of him throughout the world. you see depictions of him in China, in Japan. And speaking of Ireland, the first statue of Washington anywhere in the world was actually in Ireland in the late 18th century. So it's showing that Washington is not simply celebrated in America for his values, for his virtues, he's celebrated throughout the world. And does he fall short at points? Absolutely, he does. But the ideals he helped defend and inspire became a symbol throughout for a continuation of liberty and freedom.
Rosen: [00:49:25] Thank you so much, Chervinsky and Smith for a deep, historically informed and really meaningful discussion of the constitutional legacy of George Washington. On the occasion of his birthday. Lindsay, Craig, thank you so much for joining.
Chervinsky: [00:49:44] Thanks for us.
Smith: [00:49:44] Thanks for having me.
Rosen: [00:49:47] Today's show was engineered by Dave Stotz and produced by Jackie McDermott. Research was provided by Michael Marcus and Lana Ulrich. Homework of the week; Read that wonderful chapter in Henry Adams, Democracy. It's online. It's chapter six this debate about the meaning Washington and the meaning of America and make up your own mind about both.
And please rate review and subscribe to We the People on Apple podcasts, recommend the show to friends, colleagues, or anyone anywhere who's hungry for a weekly dose of constitutional debate. Always remember, dear friends that the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit. We rely on the generosity, feedback, passion and encouragement of people like you from across the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional education and debate.
So you can support the mission, first of all by continuing to write to me telling me what you think of the show, how we can improve and topics you're interested in hearing about. You can support the mission by becoming a member at constitutioncenter.org/membership, or give a donation of any amount to support the work, including this podcast at constitutioncenter.org/donate. Happy Washington's Birthday and on behalf of the National Constitution Center, I'm Jeffrey Rosen.
